Primarily the Voice is about recognition.

Foxy,
If this was so, we wouldn't be asked to answer two questions with one answer !
Recognition would result in a 110% YES !
It literally is an entrapment of good will !

No23- Vote No.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Peter Dutton is a fellow Queenslander but, apart from that, I can’t say I have much in common with him.

His first job after leaving school was working as a policeman with the Queensland Police Force for about ten years until he nearly killed himself in a car accident and resigned.

I can’t say I share his political ideology. He is noted to be aligned with the "National Right" faction of the Liberal Party which he leads. He is described as a right-wing populist opposed to an Australian republic. In December 2018, he told Sky News that for the prior seventeen years, he had regarded "parliament as a disadvantage for sitting governments".

I don’t know what his forte is, but I have serious doubts that it could possibly be democracy.

Most of all, I find shameful the inhumane treatment of boat people seeking asylum in Australia whom he and his boss, Scott Morrison, despicably and dishonestly labelled “illegal” immigrants, knowing full well that Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) stipulates:

« Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. »

Particularly since Australia was a founding member of the UN and played a prominent role in the negotiation of the UN Charter in 1945. Australia was also one of eight nations involved in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – due to the influential leadership of Dr. Herbert Vere Evatt, the head of Australia’s delegation to the UN. In 1948, Dr. Evatt became President of the UN General Assembly. That same year he oversaw the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – including Article 14 which Peter Dutton and Scott Morrison chose to ignore.
.

Despite all that, I consider that Dutton’s proposal of a second referendum on Indigenous recognition in our federal constitution would be a perfectly viable alternative in the event of failure of the Voice referendum in October.

If plan B were to succeed, the Voice constituent could be established by subsequent legislation in our federal parliament.

.

The green racists are frothing at the mouth, their attempt at installing a race-based veto is failing.

Foxy,

You contradict yourself "I totally reject your statements because parliament will detail the operation of the Voice"

My point is that parliament has not yet detailed anything and a yes vote gives them a blank cheque. Your assumptions of what the voice is are your beliefs only and carry no weight whatsoever.

Hi BP,

Dutton is not sincere in his proposal of "recognition" of Aboriginal people, it is a patronising sop without merit. He thinks by burying a few meaningless words of endearment in the Constitution, that the status quo will be maintained. For Dutton its about maintaining power and authority over Aboriginal people, which the European has held since 1788.

I was surprised with the Uluru Statement from the Heart, it is a rather benign request, for one, recognition, and two, consultation, there is no demand for power sharing in decision making. The statement has no malicious intention contained within it, but you wouldn't think so judging by the over the top reaction from the hard right of society.

If the referendum is defeated, and there is every possibility it will be, the extreme will dance around in exaltation at their great "victory", and moderate progressives will be most disappointed with "defeat". For me defeat of this referendum will be nothing more that a minor setback in what has been a enormous struggle for Aboriginal people for well over 200 years. The fight will continue, the right of politics will believe defeat of the referendum gives them a new mandate to take an even tougher line with such things as treaty and sovereignty. The fight will go on no matter what the referendum outcome is.