Ok Foxy, so you think the Voice can't possibly be detrimental to others?

Let's cook up a scenario just for you and see if you still think this is the case: ->

You use a pseudonym here. So I take it that you generally wish to keep your identity private on the internet. But is it possible for the Voice to reveal your true identity to the Australian public?

Well let's work thorough this logically:
Technically this would require the power to force the webservice providers to identify you. So could the government hand this power to the Voice?
Conceivably yes- because clause 3) says "The parliament shall subject to this Constitution have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.". So all the there would have to be is a link between clause 2) "The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people." and the need for it to be able to identify people. Once this link is established then the Voice can legally receive and exercise this power.

So, here's a hypothetical scenario for such a link- let's say that the federal government wants to introduce a bill to parliament about regulating comments on the internet. (This is plausible since telecommunications are a federal responsibility). So WHAM- the Voice now has the constitutional right to respond to this. Now since this concerns forums and the like, this now establishes a link between the Voice and you and your internet usage. (Eg: The Voice could say that for background research for its response it needs the details and internet history of all people who have ever made online comments about aboriginals.)

** continued below **

** from above **

Can the voice release your details publicly? Well since we don't know at the moment what limits voice will have we can't really say. But I posit that the voice will have some sort of parliamentary privilege like politicians have, since it needs to be able to speak freely to parliament, so most likely -YES! It could name you explicitly in its report to parliament and then the whole damn country would who you are!

Do you see now how this claimed to be benign voice we're being sold could potentially mutate into a monster?

Had there already been a Voice, I wonder what it would have advised Parliament about the pending removal of the the cashless welfare card that has assured that there is money for food and other domestic necessities that used to go on grog; and there was no cash to be taken off the women and old people by thugs. And the lifting of the grog bans in dry communities.

These things made the lives of women and children better.

Senator Price said she could not think of two more appalling examples of legislation pushed by left-wing elites that are ‘guaranteed’ to worsen the lives of indigenous people.

Saying Yes to this 'Voice' would give blank cheques to Blacktivists, politicians and activist judges.

Putting the Voice in the constitution is as racist as the entrenched race provisions of the old South African constitution.

Non-aboriginals will eventually react to what they see as favouritism, bias, and excessive government spending on
aboriginals.

Saddened by the news of the death of Judith Durham of 'The Seekers' at aged 79. A truly unique Aussie talent, loved by millions, Judith brought joy to so many.

RIP Judith.

An appropriate song;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ42OwIEHNw

Oops- In my last post "Well let's work thorough this logically:" should obviously be "Well let's work through this logically:", there's probably other mistakes as well.

One day I should start using spellcheck and grammar correction :)

This is getting tiresome. We're just going around in circles.
I am tired of repeating what we know - or should know.
Last night I received some bad personal news. My older brother
whom I love dearly has been diagnosed with stomach cancer. He
lives inter-state and is now in hospital awaiting surgery on
Tuesday. So forgive me if my mind is not fully on the subject
under discussion here. Although it does provide for me a
good digression.

Back to the topic:

" Establishing a Voice to Parliament could be an opportunity
for Indigenous Nation Building."

Here's what that means:

"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced the wording
of the referendum question to enable a constitutionally
enshrined Indigenous Voice to parliament. It would seem
Albanese has made a solid start on his election night
promise to embrace the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart."

He stated at the Garma Festival:

"The Uluru Statement is a hand outstretched, a moving show
of faith in Australian decency and Australian fairness
from people who have been given every reason to forsake
hope in both."

"At its core, the Uluru Statement is an invitation to
Australia to establish a new relationship with Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people. It is also an opportunity
for First Nations to nation-build alongside the Australian
people and its government."

We're told that:

"If Indigenous Nation building is embraced by Australian
governments and First Nations, there is an opportunity for
real change, as envisaged by Indigenous Nations for
generations and re-affirmed in the Uluru Statement from
the Heart."

There's more at the following link which goes on to also
explain - what did the Uluru Statement ask for? What is
Indigenous Nation Building? And, How can governments and
First Nations achieve this?

http://theconversation.com/establishing-a-voice-to-parliament-could-be-an-opportunity-for-indigenous-nation-building-heres-what-that-means-187534