Hi Maverick,

I guess many politicians use that old chestnut - of
repeating something often enough and many people
will end up buying it. In this case I guess we'll have
to wait and see. Voters seem to be questioning what
they're told more nowadays. And the old song books not
longer work. Neither do the old slogans - as we saw from
the last election results.

I'm hoping that there will be enough information provided
ahead of time to satisfy even the most concerned voter.
Of course those who want to muddy the waters are the
ones that are opposed to the issues and wouldn't support them
anyway.

The results should be interesting.

Its a quantum leap for the bigots and racists whose grandfathers were shooting Aboriginals for sport, to give the decedents of those same black fellas a voice to parliament. If they agreed to that, granddad will be spinning in his grave. These are they ones who will say NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!

I was under the impression that the "First Nation" aka First Race

are represented by the MPs and Senators they vote for.

Or are the First Race seeking extra representation that is denied to others?

There are already several voices in parliament for the bigots and racists that want to impose apartheid in Australia.

Jacinda Prices view is:

"More recently the emotional weaponisation of the word “heart” in Uluru Statement from the Heart, the voice and now the repeated use of the question “if not now, then when?” have all been crafted to appeal to our emotions. We’ve heard Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney, member for Lingiari Marion Scrymgour, Uluru Statement from the Heart campaigner Thomas Mayor and leftist ideologues all use these words and terms consistently and repeatedly in their Referendum, Truth, Voice, Treaty argument.

If we consider the position we are in now as a result of the past emotional blackmail we have been subject to, then it is pertinent we do not repeat history by doing nothing more than granting Albanese his Whitlam moment.

These campaigners, Rudd and the rest pushing for the voice, ignore our grave concerns about making unnecessary changes to our Constitution in the form of an enshrined body likened to ATSIC by Burney.

We have every right to question, seek clarity or outright disagree with a vague proposal that’s being sold as a completely new approach to resolving disadvantage.

There is zero proof the voice proposition will be successful. ATSIC and the many replacement bureaucracies are testament to the likelihood of it failing; but enshrining it in the Constitution determines if it should fail it can never be dismantled."

The hard right make every effort to discredit an Aboriginal 'Voice to Parliament', they have found the perfect stooge in Jacinda Prices, she appears black but she talks hard white.

Hi Maverick,

you ask the question;

Or are the First Race seeking extra representation that is denied to others?

I say there are many voices to parliament at present. For example does not the gambling industry voice its opinion on matters affecting it to MP's through lobbyists and industry organisations. Do they not exert influence through political donations. There are people everyday who exercise a "Voice to Parliament" on all kinds of matters. Politicians are not in a vacuum.

Paul,

That's extremely racist of you.

Jacinta has not only spent much of her life in these remote communities and witnessed first-hand the consequences of virtue signalling policies of Labor and greens on these communities and knows far better than the paternalistic city-dwelling idiots about what is actually needed.

What the clowns in Labor and the greens want is not a real aboriginal voice, but one that echoes the virtues the city dwellers think they should have.