John Farnham, page-48

personally I think there's some good arguments against the early probability of effectiveness of the voice

This is something which I believe could well be correct -

''Warren Mundine has explained this concept in this way:
Here’s where Voice advocates are ignorant of (or deliberately ignoring) Aboriginal cultures. No Aboriginal person can speak for another country, only their own. Where’s the proposal for a constitutional voice for the Bundjalung people (my country on my father’s side) or the Gumbaynggirr or Yuin people (my countries on my mother’s side)?
The Voice won’t, and can’t, represent Indigenous people as a group.''

now that could be an probably is true -------------- HOWEVER, you have to begin somewhere -

the differences in aboriginal nations eventually MUST be addressed ------- it's like when the EU formed

my god - one can imagine exactly the same argument applying for getting Italians, Dutchmen, Spanish and Germans to agree on the same things and be represented by one view on many things

BUT ----------- they did. Regardless of how many differences that nations in the EU have - they have worked together and worked together in a generally respectful way and have a lot of commonalities

if Mundine is correct - then different aboriginal groups, tribes, nations need to get on with it ---

and the voice - is a very good place to begin.

they are not going to develop by sitting out as individual groups.

The voice, just like the EU., isn't going to be a panacea - and it isn't going to be all peace, harmony and loving -

but, it's a bloody good start