There is one absolutely essential question that must be ansered.
What is an aboriginal ?
Under the proposed voice delegates will be elected or appointed by
some method or other. We have not been informed of the process yet.
Will some percentage of aboriginal DNA be the measure ?
Surely 100% would have to be the measure.
If not then in a 100 years or two there could be a major deletion
of the aboriginality.
Even "aborigines" in the present parliament look very white.
If not defined then very soon we would have a "Privileged Class"
of people who have privileged access to seat of power.
They may not look different, act differently, have the same cultural
practices as the rest of us, yet have political privileges.
Either have a fixed definition or abandon the idea now.

The few people who are responsible for stuffing up this country have decided what an aborigine is: anyone who feels like one and who is accepted by people who feel similarly. But even that doesn't work, because Bruce Pascoe, who is pure white and NOT accepted by the brothers, is still regarded as aboriginal by the 'few', who believe his lies, and even give him aboriginal awards. Actually, they probably don't believe his lies, but his lies make their lies look better.

I don't know how this important post landed in 'Elections'. But all those not belonging to the 'few' should vote NO to any race-based referendum. If they go along with this racist nonsense, only another referendum could repair the damage that it will cause if successful.

Aboriginality will go the way Gender did !
The much bigger question is, who will foot the Bill !
The descendants of the European, African & Asian settlers in Australia have paid more than their moral share in compensation !
With all the land buy-backs by Governments those who claim to be indigenous should be required to make the land work for them if they desire to live a Western lifestyle !
Or, they can revert to the Nirvana existence of pre-colonisation !
I would love to be given that opportunity !

Well likely people with a genetic linage which either entirely or includes aboriginal people.

Tell me why this isn't a dog whistling, mean spirited, and frankly racist question?

"Tell me why this isn't a dog whistling, mean spirited, and frankly racist question?"

Just because the question pertains to race doesn't make it "racist" in the sense that it was meant to cause harm.
It's not racist to point out differences between different races of people, but it is if you do so do so with harmful intentions.
- Without 'harmful intentions' its merely a valid discussion.

The whole caboodle is about race. The referendum is based on race. The government wants people divided by race. We thought that apartheid ended in South Africa, but the Albanese Labor government wants to reintroduce it in Australia. Only racists will vote for this hideous garbage.

The most racist thing about Voice is the assumption that people claiming indigenous ancestry are all the same. They are not; and it is racist to suggest that they are.

As for listening to some some 'voice' imagined by divisive people, they are not listening to the voice of Jacinta Price for one, nor to the women who object to the Labor proposal to cut out the cashless welfare card, which ensures money for food and clothing for women and children that men can't take; or voices against the proposal to lift the bans on grog in communities, which will mean more violence and death and violence for women and children.