"Good lord, how can intelligent and rational human beings not see the custom-built racism on which the Voice concept rests?" asks political and social commentator and author, Andrew L. Urban. ('A belligerent Voice?' 30/11/22).

Is the Albanese government not being racist by assuming that aboriginal Australians all think alike, vote alike, "solely because of their race"?

Urban correctly describes the attitude behind the Voice as "unmitigated racism".

Urban gives his own prescription to solve the problem, but the 'well meaning fools' won't be interested, and the rest of us know what should be done, and should have been done, long ago.

The Voice will be put up; we don’t know which way it will go; but, if the referendum passes, the problems and belligerence will continue, without anything being achieved. Just like ATSIC, that other you beaut circus established by Labor.

I seem to have chopped half of the title off. It should read - The Voice "unmitigated racism".

unmitigated racism?

Yes indeed, a lot of bigotry and racism comes from fear and
lack of understanding.

These people feel - why should our First Nations people get
something - they themselves supposedly don't have?
These people objecting to The Voice just don't understand the
concept of the rights of others, which are still often denied.
Racists have a real fear that what they have, they have
something to lose if this goes through.

Our society as we can see is going to need strong leadership
to address the issues of some people's fears around racial
equality in order to make significant progress.

We have to bear in mind that we are going to come up with
resistance unless we can soothe the fears of people who think
equality for people of colour, our First Nations people
somehow takes something away from them. Of course it doesn't.

In any case we do have strong leadership in our government
as well as many Australians who support the Voice.
The end results will make our country a much better place.
It is long overdue!

To quote a few words from Aboriginal poet - Steven Oliver:
"The Acknowledgement of..."

Understanding means feeling it first.

Not wanting to know how another feels the pain.

I acknowledge the rights still often denied.

Then maybe we'll find that wealth isn't what we need grow.

Colour won't change how our skin feels the rain.

We must acknowledge where we all stand.

Our story is one - it's time we made it one! With
equality for all!

The Voice is simply another means of trying to achieve ‘Sovereignty’, which will allow the traitors in our midst to call in foreign powers to enforce their ideas on the Australian people; they hate democracy.

Talk of "aboriginal colonisation" is the go these days, with aboriginal memes being shoved down our throats ad nauseum. Acknowledgement of recognition of traditional "owners" and leaders since the year dot, currently, and forever, is the most nauseating: followed by welcomes to our own country, and a wafting of smoke about the place by heavily made-up types in orange nappies.

The only nation has been the British one, which has provided all that is good for everyone, without any help from the indigenous, whose descendants now seem hell bent on taking it over, with the help of pathetic Left-wing politicians and activists pulling their strings.

The "first nations" bollocks has just seen a $5.5 billion, 600 job gas drilling project near the Tiwi Islands quashed.

Killing coal and gas is killing the economy.

Foxy

You have gone crook in the past when I have commented on other people's post, but not on yours

So, here is my comment on your post: I have never seen so much twaddle, even from you. You don't really need to quote other people's rubbish. Yours is more than sufficient. You are welcome to say whatever you wish, and I am able to say that I think that you are barking mad.

There has been a lot of ranting and raving about this - typically uninformed and without any basis in fact. It's a throwback to the manufactured fear campaign when Wik threatened our back yards would be claimed under Native Title.

Similar governmental arrangements exist in Canada and the USA for their respective first nation peoples.

Almost all the opposition and fear-mongering has come from white people (and one prominent reactionary aboriginal extremist) as well a somewhat premature political stance from the National Party.

Here is a summary of the report commissioned in 2018 and submitted to the Morrison government in 2021.

https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf

The racists are not interested in the welfare of Aboriginal people, they never have been. To mask their objectionable beliefs they simply create a false premise that appears to be promoting what is in the best interests of the Indigenous, nothing could be further from the truth. What motivates these racists is their belief that Aboriginals are inferior and not worthy of assistance or advantage, and their own position of superiority and privilege should be maintained at all cost.

Ho Ho.

We should take note of South Africa, where ten million whites enterprise away day by grinding day to support fifty million blacks on welfare.

Dan.

ttbn,

All each of us can do is speak from our own experiences
I guess. And as far as our Indigenous people are concerned
most of us are very limited in our understanding and
experiences of our First Nations people. The history
of this nation speaks for itself. The colonisation of this
country has a dreadful history as far as our Indigenous
people are concerned. It's a shocker. If you think I am
barking mad - that is something over which I have no control.
I did not writer the history of this country and it stands
whether you like it or not.

I see the request of the Indigenous people to be able to advise
on policies and programs that affect them - as a very fair
request. You obviously don't. Again - that is something over
which I have no control. All I can do is vote according to my
own conscience. If you don't like that - I'm afraid that is
something you shall have to learn to live with.

zmay your day be as pleasant as you are.

We do live in a democracy - which means each of us
can have a say. Usually I am quite polite. I was
raised to believe that good manners still matter.
That we should always be polite, careful, and caring
to all people as you possibly can. But if people like
racists and bigots are nasty and cruel, then F ... it,
they've got it coming!

The Left are always "ranting and raving", Rache, and if you are "uninformed", it is because of Ockernese's refusal to provide details. If you don't know enough about it, vote no. It is you Leftists who are the racists, thinking that descendants of aborigines are "inferior" and in need of help that others are not. The Voice is pure racism. Labor is steeped in racism. Your mate Whitlam described Vietnamese as "“f. king Vietnamese Balts".

The majority of Australians with indigenous heritage are thriving. They don't need to be treated differently by a racist, hard left Labor government that is into the divide and conquer routine practised by all totalitarians.

A few posters on OLO are not going to have any influence whatsoever on whether or not the rest of Australia votes yes or no on apartheid. Since the humiliating and dictatorial treatment handed out to them during Covid, and the fear-mongering of climate change, Australians seem to have dropped their bundles, and it's hard to judge what they will do.

I don't believe the Voice is of much interest to average Australians who, we should remember, are not represented on OLO, and wouldn't bother voting on it if they had the choice not to. Just like we wouldn't have this shitshow government if voting wasn't compulsory.

If the vote is Yes, my 'Australia is rooted' attitude will be vindicated.

But if people like
racists and bigots are nasty and cruel, then F ... it,
they've got it coming!
Foxy,
You make it sound like your Planet is perfect. Is it very far from here ?

The sad thing is that the racism and bigotry comes from fear
and lack of understanding. And from people who don't like
change. Fortunately these people are now becoming a minority
in this country. And for that we can all be grateful

WTF?

There are two very different Voices on display in Australia at this point in time.

The first Voice would give Indigenous peoples more say in how the government makes legislation that directly has an influence on them.

There is a wealth of information on this already and there will be much more to follow.

At the moment this Voice is only a faint whisper but I think it's getting louder every day.

The second voice is the loud, delusional and repetitive drone of alt-right popularist jingoism that saturates so much of the media.

This second voice has had a massive reassurance in the last 10 years or so and there certainly has been "buyer's regret" when we look at Brexit in the UK and Trump in the US.

The delusion faded when reality kicked in.

All you needed to do was look at Peta Credlin's face on the night of the Victorian election.

The whole "Dictator Dan" trope pushed ad nauseum from the alt-rights of this world crumbled as the the delusion was exposed when the general population got to have their say.

Hopefully, the general population will give Indigenous Australians the Voice they want and deserve.

Indy

We just have accept that Foxy thinks that she is right, and anyone with views different from hers is wrong. She's always been that way, always will be that way. She always wants the last say, so there is no point in arguing with her. Ignoring her is best. I'm still kicking myself for breaking that rule in this thread: it has only made her madder.

I'm sure a psychologist would be able to tell us why she is what she is, and why she needs to 'correct' people all the time; but it's beyond us and, hey, she is just not worth the trouble. This is a place to express our opinions. There is no requirement for us to bother with Foxy's problems and peculiarities.

"...The majority of Australians with indigenous heritage are thriving..."

Good grief. Such wilful ignorance.

Aries54

I assume that you are referring to your own ignorance. Most people of aboriginal descent live in urban areas, inter-marrying and doing what everyone else does. They don't need a Voice. And the ones living in remote areas can not possibly benefit from another costly Quango any more than they do now from the million dollar empires supposed to be helping them.

ttbn,

It obviously matters to you what I think and what my
opinions are. You're the one who keeps attributing
things to me that I neither say think or feel. But you
obviously do so very much - so no matter
what I say, think, feel or do, as far
as you are concerned I shall always be wrong, "barking mad,"
or worse.

Well
guess what - I have lived without your opinion and
you for decades - and it may come as a surprise to
you that I shall happily continue to do so. I don't need or
want your validation. I don't know you, and away
from this forum - I can't imagine that I would ever
want to know you.

Your concern about my mental health is greatly appreciated
however perhaps you would be wiser to look at your own
state of mind. Instead of looking for others to
blame for your own toxic behaviour.

Having an opinion
is allowed on this forum - otherwise you would not
be here. And if it differs from yours it does not make
a person "barking mad." Although in your case - perhaps
another opinion by a medical professional just might help
sort things out into a proper perspective for us all.

Anyway, cheer-up - I'm sure both of us intend to stay here
for the long term and the only real difference between us
is - you prefer to stay in the gutter whilst I prefer to
look at the stars. It's a cultural thing!

Dear WTF,

BRAVO! Well said! And I know that you are right.
The election results both federal and state prove
in which direction Australian voters want to go
and with whom. Thankfully politics has changed in
this country and will continue to do so! The Voice
will pass - and as you say - it is long overdue and
deserved! The naysayers will end up on the dung
heap of history where they belong.

No Foxy. Your opinions don't matter to me. You are just an irritating woman with an inflated ego, but without the intelligence and knowledge to match. And, I read no further than your deluded comment that I do care. I have made an early New Year's resolution to go back to ignoring you and your tripe. My last comment about you - not to you - was to Indyvidual. You are like a red back spider that lives in one of my garden pots: every time I water it, out rushes the spider, all aggression.

Then stop watering it.

Why blame the spider - when you're the one at fault?

You don't get. I like the spider; I just don't expect people to behave in the same way.

“in 1967 we removed delineation of people based on their DNA. Now we have an issue which will bring back a form of delineation based on people’s DNA.” (Barnaby Joyce)

ttbn,

So you're a softie after all?

I suspected as much (smile).

How many times has ttbn done his dummy spit and declared; "My intention is to ignore the ones I disagree with". BUT, he comes back every time. What an old tosser!

bring back a form of delineation based on people’s DNA.” (Barnaby Joyce)
ttbn,
Now there's a good question for Paul1405, bet he won't have a sensible answer for that ! As per usual !

Dear Paul,

I am actually trying to look at things now from a
different perspective.

Because ttbn can't seem to let go
it must mean he cares - and there is hope in that for
a better understanding of each other in the future.
Fingers-crossed.

Also it means that I too must accept
responsibility - and look at what I am doing wrong
that upsets the man so much. Which
I am going to do. And try to do better. I will try to
pay attention to what he's saying and I will try to see how
I can appear to be less "aggressive" as he's pointed out.
Anyway - I am willing to try.

I watched the news this morning. It's the 20 year anniversary
of Paul Keating's Redfern Speech.
Here's a link:

http://abc.net.au/2012-12-09/10-year-anniversary-redfern-speech/4416732

A momentuous moment for so many.

Hopefully, there will be more to come soon.
Progress has been very slow - but perhaps this time Australia will get
there. We can only hope that under new leadership - things will
happen.

Sorry. Once again I hurried and left out "news" in the
link. Here it is again:

http://abc.net.au/news/2012-12-09/20-year-anniversary-redfern-speech/4416732

It's a very moving speech and well worth a read.

Hi Foxy,

Sarah Maddison's 'The Colonial Fantasy' a great read, offering a different perspective on these matters, and the ongoing colonialism within modern Australian. There is no "Aboriginal problem" but a "settlers problem". The idea that Indigenous people should have power over their own affairs, is a relatively new concept, and how our paternalism has stifled native self-determination.

Dear Paul,

Yes. The more one reads and the more one learns -
it is quite startling - and the urgency of the situation
begins to unfold.

Indy,

Do you still refer to those of Aboriginal ancestry living in cities as "CONCRETE JUNGLE BUNNIES"? Not that you're racists or any such thing!

BTW, I live in a city, I have Aboriginal ancestry, ever so slight, I must be one of those "CONCRETE JUNGLE BUNNIES" you speak of, that's right you told once I was just that!

Dear Paul,

This link is worth a read:

http://theconversation.com/why-dna-tests-for-indigenous-heritage-mean-different-things-in-australia-and-the-us-105367

tbbn,

No it's you rabid righties who like to divide people and get your knickers in a knot at the very thought that somebody out there is getting something that you are not. Worse still it's about somebody who you secretly feel is inferior to yourself is somehow being treated as an equal. I've seen it all before - from the "free Commodores" that aborigines once used to get to the free luxury accommodation and taxpayer largesse lavished on refugees - all rants from the right.

If you really believe we are in a country of universal social equality and equal opportunity (rather than simply paying lip-service to the notion), then campaign that all those other social "benefits" they get must be immediately stripped away and let them take their chances like the rest of us.

Forget the Stolen Generation stories and hand over your own children to be raised by the aboriginal community where they would apparently get a better quality of life, if the counter argument is to be believed.

Above all the far right has become a haven for superstition and bigotry - full of hypocritical, angry and obsessed people and is finally beginning to implode and drown in it's own bile. History has shown this to be true and is inevitable unless they drag us into war.

The concept of The Voice means little to me personally but I'm amused by the spectacle it has brought out into the light.

refer to those of Aboriginal ancestry living in cities as "CONCRETE JUNGLE BUNNIES"
Paul1405,
When did I say that ?

Apparently there is a story paywalled in 'The Australian' by someone called Paige Taylor who claims that 'four out of five Australians believe it is important to establish a representative indigenous body enjoying constitutional protection'.

She offers up a survey of '532 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and 1990 non-Indigenous people' with '79 percent" supporting an Indigenous body in the Constitution.

2,522 tell us that 4 out of 5 Australians want the Voice? What about the rest of the 25 or so million Australians?

The person reporting on this information couldn't find what methodology was used to obtain this amazing information, but a previous survey done by the same mob, online, entailed respondents "receiving a small incentive for their participation", suggesting the respondents were "semi-professional serial survey respondents", similar to those people who are paid by marketeers to test/sample goods to test the water for manufactures.

This is the sort of dubious information - or misinformation - barracking for the Voice that we are going to get a lot from now on. The government is going to sit back and let any old activists do their dirty work for them; just as they are going to let the corporates spend millions on virtue signalling, enabling that same sleazy government to say that they won't be using taxpayer's money to fund a Yes campaign or a No campaign.

No it was not you Indyvidual, it was Individual, you can run, but you can't hide. (behind your new tag). Do you think by changing your tag you dissociate yourself from your past comments?

The most burning question is still unanswered among the self righteous virtue signallers of the ruling classes, standing alone with this issue is, who qualify as Aboriginals?

The minimum qualification should be Land Council recognition. At the moment the title of Aboriginal belongs to who ticks a box on a form, no proof required!

Dan

Diver Dan,

What on earth are you talking about?

Government agencies and community organisations accept
3 working criteria as confirmation of Aboriginality
and Torres Strait Islander heritage. They are as follows:

1) Being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent.

2) Identifying as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person.

3) Being accepted as such by a community in which you live,
or formerly lived.

All of these must apply. The way you look or how you live
are not requirements.

Plus forms are required to be filled out and there
are protocols that are followed.

An analysis of New Zealand experience of race based constitutional governance, and the history of Australian judicial activism, comes up with a likely scenario of what will happen with the Voice:

. It will be a vehicle for allocating critical social and economic resources such as health, education, and job opportunities on the basis of race not need.

.It will not be merely advise; it will be able to veto parliamentary debate and government decisions.

. It will be impossible to repeal, defund or reform if it proves ineffective or is acting contrary to what was intended.

ttbn,

If you are going to cut and paste stuff from Sky News, who run nonsense from the conservative 'Institute of Public Affairs' why not say so. Some might be misled into believing your rubbish came from creditable sources. Good try.

The "voice" is driven purely by racism.

Everyone is equal, but one race is more equal than others?

Martin Luther King would turn in his grave:

“Judge a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.”

WTF?

Why is it that those opposed to the voice are the ones that use the terms "race" "racist" and "racism" when referring to this topic?

Indigenous Australians do not claim to be a different race they identify themselves as Indigenous.

"Race" is only brought into the discussions by opponents of the voice and this says a lot about them and how they view Indigenous Australians.

No wonder Indigenous Australians want a Voice in Parliament when many people appear to want to label them as a different "race".

Ethnosciencec recognises 4 different races: Caucasian, Mongoloid/Asian, Negroid, and Australoid, which most Australian aborigines belong to. Aborigines are definitely a different race from all others in Australia.

Once again the races topic rears its ugly head when
it comes to our Indigenous people. What is the genetic
make-up of modern Britons we may well ask? Or of any
ethnic group and their descendents currently living
in Australia and elsewhere? Why just stick our Indigenous
people with labels, and time after time continue to question their
ancestry. Why not look to your own ancestry?

It's a way of trying to demean people - and is extremely unfair
and bigoted. But hey, our Indigenous people are used to this sort
of BS. The following link explains:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/08/not-quite-blak-enough-the-people-who-think-i-am-too-white-to-be-aboriginal-are-all-white-claire-g-coleman-lies-damned-lies

The so-called purity of the British race?

When you look at the genetic make up of modern
Britons you begin to realize what a mixed group
they really are. They are one of the most invaded
of nations. A variety of ethnic groups have settled
on the British Isles. Celts, Picts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons,
Norse, Normans, Liverpool has the oldest Black British
community, dating back to at least17305 - during the
African slave trade.

The oldest Chinese community in Europe dates back to the
arrival of Chinese seamen in the 19th century. Then we
have the Jews and the Irish - the cockney dialect and
since 1948 - West Indies - and so on. The complex
social framework that is Britain has been created
over the decades - and of course as Seinfeld would say-
"There's nothing wrong with that!"

There is no such thing as a British 'race'. White Brits belong to the Caucasian race, just like white people of any nationality. British refers to nationality; and there are different races making up that nationality. Same here.

The Caucasian race is an obsolete racial classification
of human beings based on a now disproven theory of
biological race. Literally speaking "Caucasian" refers
to people from the Caucasus mountain region which
includes Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, parts of North Iran,
and central Southern Russia.

Great Britain is not or anywhere near the Caucasus.

In order to be British you need to be from Britain, that is
born in Britain or having British nationality and this can
and does apply to people of every ethnicity and colour on
the face of this world.
"
The term "Caucasian" does not mean "white" anthropologists once
used a category called "\Caucasoid" but this referred to skull
structure and had nothing to do with skin colour. Moreover
this nomenclature was discredited and abandoned by
anthropologists many years ago. The term "Caucasian" to refer
to white people is utterly incorrect.

The British are a multicultural nation and Caucasian is not
the right term if you are referring to the majority of
white people. At least not in the British culture. It
depends where you live and how diverse are your
communities. So - n the English are not "Caucasian."

Keep blowing it out your arse, Foxy. You can't possibly look any sillier.

Foxy

There are indeed stringent rules to qualify for aboriginality but these don't seem to be policed by all areas.

I was taught the process by an anthropologist engaged by my employer to run a "Cross Cultural Awareness" Course some decades ago because of a pending influx of aborigines into their workforce and to dispel many of the myths circulating at that time.

When my wife worked in a Doctor's Surgery she would occasionally get people coming in and claiming to be aboriginal and asking for all their "free stuff".

For them it was just a matter of them ticking a box on a form but without needing to provide any form of evidence and it's not up to medical staff to prove otherwise.

I'm not aware of anything working differently nowadays and it seems some are jumping on the bandwagon to appear trendy, but this is working against the interests of genuine first nation people.

My first cousin is classified as Aboriginal, on her mothers side she has the same amount of Aboriginal blood as me, but has more from her fathers side, so it seems, I thought he was a pom. She did have to apply with evidence to the Clan and be accepted before calling herself Aboriginal. We are such good mates, I said to cuz; "What are you going to call yourself.... POCAHONTAS!" She said; "Nah, wrong tribe cuz."

Hi Foxy,

Be satisfied ttbn is of the Aryan race, and can prove it. How do you think me go into the SS.

it was Individual,
Paul1405,
I can't recall denying that either just as I don't recall using the term Concrete Jungle Bunny (in your words) to "those of Aboriginal ancestry living in cities" .
I referred to city people in general as the dense living condition there are like a rabbit warren. At no stage did I make reference purely to those of Aboriginal ancestry. Also, when you made me aware that the term Jungle Bunny was an offensive South African term which I was totally unaware of I stopped using it as I made crystal clear to you !
If you're so desperate to stir please find something else to pick as this has become boring.
How about explaining why those with Aboriginal ancestry i.e. Great, great,great grandma had an affair with a white bureaudroid makes a great, great, great grandchild an Aboriginal & not a European ? As by your own divulgence you're are one such great, great, great grandchild you should be able to provide a valid explanation for deciding to be Aboriginal & not some European ancestry !

“Ethnosciencec recognises 4 different races: Caucasian, Mongoloid/Asian, Negroid, and Australoid, which most Australian aborigines belong to. Aborigines are definitely a different race from all others in Australia.”
If Australian Aborigines are a different race why are there no throwbacks with inter marriage?
If there is no new Aboriginal blood introduced into a line then the genetic influence of the Aboriginal ancestor declines more with each generation until it becomes genetically insignificant.

ttbn,

If presenting facts as given by Britannica and other
reputable sources to you is "blowing it out of my arse?" Then I'm
curious as to where you get your information
from? And you can't keep accusing people of being abusive
simply because their facts don't agree with your opinion.
I think it's you who is doing all the blowing.
But it's perfectly understandable considering your ancestry.

Dear rache,

Thanks for that.
Glad to see you posting again.

Dear Paul,

There's so many stories that we can share. And you've got
some terrific ones. I guess it is hard for some to understand
bigotry - if they've never experienced it. Listening to
the Aboriginal poet and actor Steven Oliver on Q and A
the other night - made me realize how fortunate I've
been in my life compared to what he's had to live through.

Hi Foxy,

That was something special from Steven Oliver the other night. I am reasonably confident Australians will know the real value of a 'YES' vote in the up coming referendum, just as they did with the vote on the question of gay marriage.

Dear Paul,

I also have confidence in the Australian people this time
to do the right thing. It is unfortunate that some, including
the Nationals, have injected misinformation and vitriol into
the debate so early on.

Prof. Marcia Langton has pointed
out "It's too important to play nasty electoral politics about -
it would be terribly unfortunate for all Australians if the
debate sank into a nasty, eugenicist, 19th-century style of
debate about the superior race versus the inferior race."

The criticism that the government has not released enough
detail about the proposal is simply not true. Prof. Langton
and Calma were the authors of the Indigenous Voice Co-Design
process. The final Report was presented to the former Coalition
government in 2021 laying out in great detail how a National
Voice model would operate and how it would link to local and
regional Voice groups.

The paper was presented to Cabinet by former Indigenous
Australians Minister Ken Wyatt who last week implored his
Nationals colleagues to read it.

There's more at the following link:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/05/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-marcia-langton-warns-risk-eugenicist-race-debate

Foxy,

If the "voice" report put together by ML indicates the request is asking for co-governance.

I'm sure the voters will do the right thing and reject this apartheid.

shadowminister,

The Voice is asking to simply be an advisory body as
I'm sure you know - or should know. Stop the nastiness
and misinformation.

Absolute bollocks Foxy:

From the report:

"The Indigenous Voice would provide a way for Indigenous Australians to have a greater say on the design, development and implementation of policies and programs that affect them."

That is not "simply an advisory body" unless you are incredibly naive, mendacious or retarded.

shadowminister,

Yes they want a say. That's what an advisory body does.
However they won't have the power to legislate. That power
will solely up to the government. I might ask you the same
questions regarding your own mental capabilities Sir.

Hi Foxy,

A white supremacist like SM is incapable of accepting the notion that Aboriginal Australians should have a voice in their own affairs. Its obvious the guy is a racists, and sees nothing worthwhile in this proposal, lacking any sort of empathy for 'Black Australia' he will continue to argue in the negative, even if he has to resort to lies and deceptions to do so, something which he is very good at.

White supremacists. Racists. The favourite terms of abuse used by totalitarian trash.

The people who use the abusive descriptions are too stupid to think that there could be any other reason for a person to be against the Voice and changes to our constitution. It doesn't even occur to them. They just want to bully and silence.

There are people who actually care what names these trash call them. Decent people, totally unlike the trash, too polite to call them out. They might even be intimidated by the trash.

Fortunately, we have secret voting, and the trash cannot do a damn thing about the way voters mark their ballot papers. And, OLO posters are not typical of the general population. Whatever the result is, it will have nothing to do with the trash, totalitarians, bullies, and ignorant arseholes.

Foxy,

An advisory body does not require consultation at every level of the development of legislation.

As virtually every legislation has some impact on indigenous people this would require indigenous input into every piece of legislation from concept to implementation.

This is not advice it is co-governance where 2% of the population has near veto status.

Secondly, the No of indigenous MPs is already in a greater ratio than the indigenous population.

Finally, the "indigenous representatives" that crafted the Uluru statement were self-appointed and unelected activists.

As for the village idiot, this fwit happily plays the race card when he can't put together a rational argument.

ttbn,

Like SM you exude racism with every sentence you write on this subject. Not all racists are haters, in the past many well intentioned people have tried to solve a perceived "Aboriginal problem" with misguided acts of paternalism, that in itself is racists and wrong, or at the very least misguided. Some are attacking the proposal of a "Voice" from a purely hateful racists positions, others do have genuine concerns, but seem to resort to miss-truths and wild unsubstantiated claims to make their argument. Are they simply misguided, or are they trying to muddy the waters to drive the debate and general opinion in their direction.

One can easily tell a racist, they're the ones who perpetually attempt to portray themselves as victims of the mentality they themselves are pushing at the slightest opportunity !

The Left in general are obsessed with race and identity politics. The constant branding of other people as racists is merely them projecting their own condition and revolting attitudes.

shadowminister,

Perhaps we should all read the co-design committee's
report to get a clearer vision of how the advisory
body will function instead of taking in all the
misinformation and name-calling being currently
bandied about?

I am for the Voice to Parliament. I think it's way
past due. What we've tried in the past has not
worked. I say - give this a chance especially because
it just may succeed and lead to self-determination
of our Indigenous people - which I am sure all of us
want - for them to take responsibility and not be
dependent - and have decisions to continue to be
made for them.

Foxy,
Self-determination is the last thing we want for minorities within our society.
If it is granted to one group, based on ‘race’ then, in all fairness, it should be available to other ‘racial’ groups.

All this argument is irrelevant unless one fundamental question is
settled in the constitution itself;

What is an aborigine ?

It can't be left to legislation by politicians, it must be the first
clause in the amendment.
Unless it is in the constitution it will change with the weather.
As we are all aware there are many "white" aborigines.
In 200 years there will be many more.
They will be indistinguishable from the rest of us.
They will be a group of privileged people with the right to make
special demands of the politicians.
Perhaps we could call the Voice the House of Lords.

There are many, many organisations which all claim they are doing a great job on indigenous matters. The government has poured billions into helping remote disadvantaged Aboriginal communities. Will all this cease with the introduction of the Voice? Will all the quangos give up all that money and all those cushy sinecures? Highly unlikely. Nobody has even mentioned their existence.

Can anyone tell me; Since 1788 what was a good year for Aboriginal people and why? You've got 234 to choose from, it should be an easy question.

The ABC has had another brainstorm:

"The ABC’s vision for reconciliation is an Australia in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander names, voices and languages—and the culture and wisdom they reflect—become an everyday part of the national vocabulary.

It will know that this has been achieved when the words, stories and traditions of Australia’s First Peoples have been so embraced and integrated into the way Australians speak as to be unremarkable".

Pretty stupid when more and more people, including remote aborigines, and ABC employees have so much trouble with English, and aboriginal languages are even more useless than all other dead languages.

The idea that Aboriginal kids and adults can somehow benefit from learning and reviving a near-lost local language is fanciful. There are few native speakers able to teach. Only about 10% of people speak native language.

Dear Paul,

You asked - " what was a good year for the Australian
Aboriginal people since 1788?"

In order to answer your question properly I've asked
for the following book as a Christmas present - so
you'll have to wait a while for my reply.

The book is:

"Aboriginal Australians: A History since 1788," by
Richard Broome ( Revised 5th edition published by Allen & Unwin
2019). It sells for $39.99.

Sharon Meagher, Aboriginal Education Development Officer
at the Women & Children's Hospital, Adelaide - writes:

" Richard Broome tells the history of Australia from the
standpoint of the original Australians: those who lost most
in the early colonial struggle for power. Surveying over
two centuries of Aboriginal European encounters he shows how
white settlers steadily supplanted the original inhabitants
from the shining coasts to inland deserts."

" He also tells the story of Aboriginal survival through
resistance and accommodation, and traces the continuing
Aboriginal struggle to move from the margins of a settler
society to a more central place in moder Australia."

"Broome's "Aboriginal Australian," has long been regarded
as the most authoratative account of black-white relations
in Australia. This 5th edition continues the story covering
the impact of the Northern Territory Intervention, the
mining boom in remote Australia, the Uluru Statement, the
resurgence of interest in traditional Aboriginal
knowledge and culture and the new generation of leaders."

"Richard Broome's historical analysis breaks the back of every
theoretical argument about colonialism and establishes a clear
pathway to understanding the present situation."

Pauliar,

You are the biggest racist pig and liar on this site.

Foxy,

This experiment looks more like an irreversible handover of veto power to a racially based activist group. Why you would like to entrench apartheid in Aus is beyond me.

Going overboard there SM, lost it have you?

The only one with an entrenched racists view is YOU SM, as you can't accept that the "inferior" black fella should be on an equal footing with a "superior" white such as yourself. Referencing apartheid is your attempt to muddy the waters for what is a legitimate, straight forward proposal to allow Aboriginal people a nonbinding say, enshrined in the Constitution, in matters affecting them as far as federal legislation is concerned. The parliament will still be the sole arbitrator of law.

BTW; your opinions expressed on here in the past makes it clear you are an advocate for apartheid, but only when it gives authority to those of your ilk over the so called "inferior" black fella.

It's the 30th anniversary of Keating's Redfern Speech and I can't see evidence of much progress since then, in fact some things have gone backwards.

Howard took a step back with the Wik scare campaign, Rudd got the apology out of the way (with no massive class actions that were supposed to be the result) but here we are back at the start again.

Whatever we have attempted so far has been one failure after another because we are not really consulting - just administrating and doing what we think is best.

The argument that there are already indigenous members in Parliament is false because they are still Party members and act primarily in the interests of their party. A recent example is the two attempts made by Morrison's own then-Minister Ken Wyatt to table the Voice document (which they commissioned on the first place) were denied. Obviously a political stance rather than a philosophical one because they didn't want the matter debated or publicly discussed.

Despite all the scare-mongering and half-truths the bottom line is that any effect the Voice may have can be changed by whatever government is in power at the time via simple legislation and even dismantled to the point of irrelevance.

[Deleted for abuse.]

shadowminister,

I don't really understand your objections to the Voice
to Parliament when it is merely an advisory body and
as we know - parliament will have total control over
the legislation. Why so much vitriol?

[Deleted for abuse]

Dear Paul,

I'm really looking forward to reading the book I mentioned
earlier to help me understand things much better. I think
that only through education can people learn about what
has led us to where we are today in our relationship
to our Indigenous people and what must be done to achieve
reconciliation. Their history is a very cruel on - and if
we can help improve things - we're obliged to do so.

Dear Paul,

There are powerful emotions being generated as we can
see from some of the responses. I like this classic old
song generated by the convicts when they discovered their
fate - "Botany Bay."

Farwell to Old England forever
Farewell to my rum coes as well
Farwell to the well known Tim Bailey
Who used to teach me how to spell
Singing too-ra-li-oo-ra-li-addity
Singing bing bong dum doodad fi-fay
Singing spinkly pom pinkly bom baddity
It's sh ... down in Botany Bay

Hi again Foxy,

This is in my opinion the best version Of 'Bound For Botany Bay' by the 'Sundowners' I have their CD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYrjDdwDyQ8&t=9s

[Deleted for abuse.]

Down at the markets today, overheard two old farts, one tosser telling the other how terrible it was that the Poms had an "Indian" for Prime Minister, dreadful it seems, what's the world coming to. He was shocked how 60 million Poms couldn't come up with "one of their own" as PM. I may not agree substantially with Rishi Sunak conservative politics, but to label him a "foreigner" in his own country because he's not of the right colour in the way this clown did, is despicable, nothing less.

I made the point earlier that some racists, can't see the racism within themselves, this guy would be a classic. On the wife's insistence I didn't wade in with my 2 cents worth.

p/s Rishi Sunak Born: 12 May 1980 (age 42 years), Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.

The nation of Pomgolia is one of contrasts and conflicts.

Brexit was successful mainly because of the notion of ridding the country of foreigners yet a Russian oligarch can buy himself a Peerage, in a country that practically worships an aristocratic class system based on the privilege of birthright. Money speaks loudly there too.

The alleged racist element of the Harry and Meghan circus probably has some basis of truth.

Why can't we take people as we find them?
It's probably a stupid question - but why do
we judge others so harshly - when there's
awful people in all cultures, creeds, and colours?
People travel to other places on holidays and
enjoy their stays - yet when it comes to making
derogatory statements about the very people they
visit - what's going on there? Pigs will be pigs -
no matter where they reside.

As for Meghan and Harry? The media has given them
a hard time - but some of the responsibility also
has to be accepted by them as well. A grin and
bear it attitude would have been preferable. In their
case I think that money is involved from their side
which is unfortunate - They could have had better
success had they not chosen to burn their bridges.

Foxy,

Firstly, Labor has form on this issue, under Juliar, the voice transformed from an advisory body to close to a 3rd chamber.

Secondly, If this is a purely advisory body to which parliament has no obligation to listen what is its purpose?

Thirdly, why does this unelected body need to be entrenched in the constitution?

shadowminister,

You need to read the report that was presented to parliament
by the co-design team. It explains things quite clearly. They
are to be an advisory body to parliament on laws and programs
that affect them. The legislation will be passed by parliament.
The reason to have this enshrined in the constitution is so that
successive governments can't get rid of this advisory body.
To ensure that laws and programs that will affect our Indigenous
people - will be made with their consultation. This is something
that has not been tried in the past. This is worth doing - because
what's been done in the past has not worked.

It's worth giving this a chance. At least that's my opinion.

This deserves support - from all political parties
to make it work.

Hi Foxy,

SM doesn't need to read the report, his mind was made up from the word go, his bigotry doesn't allow for any consideration of the facts. The claim that Gillard was trying to create a "3rd chamber of parliament" is totally untrue, it was never proposed, to peddle such a lie suits the bigoted and racists argument. The extreme haters are gearing up for a false scare campaign on the 'Voice', just as they did with the gay marriage debate, and before that with asylum seekers and so on.

Dear Paul,

If you're right - then that's sad.
In any case - I'm sure that most Australians
will be willing to support this new initiative.
And what shadowminister thinks or does won't
make much difference. Like it didn't with same
sex marriage. Parliament will go on without him.

"You need to read the report that was presented to parliament
by the co-design team. It explains things quite clearly."

Will the delegates to the Voice be elected?

If so how?

How often?

Can they be removed for any reason?

If so how and by whom?

Will they be paid? By whom? Who will decide the payment? Will there be higher payments for some? Who will appoint/elect those people?

Will dissenting voices in the Voice be given a Voice?

The longer the government and the aboriginal faction refuse to answer these type of questions with specifics as opposed to feel-good waffle, the more likely it is that they know the answers won't be acceptable.

Hi Foxy,

The only way the bigots and haters can succeed with a "NO" vote is to created a false narrative. They need to convince enough voters that although they are in favour of the rights of Aboriginal people, never forget that, but unfortunately this proposal goes too far and therefore is unjustified. The Nationals for one will use that tactic to oppose; "I am actually in favour, but I want you to vote NO."

You do know when we voted "YES" for gay marriage, we were also voting "YES" to legalising beastiality, child pornography and paedophilia. That was the argument put forward by some of the more extreme. It wasn't in the question but that's what some wanted us to believe, others even claimed heterosexuals would be forced into homosexual relationships by law. When you haven't got a logical argument you just create a false scare campaign, it worked for the NAZI's against the Jews.

Dear Paul,

The details supplied thus far in the co-design report is
the suggested model for the Voice to Parliament. Parliament
will of course work on the final model. In any case -
we'll be kept informed.

I remember only too well the mis-information that was going
around with same-sex marriage. The sky did not fall in.
Any new changes will always bring in the doomsayers. However
things have a way of having their own momentum - and they
do get done. Women did get the vote. Same sex marriage
passed. And with enough people standing by our Indigenous
people - the Voice will also come to fruition.

mhaze,

The following link may help clarify some of your questions:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2022/aug/15/i-will-be-voting-yes-to-establish-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament

"The following link may help clarify some of your questions:"

Well no, it doesn't. Please advise which question(s) were answered in the article and what the answer was.

______________________________________________________________________

Another question....will people be allowed to sit as members of the Voice and MPs or Senators at the same time?

______________________________________________________________________

There is a clear dichotomy in thinking here. Some people are saying they won't decide whether to support or not support the so-called Voice until all of the more important issues about it are resolved and delineated.

Others, more used to leaving all those icky details to others to work out, are saying they'll support the Voice purely on emotive grounds. For these people the details are in the too-hard basket and they'll trust the government to tell them what the details are AFTER the vote. These people are used to deferring to authority.

This is why the government and the aboriginal industry are desperate to keep the issue in the realms of emotion and avoid all questions of detail.

mhaze,

Read the link again, then again, then again.
Keep reading it - it may with any luck eventually sink in.

Patrick Dodson put it rather well when he said that:
" The Australian people are being asked to vote on
principle not on detail."

Australians are not being asked to vote on a specific Voice
model. Rather the Voice will be determined by parliament with
the impact of the community and the Voice itself, and will
evolve and change over time. There's more at the following:

http://theconversation.com/what-do-we-know-about-the-voice-to-parliament-and-what-do-we-still-need-to-know-195720

"Read the link again"

I had a little bet with myself that that is the answer you'd give.

To translate, the link you gave which you claimed would answer the questions doesn't answer the questions but you haven't got the integrity to admit it.

Then hilariously you tell us that " The Australian people are being [a]sked to vote on principle not on detail" which is what I've been saying all along and which you've been denying. It must be interesting to have such flexible principles.

But that's the crux of it. We won't get the details because most would vote 'no' if they knew exactly what they were voting for while others (eg Foxy) are so used to deferring to authority that they don't want to be presented with icky details.

Foxy,

I did read the report, and it calls for a lot more input than simple "advice"

Putting it into the constitution makes it irreversible and if as you stated that all other attempts have been failures, what makes this different?

Giving it a "chance" is all good and well if you can reverse it if it proves to be a disaster.

This has all the hallmarks of a monumental labor cock up.

You're both probably right. However I have faith in
the system - or authority as mhaze puts it. I feel
that with so many experts advising on both sides -
they will be able to pick and choose, and will
choose the best options. If we don't try this time -
well nothing ventured nothing gained - and we need
to at least try. As I've said earlier - I'm all
for this project and I'm not demanding all the answers
ahead of time. Especially answers that can't yet be given.
And need to be worked out in time.

Thanks Foxy,

You're absolutely correct, referendums are about the wording of the Constitution, as Patrick Dodson said; "The Australian people are being asked to vote on a principle (an amendment to the Constitution) not on detail."

Arguing with some here, is an exercise in futility, they are not looking for anything in this which would be a positive for Aboriginal people. For their whole life they have been totally negative towards the First Australians, why would they suddenly change? This Forum has an over abundance of old racists white Anglo- Saxon male bigots, "crying in their beer" about everything, unfortunately it gives a distorted view on these matter, but its not indicative of the opinions of the wider community, just the opinions of a few grumpy old men.

For their whole life they have been totally negative towards the First Australians,
Paul1405,
I don't think I have met anyone who is negative towards the First Australians however, I know many who simply had a gutful of the nonsense & disharmony that is being pedalled by those hand-me-down pretend indigenous with less than one dot of indigenous DNA.
You're making it harder by the day for decent non-indigenous to muster compassion for those whom you you so embarrass with every claim that you're one of them.

Foxy,

Albozo has just announced that they have no intention of designing the legislation for the voice until after the referendum.

So essentially the referendum gives them a blank slate to put in place whatever they want.

Maybe you trust labor, but I don't.

That's why we vote in governments, we trust them to enact legislation in the interest of the people. Once this Constitutional change is passed by referendum, then its the duty of government to craft the legislation to give purpose to that Constitutional change.

The 1967 referendum, which was overwhelmingly endorsed, gave the Commonwealth sweeping powers, which previously had only been in the hands of the states, to "make laws" pertaining to Aboriginal people. No actual laws were spelt out at the time. The reality was from 67 to 72 the conservative government in Canberra enacted no constrictive laws for the betterment of Aboriginal people, it was a Constitutional change in name only. Then it was the Labor government of Gough Whitlam that made positive moves to try and better the lives of our First Australians. It was not until the High Court decision on Mabo in 1993 that the Keating Labor government passed the 'Native Title Act'.

Hopefully once this Constitutional change is made, there will be bipartisan support for 'Voice' legislation. It will be the job of the government to introduce that legislation, and only then can it be debated and passed or rejected.

Paul,

The difference is that the 1967 referendum gave the government powers to legislate. Any of the new laws could be reversed by following governments as they were not constitutionally enshrined.

If Labor doesn't define what the "voice" will be in the referendum, there is the possibility that future governments can legislate to change the voice to whatever it wants or block labor's version of the voice being written into the constitution.

When the Republic referendum began gaining momentum in the 1990s, the pro-Republic movement also pushed for a referendum based on the principle with the detail to be followed later. They were in favour of a republic with an appointed head of state but preferred to keep that model in the background.

It was the genius of Howard that forced them to put all their cards on the table and when the voters saw what was really being proposed they responded with a "thanks but no thanks".

Same here. If those pushing this thought for a second that the public would be supportive of the proposal if all the details were released, they'd release those details. The simple fact that the details are being hidden is prima facie evidence that they know it would be unacceptable to the public. So they go down this very undemocratic path - give us the power and then we'll tell you how we'll use it.

But if the pandemic lockdown policies showed us anything it is that the public are no longer prepared to defend their freedoms and prefer to delegate their thinking to authoritarian bodies.

I think that we'll look back on all this years from
now and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Anyhow - I trust our government. I support the Voice
to Parliament. I feel that most Australians support
it as well. We can argue over this for as long as
we like - however the end results shall speak for
themselves. Australians usually get it right in the
end. As our recent elections has shown. Anyway - that's
my opinion.

SM,

All legislation can be challenged in the High Court, the parliament has not only the power to enact legislation, but also the power to negate and/or amend legislation. In 1967 when the people voted in favour of giving the Federal government the power to enact laws pertaining to Aboriginal people, there was at the time no specific laws proposed, should not have the people voted "NO" on the grounds that the Tories could not be trusted to enact laws in the interest of the people. The Australian Constitution was not voted on by Australians, but was passed into law by an act of the British parliament. Some in the Aboriginal community are not longer clamouring for recognition through "settler" law but are seeking sovereignty, something that has never been ceded to the settler state. In NZ one of the sticking points with the Treaty of Waitangi is the wording where the treaty cedes "Governance" to the British crown, it does not cede "Sovereignty" which has a different meaning. To this day the Maori hold sovereignty over the lands of Aotearoa. Like in Australia the settler state took sovereignty over the lands upon themselves without establishing any legitimate claim.

Dear Paul,

I've come across the following link which gives
a very clear explanation as to why non-indigenous
Australians should not fear a first nations Voice
to Parliament. It explains things very well:

http://theconversation.com/non-indigenous-australians-shouldnt-fear-a-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-176675

Paul,

You didn't read or understand my post as you repeated much of what I said.

If the exact details of the voice are written in the constitution, they cannot be changed by the high court. If they are defined by legislation the next government could change the voice into 5 people in a shed near the parliament house.

If the referendum is completely vague, any amendment to the constitution can be challenged in the high court.

shadowminister,

I feel that your concerns are not warranted. Read
the link I've just given. Try to keep an open mind.

Foxy,

I have read the link and in it there are many contradictions such as:

"Putting the Voice in the Constitution is not only workable within Australia’s parliamentary system, but it is also key to its success. Earlier Indigenous advisory bodies created by parliament have been disbanded by parliament. The most notable example is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, which functioned for 14 years before being abolished in 2004."

What they forgot to mention is that ATSIC was disbanded due to massive and endemic corruption and dysfunction. If this is what is ingrained into the constitution then we are all screwed.

Next is:

"A philosophical criticism of the Voice is it violates the democratic principle of “one person, one vote” and allows special treatment for a particular group. In a legal sense, Indigenous Australians enjoy the same rights as others at an individual level. What is frequently denied — and what the Voice addresses — are collective rights."

What a mealy-mouthed oxymoron.

Either you are a citizen or you are not.

Their philosophy is that everyone is equal but aboriginals are more equal. Seriously?

Thanks Foxy for the link, absolutely agree, this is a non issue, but the detractors will work hard to muddy the waters and make it an issue.

To give an analogy; A boy asks his father for a new bike for Xmas. The father just doesn't have the money to buy the boy a new bike, so he says to his son;

Dad; "Yes a new bike for Xmas, but bikes are dangerous so no new bike."
Son; "No they are not, lots of kids have bikes and they never get hurt."

Dad; "Yes a new bike for Xmas, but your sister wont have a new bike, that's unfair, so no new bike."
Son; "Sister said she don't mind me having a new bike."

Dad; "Yes a new bike for Xmas, but unfortunately your mother don't want you to have a new bike, so no new bike"
Son; I asked mum and she said she is happy for me to have a new bike."

Dad; "Yes a new bike for Xmas, however they only come in red, and blue is your favourite colour, so no new bike."
Son; "No dad you are mistaken, my favourite colour is red not blue."

Dad; "No matter what you bloody say son, you ain't getting no bloody new bike, I don't have the bloody money!"

Thanks Paul.

I guess if people have made up their minds
that's it for them. As I said earlier - Australians
will get it right.

SM,

"Any existing constitutional alteration, amendment or addition can only be repealed, but only by the ratification of another amendment."

Unlike you I don't claim to be a "legal eagle". Show where the High Court can rule on the validity of a constitutional change?

Hi Foxy,

The detractors should stop with their 'false flags' and come clean with what really motivates them to oppose the 'Voice'. From the word go, without hearing any argument in favour, or reading any positive reports, or listening to any commentator speaking in the affirmative, these naysayers in the majority of cases, due to their innate prejudiceism towards Aboriginal Australians were going to vote "NO" regardless. They just view this as another example of over-entitlement for the black fellas.

I too are somewhat confident Australians will vote "YES", but only somewhat not entirely. What I suspect is the Dutton Mob will come out with something like; "Yes we are all in favour of an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, BUT we don't think a constitutional change is necessary, just a bit of Labor legislation (which we can toss out later) will do, SO, we say vote "NO"!

The Coalition are a bit like the bloke you invite to your birthday party, not knowing when it happening, he exclaims; " That means buying you a present. Unfortunately I can't come, because on that day I have to baby sit my Granny's budgie, by the way, what day is your birthday party.

Dear Paul,

shadowminister and you and I certainly have different
interpretations of what was presented in the link I just
gave. I see no point in continuing this conversation
with him. He does not seem to comprehend that the Voice
does not include any veto power. It simply allows First
Nations to advise parliament on laws and policies that
will affect them.

It simply allows First Nations to advise parliament on laws and policies that
will affect them.
Foxy,
That'd be a good thing however, evidence is out there in bulk that predicts inevitable corruption & gross waste of much needed funding for where it is really needed. Definitely not in the pockets of bureaudroids !

indyvidual,

Give it a rest with the bueaudroids(?).

Come up with something new.

While many Australians have out-sourced their thinking to the authorities, I will continue to recognise that if those same authorities are working hard to hide the details of the proposal, it is because they know that many (most?) won't like those details.

For what its worth, if they were to tell me that this new body was going to be democratically elected using the same rules as those applying to parliament, that there would be guaranteed representation from all sectors of the aboriginal diaspora via electoral districts, that the finances of the body would be controlled by treasury, that all corruption rules applying to parliament apply to the Voice as well, that parliamentarians would be barred from sitting in the new body AND that the amendment would very specifically say the Voice was an advisory board, then and only then would I vote for it.

But they won't give us any of those details because they don't intend that those things will be part of the new arrangements.

bueaudroids
Foxy,
First Paul now you. I'm hitting nerves, eh ? Actually it's "bureaudroids" ;-)
I hope the term will make it into the Dictionary describing useless bureaucrats who do more harm to society than the corrupt !

Paul,

Frequently you have shown yourself to be legally illiterate, so let me give you a simple example.

Say a referendum for a voice gets approved in an election but Labor then tries to use this to abolish the senate. Because the referendum question and action are vastly different the high court can block the attempted change to the constitution. Essentially, if the referendum question differs significantly from the proposed constitutional change the high court could block it.

Previously the referendum question and changes have been close matches and as such no challenge has occurred. However, if labor's question is poorly defined, it could set up any proposed modification to be challenged.

Foxy,

The documentation is requiring cooperation at every stage of legislation. If this is constitutionally required, any legislation can be overturned if the "voice" claims a lack of adequate consultation.

This is a de facto veto if not a legal one.

SM,

Where does it say that? When has it been tested? Or are you simply giving us another one of your regular Dennis Denuto style interpretations of the law; "Its Marbo, its the vibe, yes that's it, its the vibe."

Some want a white fellas Voice, set to white fella's parameters with powerless token black representation, to give it the allusion of authenticity, no upperty black fellas allowed. That sounds like some far right posters on this Forum.

shadowminister,

If you believe in our system of government - you would
trust their ability to work out the flaws if and when they
arise. All you've going to be asked at this stage is to
give it a chance. Not look for reasons why you shouldn't do
that. Although I suspect even if they did everything to meet
your requirements - you'd still be against it because I
think that you don't want this to be done in any shape or
form so- stop arguing about it and own up that you're against
it - no matter what.

At least that would be honest. Now you're just mischief-making
and muddying the waters.

Come up with something new
Foxy,
Not new but a fine example of bureaudroids doing their thing - Robodebt !

What does that have to do with the Voice?

Maybe nothing but it’s a fine example of what Government minions can do if given the chance.

I’d like to know how representatives of the Voice will be elected, and if electors have to be of Aboriginal descent, how that is to be proved to the complete satisfaction of the Electoral Commission.

Not new but a fine example of bureaudroids doing their thing - Robodebt !"

Did anyone catch the 'Lying Cow' Reynolds and ScumO' Morrison before the Robodebt RC, lying, being purposely evasive. In government these grubs lie and cheat, and they believe everyone else must be just like them.

Paul1405,
The greater number of bureaucrats & bureaudroids are cemented-in Labor supporters & whatever transpires in those departments is their doing !
No Coalition Govt. Minister actually asked any of them to do what they did i.e. not doing their duties ! Many people were let down by them & not by Govt !

Hi Foxy,

My wife just read your comment to shadowminister, she said why is she being so nice to that guy, just call him for what he is; "A bloody racists bigot!" I tend to agree.

Paul,

If you want to stop looking like an idiot, you should look it up yourself.

Foxy,

That's exactly the problem. I don't trust politicians to do anything that doesn't serve their interests. Abolishing the ABCC benefits only the unions and certainly not the taxpayers.

Raiding the coal and gas companies to give a small short-term price drop in the electricity price has already cost the taxpayer $bns in compensation to the states and will cost $bns in lost tax revenue. There is no economic theory that says this is a good idea and it is done simply to win votes.

Similarly, Juliar's outrageous lie to the voters got her power but doomed Labor to 9 years of opposition.

In short there is no good reason to trust Labor to do the right thing.

Foxy,

To quote PVO (normally leans to labor)

"But good short-term politics isn’t always the same as good politicking into the medium to longer term. Across that sort of time frame, the links between good politics and good policy tend to become sharper, and the energy deal struck is anything but good policy. In fact, it is an out-and-out shocker, one that will do more harm than good in several ways."

Well, I looked it up Mr Legal Eagle, and here's the answer;

"The High Court of Australia and other federal courts do not have any role in changing the Australian Constitution." Your claim that the High Court can reverse the outcome of a referendum is nonsense, only an idiot would believe it.

Now who looks the idiot.

You certainly have earned the title of the village idiot.

At no point did I claim that the high court could reverse the results of a referendum and only an idiot would think that.

Read what I actually said not what you thought I did and try again.

SM,

And you have earned the title of Forum Fascist. Anyone can clearly see you oppose an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, not on any legalistic or moral grounds, you know stuff all about the law, and your morals are of the alley cat variety, but from your high perch of resentment towards people of colour. Aboriginal people should not feel special, as you have racists and bigoted opinions towards all of dark skin. See how you maligned Maori people, particularly after the Christchurch massacre. Time for you to change your 'nick' again, this ones has become putrid!

Village idiot,

I see that you were too stupid to work out what I was saying.

You are definitely a village idiot who supports the "voice" even when you don't know what it is.

Twit.

Village idiot,

I have made my objections clear, it is just that you are too stupid to understand.

You continuously lie and have the morals of your mate Doig.

It seems that the Labor Government, acting in the utterly fearless and fair way that has always characterised it, has decided that organisations pleading the “Yes” vote will be entitled to tax deductions but those advocating “No” will not be so entitled.

The Electoral Office will, for the first time ever in the history of Referendums in Australia will not be putting both cases to the electots.

These statements may be wrong as they were sourced from the Daily Telegraph.

"These statements may be wrong as they were sourced from the Daily Telegraph." Nah Issy, there has never be a word of a lie printed in the "Murdoch Gutter Press", never ever, how could you possibly even think that.

But are the statements true or false?

Hi Issy,

I hate true or false questions there are so many possible answers! My answer is a pineapple. BTW, is there a prize attached? That's a question as well. Is it the “Lamborghini” you won by backing both Labor and the Coalition to win and lose the last election. Who did you back in the Fijian election? Another question! Seems the Opposition was leading just before all the ballot boxes blew up. Me thinks it calls for a "stewards inquiry". What do you think? Another question.

Unfortunately my betting days are over, seems that what I was doing is considered bookmaking, and the fact that I declared my winnings for tax purposes saved me from more than a warning to desist. Such is life!!