The claim that the Voice would divide the nation
is again a falsehood. The Voice would be a
non-binding advisory body which would never be
able to enforce anything because Parliament will
detail its operation.

Prof. Marcia Langton fears that a NO vote and a
failure to establish a Voice would lead governments
to give up on reforms to improve the lives of
Indigenous people.

I don't think that is something that most Australian
voters would want.

Foxy,
Slow down & give reality & common sense a chance to catch up with you !

Indyvidual,

After you old chap.

Show us all what you're capable of.

Opposition Leader Dutton’s threat to have (another!) referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution is a grave mistake.

Unfortunately, one politician is as bad, and as self-serving, as another these days, and it is thought that there might be votes in it; although why non-aborigines would want 3% of the population to be recognised in the Constitution (if they really do) is inexplicable.

Back in John Howard's day, the idea of recognising one race of people in a preamble to the Constitution received a 60% NO vote: 5% more that the NO to a republic got.

Recognition has been tried and rejected once. If the Voice is rejected as it should be, Dutton would be a fool - and a very unpopular one - to subject Australians to another expensive race-based referendum.

Of course, if the Liberal Party is not completely shot, it will be seriously looking for a new leader before the next election - and ridding itself of the other wets in the process.

Show us all what you're capable of.
Foxy,
You're far too intellectual to ever understand !

Oh the contradictions!

The Voice is needed to solve problems but it wont have any power to make any changes let alone enforce them (so why bother debasing our democracy?).

We already know how to solve all the problems in indigenous communities (so why not implement the solutions now?).

According to the same entities, some media organisations and educational institutions, the Uluru statement is either one page or more than one page depending on whether you asked before or after Albo's clown act in parliament, although the ABC now hold the quasi-religious stance of believing the statement to be one page and of unknown length simultaneously.

Can we step away from this "your vote is indicative of your moral character" thing? Senator McCarthy had his day. We should do our best to stop him having another.