In fact, I let the SPECTATOR AUSTRALIA in this article explain what's on my very tiny little mind because they can do it so much better:
" The real point of this article is to present just one argument that, in theory, should ensure the rejection of this referendum question. Strangely, as far as I am aware, I am the only person making this case. This question is fundamentally flawed in a way that everyone should be able to understand. A provision in the constitution that references, or rather preferences, a certain group of people, must make it beyond doubt who those people are. If the current criterion – self-identification – is applied, that would open up a can of worms. We need to know who exactly qualifies as an Aborigine and how those persons establish their bona fides. For example, would any degree of Aboriginality in one’s ancestry suffice? If so, then the Aboriginal population can only continue to expand indefinitely, to the point where this will become less and less about disadvantage and more and more about entitlement. If not, then where is the cut-off? 50 per cent Aboriginality? 25 per cent? 12.5 per cent? Wherever it is set, someone is going to be aggrieved. To further complicate the issue, prominent Aboriginal academic, Dr Suzanne Ingram, suggests that as many as 300,000 of the currently reported Aboriginal population of 800,000 may not be genuine.
If this issue is not adequately addressed in the referendum question itself, that alone should be a deal-breaker. I cannot stress this enough. It cannot be left up to parliament, or worse the High Court, to define, expand or contract this demographic at whim. If the Voice goes into the constitution, then it must be the constitution (by means of a referendum) that defines and redefines – over time and as necessary – who is an Aborigine.
To underscore this point, let me refer to Section 15 of the constitution. This covers casual Senate vacancies. The gamesmanship that followed Gough Whitlam’s political opportunism in appointing Senator Lionel Murphy to the High Court caused this section to be rewritten in 1977. That reworked Section 15 is now the most voluminous and prescriptive section of the Constitution, occupying some two pages. My point is this: if a simple matter such as the filling of a casual Senate vacancy requires such a detailed treatment in the constitution, how can we possibly leave the definition of who is an Aborigine so open-ended? It will further entrench tribalism within the Aboriginal community and will become a lawyer’s picnic."
The last time a politician, Senator Alex Antic, raised this question, he was shot down in flames and his questioning called 'borderline racist':
Look at them squirming and hedging their bets, and come out with their answers:
"Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah"
Isn't it downright embarrassing to think that we're governed by people like that?
Mr "Borderline Racist" must be really worried about hanging on to his over-paid job.
That’s right, in this brave new world, to even question why someone with only the tiniest fraction of Aboriginal DNA can set aside the majority of their heritage to claim Aboriginality means you're a borderline racist. I am prepared to very proudly wear that badge!
By the way, I tried to email a link to the article to some friends, headed up 'Who is an Aborigine? The single most important question about the Voice', and had all my emails blacklisted as 'Abusive'. Give us a break!
We are well past "Nineteen Eighty-Four" in every sense of its meaning! Don't buy into this and later suffer from 'buyer's regret'! Vote a big NO!
P.S. If I haven't bored you to death yet, listen to this VOICE OF REASON.
