Is there a question? Indeed, there are far too many.
According to AIATSIS there are hundreds of First Nations. Is the Voice to be a third chamber with representation from each? No. Such a considerable congress would have no point without legislative capacity. Is the Voice to have capacity to make or break law? No.
Will the Voice recognise First Nations by amending any clause of the alleged ‘Constitution’? No.
Will the Voice recognise First Nations by adding a schedule wherein delegates can ratify their nation joining in to the alleged ‘Constitution’? No.
The Indigenous populations resident when the British arrived are not and have never been one homogenous nation; the ‘Aboriginal’ flag is not possible.
The true descendants of these Indigenous populations aren’t just mere ‘traditional custodians’ but the sovereign people of this land; the rightful owners of this land; the people whose claim of allodial title and eminent domain is inherent. There are no treaties with these people; they never sold their interest. As Great Britain was, and the Australian government remains a foreign, occupying power on this land without treaty, it is not First Nations which need a treaty from us, but we which need a treaty from them to finally have de jure standing at law. Will the Voice address this situation? No.
Australia has no treaties with the sovereigns of this land, and no constitution to amend – just a defunct colony-federating document. So what will the Voice do?
According to Robert French, ex-chief justice of the High Court, a ‘Yes’ vote will grant moral authority for the Australian government to ‘listen’ to the Voice. Who or what is the Voice? How long is the Australian government supposed to ‘listen’ to an unknown entity? Australians have long granted moral authority to the Australian government to help First Nations. To date it has done nothing but make a mountain out of molehill; a political industry out of a myth. Why would the Australian government suddenly be competent to solve anything? All we know is the Voice will forever divide Australia into ‘Indigenous’ and ‘not’. Why would anyone want to vote ‘Yes’ for that?
Mr Kent, are there any more negative comments you can possibly dream up to oppose a Voice in our constitution to allow ALL Aboriginal people especially residing in ALL of regional Australia to “make representation to Govt on matters concerning their livelihoods”? A treaty is currently not on the table, so save the argument for that for some time in the future, at present we are having enough trouble getting a fairly innocuous “Voice” passed, how do you think the extreme right will react to a treaty?
I’m happy to give these activists Makarrata. Makarrata does not mean treaty. It has a very different meaning. I’m not keen on giving Aboriginals makarrata, as that would be senselessly cruel.