Cathy Freeman says Vote Yes. Really???

Originally posted by ejd99: ↑

Scott, you initially posted:

"
cheers ejd... ATO laws apply to everyone equally. so no, the Voice will not be able to advise on taxation or to advise the ATO.
"

Well, the aged pension laws also apply everyone, but you now say that the Voice should be able to advise the Parliament ????

What about criminal laws ?

Your logic is flip flopping.

As for advice only !

As I said initially, the wording is vague - this suited the activist narrative, but has scuttled the fundamental objective and intent sold to the voting public - IMHO it is really good that the activists played their cards so early so we all could see the deception and power grab.

"A bridge too far"

I was initially a soft NO, but now after researching, a hard NO - you have helped, thanks.

As a taxpayer, I now want to know where all the billions of $ are going without any significant improvement to the problems.
Time for a Royal Commission into the whole industry (it may well turn out that "business model": is a more appropriate description).

Expand

g'day ejd.....

did you read what I wrote on ATO?
criminal laws aren't the issue. they do apply to everyone. where the problem lies is in the application of those laws. policing and judgement demonstrate a clear bias that favours penalising Aboriginal people and avoiding policing or judging people with light skin. this is obvious in every state. even people with light skin who claim Aboriginal heritage are less present in prison populations despite there being more light skinned Aboriginal people in the community.
the Aus has been clearly biased against the Voice in all that we've seen. one little phrase gets so overused and comes complete with negative emotive language
of course the "wording is vague" as the legislation is yet to be developed. constitutional phrasing must be inherently soft so as to enable interpretation. but if you read the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the constitutional insertion you'll get a clearer understanding of how the High Court is to interpret the Voice
where is the power grab when the Voice will have no power or authority over funding, programs etc... all they'll have is representative advice.
the Voice will research where all the money has been wasted and advise on reducing wasted resources.
there've been numerous Royal Commissions, senate inquiries and many such investigations. recommendations have been made and mostly ignored. the Productivity Commission produced the latest report on Aboriginal services and handed it to Gov in '21. it recommended a consultative committee of Aboriginal people to manage these services and so the NIAA was created.... what has been the outcome? no improvement and increased costs.

clearly ejd...... a Voice for Aboriginal people is required and will more likely result in improvements as all previous efforts have failed.