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"Any existing constitutional alteration, amendment or addition can only be repealed, but only by the ratification of another amendment."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