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 !