The voice was a 26 page racist, divisive set of demands that was defeated, and is being pursued piece by piece behind the voter's backs at the State and Federal level, and it was a waste of time and money.

Yes, we remember what it was and what we voted for or against in the referendum.

The Voice proposal was voted on in a referendum held on October 14, 2023, to establish a constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through the creation of a Voice to Parliament.

This body would have provided advice to the Parliament and the government on matters affecting Indigenous Australians.

The proposed amendment to the Constitution included three main elements:

1. Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia.
2. Establishment of a new body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
3. Empowering the Voice to make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The referendum asked voters if they approved of altering the Constitution to include these elements.

One of the biggest mistakes made was the wording of the alterations to the Constitution was never included in the vote, it was too open-ended.

And we as a people, said No.

The Voice to Parliament was a key recommendation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Uluru Statement, issued in May 2017, was a consensus position from the First Nations National Constitutional Convention held at Uluru.

It called for several reforms, including:

• Voice to Parliament: A constitutionally enshrined advisory body to give Indigenous Australians a say in laws and policies that affect them.
• Treaty (Makarrata Commission): The establishment of a commission to oversee the process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and to facilitate truth-telling about Australia's history.
• Truth-telling: Acknowledgment and education about the historical and ongoing injustices faced by Indigenous Australians.

We have so far, only addressed one of those recommendations, and it failed.

In this respect, it was a huge waste of time and money, we can agree on that.

The proposal for the Voice to Parliament aimed to provide a formal mechanism for Indigenous Australians to contribute to legislative and policy decisions that impact their communities, although the decisions would ultimately be made by the elected government of the day.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a single-page document. It is a concise and powerful call for constitutional recognition, a Voice to Parliament, and a Makarrata Commission for treaty and truth-telling.

The full text of the Uluru Statement can be easily accessed above.

The statement is supported by a longer report, the Referendum Council's Final Report, which provides context, background information, and detailed recommendations.

This report is where the 26-page figure that Grap continually lies about being the Uluru statement from the heart comes from, but it is not the Uluru Statement itself.  It was also fully available to the public since 2017 and wasn't hidden from the people as part of some conspiracy and then exposed by SkyNews as they claim.

It's another interesting tell that Grap, despite claiming not to, does in fact watch SkyNews.

Grap also confuses The Voice with the wider goal of the Uluru Statement, which seems to be another obviously deliberate ploy to further paint him as the victim since we voted against the Voice yet other elements of the Uluru Statement, those around Truth Telling and Treaty, which were separate from The Voice and we did not vote on, are being considered on state levels.

So to strengthen his position, and use "debate over the voice" as a shield to continue to spout his hate, he pretends to be the victim of all this.

Then there are things that are entirely unrelated like Native Title issues that he cries about on the regular as being "The Voice" too. 

It truly is the ravings of a madman.

The only common element in all of the thing he complains about being the Voice is that they are Indigenous issues, he despises Indigenous Australians receiving anything that might benefit them from the Government or private organisations, if not the people themselves.

I know it's a long read, but the truth matters.

Yes, I expect him to have another meltdown and pretend he's rattling cages or whatever he needs to tell himself to feel better, but the facts are the facts whether he likes them or not.

I don't believe he ever understood what the Voice was and is actively staying ignorant of the truth so he doesn't need to examine his own opinions on the matter and the wider scope of Indigenous issues.

It's important to keep that in mind for anyone foolish enough to engage with this well-documented bad-faith actor on this topic.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 10^th, 2024 at 5:14pm:


Just because you repeat your lie, it doesn't make it true.

The Voice was one recommendation from the Uluru Statement.

The statement is a single page long.

You're referring to the Referendum Council's Final Report, which provides context and background information to the statement, just like any report that follows a convention.

It's all there in black and white, with timelines and links in my post.

Again, repeat the lie all you like, but it doesn't make it true.

What is it they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 10^th, 2024 at 5:43pm:


It was online and available to the public since June 2017.

It didn't need a FOI request.  It was a deliberate ploy to paint it as being hidden information that only the dumbest of us bought hook line and sinker.

That's not the voice - the voice was a 26 page racist, divisive set of demands that was defeated, and is being pursued piece by piece behind the voter's backs at the State and Federal level, and it was a waste of time and money.

Frances wrote on Jul 10^th, 2024 at 6:54pm:


No - it was never fully explained and set in concrete, which left it open to all interpretations.  As I said - I didn't "hate on it" from the outset - I honestly brokered all views on here for all to view and comment on - then spent several days going over those and reports coming in before deciding that it was too open-ended and had no guarantees.

As far as I am concerned, all the 'little' things that I post, which annoy that Cad Sanga so much, are reflections of the kind of things that would have constantly been brought into play by the 'voice' - and each of them dove-tails with the real nature of the Uluru Statement - which is 'control over land, water and resources' - without at that time defining those terms.

Now - if they had said over land we actually directly own, but not over that which we share usage of under native title and definitely not over vast swathes that we demand in various ways - Native Land Act, 'protected areas' - who needs protection of an area where fifteen outsiders visit every year?  The mines have done their work there.... they aren't coming back.  then there is the DELIBERATE confusion - recently set right by the Federal Court - about what 'native title' actually means.*  If they had said over water we directly use...... if they had specified what 'resources' were in play.......

So - the (gasps) dysphoria sets in when people assume that Native Title, Protected Areas, and Native Lands Act holding all mean total ownership - ONLY Native Lands means ownership..... and with this (gasps) dysphoria over ownership - the dysphoria over 'control over lands, water and resources' comes in.  I blame albo and the prime movers of the voice for these failures - which doomed the voice from day one.... now - you're all recognised, bros and sos.... that's my gift to you ..... MOVE ON!

So every single thing was left wide open to 'interpretation' - and we've already seen an attempt by one bloke to say that clearing land not freehold to build a house for his daughter was 'use of resources' in a 'native title' area (fair point) - the court said NO.  HOWEVER - I have ALWAYS said that in any land claim most should be simple Native title and a certain percentage or portion set aside as freehold for those legitimate claimants - so they CAN own land outright and build on it etc. This happened on Fraser Island where the five who live there among  150-odd have freehold over seven hectares.  Cad Sanga calls me a racist for saying that the mainland dwellers have no need or right to claim the entire island, since they already have free shared usage of it under native title  (Intellectually dysmorphic, you see)...

No wonder that Cad Sanga hates me so..... I'm a true non-racist humanitarian - hshe's a racist pure and simple - on the 'other' side of a war where there are no real sides... Brother against Bruvva, bro ... that's not a goer.

BTW - nice to see you back - when I see that name I recall a past lady of mine... if I talk too much, say so.  You're smart though and can absorb it all.


*The Commonwealth Native Title Act sets out how native title rights are to be recognised and protected.

.  does not apply to any land used by the government or any freehold land that's been bought by citizens.

.  it applies to Aboriginal land or unallocated state land, areas of cultural significance, National parks, state forests and reserves.

.  non-exclusive rights to areas

. recognised as holding non-exclusive native title, that means that the rights are exercisable subject to the laws of the state and the Commonwealth.

. can't prohibit people from going places, they can't stop people going onto beaches. Native title isn't a grant of land, it's a recognition of rights.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jul 10^th, 2024 at 6:35pm:


Again mate, just because you repeat a lie many times doesn't make it true.

The voice is a component of the Uluru Statement.

One element.

Not the entire thing.

We didn't vote on the entire thing, only the voice.

It's literal recorded history.

You might not like it, but that's too bad.

The facts don't care about your feelings.

SadKangaroo wrote on Jul 10^th, 2024 at 8:02pm:


That's not the voice - the voice was a 26 page racist, divisive set of demands that was defeated, and is being pursued piece by piece behind the voter's backs at the State and Federal level, and it was a waste of time and money.