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.

Peter Dutton needs to pull his finger out, stop asking for details, oppose the horrible bloody thing, and present voters with practical ideas to help those in need, not a bunch of activists who actually care more for ideology than they do for those people.

Thinking about how everybody nowadays has to make a show of acknowledgement towards aboriginal people before they do anything, like singing the national anthem before school starts every day.

For example:

"We acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land on which our office stands, The Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation, and pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging."

Also I thought about this whole 'bend the knee' thing.

I feel like they're trying impose a permanent sense of guilt, not unlike the sense of guilt imposed upon Germans after WWII.

There seems to be this constant reminder that 'This is not your country, you're all immigrants' - this constant attack on white people, and on colonialism.

- Like trying to punish white people for colonialism when none of us were alive back then let alone made the decisions.

And I see it is wretching away the country we built to put everything into the hands of unelected globalist beaurecrats, some kind of global oversight that puts others in charge of our country instead of us.

And you know what's funny about it all, - it's the government posing themselves as the savior of the indigenous, against the people who are accused of being racists.

Who flipped the script?
- That's not how this mess started.

It was the governments policies that targeted the indigenous people, and the people themselves have little control (then or now) over government policies. When all these events occurred we were still a Britsh colony, ruled by Britain.

My ancestor was sent here as a convict, he didn't choose to come, and later ancestor got married to an indigenous Australian.

They wish to push this permanent sense of guilt.
What exactly am I supposed to be guilty of?
What are any of us actually guilty of?

Why must we now make a show of respect to indigenous in everything we do, the Queen herself only gets 10 days of mourning, yet we are now expected to act like we must take a minutes silence before we do anything, permanently.

Tell me why this isn't a dog whistling, mean spirited, and frankly racist question?
SteeleRedux,
It's way less racist than using race when comparing life expectancy between Aborigines & others !

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

Conferring privileges and benefits based solely on self-identification is a recipe for perpetual conflict.

To believe that parliament will be able to resist demands articulated by the Voice is a triumph of hope over experience.

Another new indigenous politician, Senator Kerrynne Liddle, South Australia, spoke out against the removal of the cashless card in her maiden speech, citing drunkenness and women going to hospital and the morgue.

Another aboriginal voice for Albanese to ignore, in favour of his trumped up, racist virtue signalling.

Another very loud aboriginal voice was heard over and over again in the Senate yesterday - that of bigmouth Lidia Thorpe, repeatedly refusing the president's instruction to withdraw her description of Senator Antic as a 'racist'. Victorians must be very proud of this female.

Take the word Racist out of the daily language & the Racists would have nothing to talk about !

Here we go again. Same old arguments. Same old
misconceptions. Same old misinformation, same old
anti-sayers.

This topic has been discussed many times on this forum.
And yet here it is again. "Mischief-making" at its peak.
Have you guys run out of anti-climate change arguments
to have to now draw attention to the Voice to Parliament.

Ah well, here goes (again):

Firstly, The Voice to Parliament that has been recommended
is a straight forward plan that resolves the problem of
how indigenous people survive into the future. The proposal
would not empower indigenous Australians. Legislation
remains in the hands of parliament.

The Voice to Parliament called for by the 2017 Uluru
Statement of the Heart is necessary because Australia's
Constitution "remains racist."

There are 2 racist provisions in it and the High Court decision
that the Commonwealth can do harm to the indigenous people
stands. For far too long Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people had to tolerate a "type of structural racism that
treated them as a race."

They are not a race. They're over 600 cultural groups. This was
their land until 1788. They're not a race - they-re the people
of this land. And they're simply asking for decency and a
rightful place in the nation.

Plus, it's a common perception that it is enough to identify
as Aboriginal to count as one. That is incorrect.
An Aborigine has to be accepted as such by the Aboriginal
community and be able to prove descent. This has been
widely accepted at several court cases. Therefore there are
3 criteria - descent, self-identification, and community
recognition.

But despite being told all this - I'm sure you all will
continue to find reasons on why you should not vote
for the Voice to Parliament. After all you're such
decent creatures - with the born to rule mentality.
This country needs more like you. You're the "true Aussies"
after all. Yay!

There you go - now I've given you guys enough
reasons to attack me - so go for it. Because
that's in your ancestry - that's what you guys
love to do!

Hi Foxy,

"type of structural racism that treated them as a race."

Are they going to give up all the extra benefits they get from being a marginalised or minority race (sorry group) or is this just a one-way thing?

This country certainly doesn't give a rats backside about being openly disparaging towards white (race) now.
Seems like they're going from one extreme to the other without fixing anything.

What about 'ethnicity' quotas, is that about being fairer to minorities or about about being racist to whites?
And that's a matter of general policy now Foxy.

If we're talking about fairness, are we going to change that?

How about all these people getting funded for University, but never having to pay it back?
Older Aussies didn't get those benefits, they had to do the hard labour, and now have to pay for the entitled generations.

Are they going to start paying for their own tuition of is this just another unfair tax on the white majority, and a transfer of wealth to the minorities?

If you're all up on your high horse about fairness, that is?

There's no need to attack others when you can argue based on merit in the first place, is there Foxy?
Does anyone have a link to the exact changes being proposed in this Bill?
Show me the facts.

Politicians play whack-a-mole anyway, why would we trust any of them?
They try to fix one problem, but just end up creating more problems.
They're a bunch of useless incompetent halfwits, too busy burning up their travel allowances to have any spare time to actually focus on developing good policies.
Instead they leave it to industry groups to do the hard work for them, which never fixes any of the problems without creating more.

Fixing problems doesn't result in getting more funding, so it's rather pointless to the snouts in the trough isn't it?
About as pointless as pharmaceutical companies wanting people to be healthy, or war industries advocating for peace.
Or NGO's ending Domestic Violence for example
- There's just no money in success.

Hi Armchair Critic,

If your're really interested in answers - go to my
discussion under the "General Discussion," section
of this forum and you'll find my discussion (53 pages
of it) where I've discussed the issues, given links
and so on. I'm not going to rehash things here.
I'll leave that to you guys to do. I've done my part.

Cheers.

Hi AC,

I forgot to give you the name of the discussion:

It's - "If not now, When?"

Hi AC,

Here's a link that may set the record straight:

http://sbs.com.au/topics/voices/culture/article/2016/12/07/heres-truth-about-free-ride-some-australians-think-indigenous-peoples-get

There are persons living in australia who are descended from a race which predominated here for many thousands of years.
Two hundred plus years ago, those people were unable to repel invaders from another part of the world, and so lost their control of the land.
From that point, they could no longer pass the land down to their descendants, as they no longer 'owned' or controlled it.
The reality was that they had no option but to join in with the new way of life, and accept the new standards.
What I take issue with is that, in this modern time, the government wants us to grant descendants of those people some special right or advantage over the rest of us.

The fact is those decendants are a minority.
They have also mixed in with the 'white' population, and most of them are predominantly european anyway.
They have responsibility to the society in to which they were born.
Why should some small group within our society, who have but tenuous links to an earlier grouping, be given privileged access to parliamentary procedure?
They already have just as much say in the running of this country as we have.
Why do they need more?

Why is this small group permitted to have a 'flag' alongside the australian flag?
I find that to be dramatically insulting to australian values.
I think in terms of 'one country, one people, one flag.'
The government is trying to bring about a change which will cause unnecessary division within the community?
I don't think they have thought it through carefully?

Someone made the comment: 'This was their land until 1788.'
That cannot be true, as in 1788 they had not been born.
Those who keep pushing the idea of life before birth are creating a false impression?
We are alive NOW, not in the past.
What happened a long time ago should not be in control of present day laws and practices.

Foxy, the definition used at present on forms etc is reasonable and
as far as I know causes no real problems.
However the voice is different.
It is purpose is to enforce influence on legislation.
That is a fundamental difference.
As some QCs have pointed out if a party considers that consideration
was not properly given to a voice proposal then they could go to the
High Court.
This also applies if sufficient funds were not provided.
It could have the effect of tying up legislation processes.
Without knowing, because the details are not available, any activist,
not necessarily a Voice member, could lodge a High Court case .
I don't think legislation should be dependent on imprecise definitions.
It needs a complete release of the operational rules, secrets in this
sort of legislation is improper.

Hi Bazz,

Thank you for explaining your position.

I've had my say on my discussion thread on this subject.
And I've really got nothing more to add.
The Australian people will be the ones who will
decide in which direction they want the country
to go.

Enjoy your day.

The Voice is of no practical use to people claiming indigenous ancestry; it is all about ideology: white, leftist ideology. I hope that the referendum fails; but if it does not, I hope it is the white ideologs who get the blame for what will ensue, and not the poor buggers those lying bastards claim it is all about.

The cost of the Voice will make ATSIC look like pocket money !
I was all for more equality for the indigenous but as I started to learn more about it & heard from people on the front line I'm getting rather sceptical ! Whenever integrity is not part of a package, the delivered parcel will not contain what most decent people think they ordered ! And, will pay for !

As to what is an Aborigine ? To me it is an indigenous Australian who has the interest of the future of his/her people at heart, not solely concentrating on more wrong being portrayed as making right !
A Voice should be made up of indigenous Australians only.
The Goss QLD Labor Govt. had ideas to make far North Qld the indigenous State of Australia.
Many indigenous I spoke with about this don't think it'll work but Premier Palaszczuk's Govt has been buying up Stations & handed quite a lot of land back already. So, I wonder if they're still working on that idea.

I heard a statistic that on average Aboriginal Australians get 3-5 times as much welfare as average Australians.

I can't vouch for this but it is nowhere near parity.

P.S. That aboriginal culture is 60 000 is not borne out by any facts.

shadowminister,
You heard right ! Some of the ones with integrity make good use of the generosity, many sadly blow it all & end up demanding ever more !
Compensation has to reach a point of enough one day ! The sooner that happens the sooner the recipients will muster more pride & personal & collective responsibility !
The really decent ones will come to see a dreadful history as just that, not a perpetual excuse !

The following link is informative:

http://sbs.com.au/topics/voices/culture/article/2016/12/07/heres-truth-about-free-ride-some-australians-think-indigenous-peoples-get

Regarding how old is the Australian Aboriginal culture?

All one has to do is visit any national library or any
Australian Museum and your questions can be answered
with facts. And there are plenty available for those
interested. So instead of spreading misinformation
how about being better informed? You may actually learn
something.

Well considering nobody lives more than 120 years...
There's no way to tell how long indigenous have existed on this continent, because nobody alive today was alive back then to tell us what actually happened and count all the years in between.

Science can probably give us an rough estimate
- give or take 10 or 20 thousand years,
Until they revise and say they miscalculated
"We forgot to carry the 1"

Foxy,

Do they have any aboriginal records pre-colonisation?

Without records, there is no way on earth that the cultures of the roughly 3000 separate tribes remained sufficiently similar to claim a single continuous culture over 60 000 years.

So I would suggest that you don't spread misinformation.

There are records. If you visited either the National libraries
or Australian Museums - you would learn about the many
digs and various sites that have been found and information
recorded. Museums regularly have exhibits on the subject. Also
there are many books and encyclopedias that cover the details.
Britannica is one that gives a wide coverage to Australian
Aboriginals.

I do not spread misinformation. I supply it. It's an
occupational habit.

Try going to the Melbourne Museum - if you live in Melbourne.
They'll be able to help you.

Talking about our Indigenous people?
Here's a few thoughts that I posted on another discussion:

So many colours in the human race
So many cultures and different forms of face
Why so much hatred and so much dread
We should celebrate our humanity as we all bleed red

Foxy your belief in anything written by some academic is very sweet, but also most naive. It is a well known fact that many anthropologists were very loose with the facts & truth in their musings. It endeared them to their subjects.

The often claimed of their careful husbandry of the Oz bush is rather fanciful when they claim fire stick "farming". Fire stick hunting was real, but that is not farming.

No lesser authority than one Captain James Cook mentioned in his log that on his trip up the Oz east coast it was rare for there not to be large areas of smoke, & often a number of them from aboriginal bush fires. Husbandry that is not. The greenies would have a dozen fits if we started burning many large patches of the countryside in that fashion. They even scream when it is done where it is desperately needed.

Husbandry it was not, which throws into severe question all the other garbage glorifying aboriginal practices promoted in learned tomes.

Foxy,

Simply suggesting that all the answers are in a museum in a city far from me has all the credibility of saying God did it.

Nothing has yet been found that shows a clear link between the culture of aboriginals today and those 1000s of years ago.

All men are equal, you consider the aboriginals as more equal than everyone else. That's racism.

Foxy,
You should hang around the domestic terminal at Cairns airport at every school holiday !
Have a look at community housing & road works etc.
Yes, infrastructure was poor some 80-100 years ago as it was how it suited the people then.
In the past 70 years since WW2 infrastructure has been updated continuously & is still being upgraded.
Communities have very good medical facilities, even dental services which the non-indigenous need to travel hundreds of kilometres for.
You'd be over-awed if you could just spend a week near a community airport. You'd be scratching your head in disbelief how the indigenous can afford to travel so much.
The indigenous do receive more benefits than non-indigenous ! Their communities have concrete driveways, kerb & channel etc. They are being compensated very well. Your link is not portraying a true picture.

Gentlemen,

I can't help you as obviously your minds are already made
up. And you refuse to take up any of the directions in
which I suggested you go for the information that is
available to you. Evidence does exist - you just don't
want to see or acknowledge it.

The following link from the National Museum may help:

http://nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/evidence-of-first-peoples

Foxy,

Thanks for the link, it proves my point.

"No one can say exactly how old the Dreaming is. From an Indigenous perspective the Dreaming has existed from the beginning of time."

Essentially, the concept that existing aboriginal culture is 60 000 years old is pure conjecture.

Had you bothered to click onto "See our classroom
resource." in the link I gave you just may have
learned what archaeology tells us about how long
Aboriginal people have lived in Australia.

You may have found out that extremely old objects
have been found to be at least 65,000 years old.
Found in Arnhem Land in the NT. You could have
read about the Pilbara cave discoveries in Norther
Western Australia and about the 11,000 Aboriginal objects
that were found in Kakadu National Park. You could have
read about previous famous examples of Aboriginal
occupation in places such as Lake Mungo in NSW and Devil's
Lair in South West Western Australia.

The link also provides a virtual tour of the Museum - which
you could have taken. There's plenty of evidence available
you just have to have an open mind in order to find it.

Obviously you're not capable of doing that. You want to
stay comfortab;e in your own ideology. I won't waste my
time any further.

Foxy,

I did read it. I am not questioning whether aboriginal ancestors existed in Aus 60 000 ago, that is largely irrelevant to my statement. You are claiming that over these aeons and amongst 3000 odd disparate tribes over the continent that a single thread of "culture" survived relatively unchanged.

Not only is there zero evidence of this, but the odds of this happening are so vanishingly small that calling this conjecture is a euphemism for sheer bollocks.

No. That is not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is that Archaeology tells us
how long Aboriginal people have lived in Australia.
And the estimated time has been found to be at least
65,000 years.

There are many Aboriginal cultures and people.
Aboriginal cultures exist and thrive in a wide
range of communities throughout Australia.
Their cultures and what they value and hold dear,
how they live and make decisions and their
relationships are diverse

Foxy,
Start comparing the Aboriginals of other countries & tell us what difference you see !

I know Caucasians who are less than useless & I know indigenous who pull their weight & vice versa.
Someone with mixed racial heritage would have to have a head start with such DNA one would think but by being deemed one or the other places them in the back of the line or just over it.
I knew Asians living in remote communities who vehemently objected to being called indigenous only 30 years ago yet within a very short time they just as vehemently claimed indigenous status.
You see, one can change if the benefits are attractive enough !

Indyvidual,

The following link is worth a read:

http://bbc.com/news/world-australia-40024622

" Australia remains the only Commonwealth country to have
never signed a treaty with its indigenous people. While
treaties were established early on in other British
dominions such as New Zealand, Canada, and in the United
States, the situation in Australia has been notoriously
different."

" The absence of a treaty has been a crucial and
aggravating factor in relations with the first inhabitants
of this nation. They've suffered the worst treatments ever
inflicted on Aboriginals by British colonists."

"Yes, we've had words, acts, and gestures, but there's
still no treaty and there remain contentious sections of
the nation's constitution which are race-based."

"Section 25 still says states can disqualify people from
voting on account of their race and Section 51 (xxvi)
empowers the government to legislate for the people of
any race "for whom it is deemed necessary to make
special laws."

Seeing how we can now decide for our selves that we are male, female, or something yet to be invented any time we should so choose, I believe we also have the right to decide we are indigenous if it suits us.

As it will be most advantageous to be indigenous it would make sense for all of us to declare we are indigenous, & flood the gravy train.

Dear Hasbeen,

I can't believe that you seriously believe what
you've just posted.

Australia remains the only Commonwealth country to have never signed a treaty with its indigenous people.
Foxy,
I'm uninformed about the rest of this Commonwealth but I'm sure you'll provide an enlightening link.
Do these other countries provide as much to their indigenous as Australia does or perhaps even more or perhaps less ?

Hi Indyvidual,

Get informed

Get informed
Foxy,
How & by whom ? By warm'n fozzy academic yet untrue links ?

Indyvidual,

The choice is up to you. There's heaps of resources
out there. Pick what suits you. National museums
would be a good start.

Foxy,

Earlier you were claiming without a jot of evidence that Aboriginal culture was oldest in the world.

That Aus has been occupied for 65000 years is irrelevant. That Man came to being in Africa about 100 000 years ago does not mean that their culture has survived that long.

The Aboriginal cultures are the oldest living cultures
in the world. This is not my claim but is found in the
long history of the Indigenous people in the many
significant archaeological sites throughout Australia.

Archaeological sites provide information about how
Indigenous people lived, used resources, and were able
to adapt to environmental changes in the past.
These archaeological sites also illustrate how Indigenous
cultures have changed over time.

Archaeological investigations in the northwest of Australia
show that Indigenous people have occupied Australia for at
least 60,000 years - they are the oldest living cultures in the
world adapting and passing them on from one generation to
another.

Today Indigenous cultures keep the cultures alive by passing
on their knowledge, arts, rituals, and
performances from one generation to another.
By speaking and teaching languages.
And by protecting cultural property and
sacred sites and
objects.

I can't keep on spoon-feeding you. Why don't you visit
either a national library or an Australian Museum - and
educate yourself on this subject - if you're really interested
in learning. Otherwise - you're either stupid or simply stirring.

Either way - go pester someone else.

The Aboriginal cultures are the oldest living cultures
in the world.
Foxy,
Some Aboriginals haven't been around as long as the Aborigines, others perhaps longer as in the Aboriginals of Spain & Bangladesh & Indonesia !
I recall reports from the late 70's where it was found that DNA of the Aborigines indicated that they are descendants of the Aboriginals in Bangladesh !

Foxy either you are stupid or being obtuse?

Ancient artefacts at best give a superficial inkling into the way people lived and almost nothing about what can be described as culture.

I have done a fair amount of digging into this and any claim that aboriginal culture is the oldest on earth is pure conjecture.

You have yet to post anything to support your claim.

visit either a national library
Foxy,
I do sign in on Trove but just about 99% of what i want to get info on is not available on-line !
So, any other suggestions other than talking with your Library friends & tell them to do their job & make information available ?

indyvidual,

This may help:

http://nla.gov.au/using-library/getting-started/ask-librarian

Foxy,
Thank you for the link. Unfortunately, my old age pension doesn't allow me to keep travelling to the State Library as most of what I want to read is "not available online" !
Trove advertises all these brilliant services yet the moment I click on something of interest yes,
you guessed right it's "not available online " !
I'd have thought that after all these years of internet the Libraries would have more online content.

Indyvidual,

You were given the option of contacting them by mail.
An address is given in the link I cited. Either that
or you can contact them also by phone and they will take
your details and get back to you. Where else do you get
this kind of personal service?

Of course, you have to make the effort as well.

Of course, you have to make the effort as well.
Foxy,
Providing article numbers & other reference is effort enough. When I asked for information a number of years ago I was literally ignored yet when an indigenous friend asked for exactly the same he wasn't even off the phone & the papers were on his doorstep !
Papers i had actually read in the State Library became mysteriously invisible to non-academic whites !
You were a librarian, you'd be aware of what's been developing.

Unless an indigenous Australian knocks on my door and explains why this is immensely important to them and why, it seems to me that the incumbent government itself wants me to support this path, and is actively manipulating a path to a successful outcome when it was the governments of this nation both then and now that created the problems...
(This in itself smells a bit off)

So with that in mind...

They (governments) didn't have the answers or correct policies 200 years ago, and they also didn't have the answers or correct policies 12 months ago, so why should I think the government suddenly has them now?

As it is, I'm sick of being vilified for stuff I haven't done, and the government doesn't give a crap about that, as it takes the heat off them.
[Don't blame us politicians, blame the white people]

Why are government posing as the answer to the problems, when they created said problems themselves?
Why would leaders sign away their powers, unless there was a bigger plan at play?
I bet not one of them would vote for a pay decrease...
So why does it make any sense that they would support a decrease of their own powers?

Is this 'Voice' thing actually good policy, or car salesmanship by lying manipulative pollies?
(who care more about what their globalist mates in the internationalist crowd think rather than their own constituents)

Can politicians even be trusted at all these days, none make decisions based on their citizens best interests?

Globalist authoritarians posing as democratic leaders whilst merely ruling us as branch managers for their elite higher-ups.

Unless someone can win me over on merit alone, my default position will be NO and I dare anyone to try and change it.
- I welcome it, give it your best shot.

You know ultimately, it feels like they're merely using the indigenous people to help them lay the foundations of some UN or elites global government agenda rather than genuinely wanting to help indigenous people.

Hi AC,

You've got a great big heart and care about people.
I'm sure that if and when the time comes - you will do
what your conscience dictates. That's all any of us can do.
Papa used to say - "Go with your gut."

In the meantime, here's a link worth reading:

http://abc.net.au/news/2022-09-18/queen-death-indigenous-australia-colonisation-empire/101445508

I don't think enough attention is being paid to this topic.
The more I think about it, the more I realise its importance.
One needs to be clear about basics.
Just who is claiming what?
And, what is the basis for their claim

Hi IF,

Here's a link that may help:

http://fromtheheart.com.au/what-is-a-voice-to-parliament/

A belated comment.
Thank you Foxy.
I did read the article.
I think the government can do all those things now if it needs to.
Why it would need constitutional change to pursue discussion with a minor group?
What is so special or different about that group anyway?
We are all citizens, with equal rights.
Because some don't avail themselves of those rights doesn't mean they are not there.
Because a few agitate, and don't wish to comply with standards set by laws, doesn't mean they have a right to special consideration.

I remember, when I was young, meeting a family from overseas.
The father insisted his family learn and speak only English.
He told his children: 'we are Australians now, and must do all we can to blend in, and contribute to our new country'.
I wish a few more people would do the same.
It so impressed me, that I remember them quite clearly.
That was the approach which should have been taken by the aboriginal community when it lost control of the land a long time ago.
And they should have passed that attitude to subsequent generations.
Did they do that?
If not, is that why we have all this unnecessary squabbling in the community?

Hey Ipso Fatso,
Saying that aboriginals should've assimilated into the British language, is the opposite of saying that immigrants should come here should learn English.

By your example of foreigners coming here should learn the language.
- The british who came here should've learned aboriginal.

Your argument is that if Syrians or Ukrainians come here we should learn to speak Syrian and Ukrainian?

That aboriginals should give up their culture and history to fit in with the ones who arrived to subjugate them?

This whole discussion has not satisfactorily answered my question;
What is an aborigine ?
Foxy's earlier answer; whoever says he is and is accepted as such
has as much validity as any ones affirmation.
It will go nowhere in the High Court.

I simply do not believe their culture is as it was 60k years ago !
How could they possible know ? Firstly they had no written language.
So it is all "Uncle's" stories !
After five generations they would be unrecognisable.
Let alone 20,000 generations.
That part of the story is plain nonsense.
I would bet it has changed dramatically in the last 200 years.

If a vote is required to get on the Voice thing, how long before
one candidate challenges another on whether he is an aborigine ?
Gravy trains run often !

All these white people claiming aboriginal status just goes to show the eugenics crowd had far more success in breeding the black out of the indigenous than is commonly recognised.

I hate saying that, (sorry if anyone's offended, if so it's not my intention) but it sure does makes me wonder...

Seems a lot of indigenous people these days are as fair-skinned as Migaloo...

"If a vote is required to get on the Voice thing, how long before
one candidate challenges another on whether he is an aborigine ?
Gravy trains run often !"

- Fair point, and it will be interesting.

http://antarvictoria.org.au/a-national-marrata
"1. To have the voice of First Nations enshrined in the constitution

Despite an expansive range of perspectives and demands coming from First Peoples during the National Constitutional Convention, attendees unanimously expressed the need for meaningful engagement with government. What this would look like is still unknown. Much like a Makarrata, further consultation with First Peoples across the country is necessary."

Asking Aussies to support a change to the constitution that can not be reversed without getting to read the fine print first, is like committing to buy a used car off the lot without discussing the price, mileage and service history first.

I think the government knows if it plays to peoples emotions the referendum will likely pass.

http://www.reconciliation.org.au/

I'm fairly certain I will vote NO, unless they release full details of the plan first.
I can't be expected to support a change of this magnitude without first being able to look through all the details of the plan prior to making a decision.
I can't be expected to vote 'Yes' without looking through all the proposed details.

Also, once they have this, will they demand reparations?