Recognition and closing the gap are lost in the Voice debate

Question 1: Why can't we simply amend the ways NIAA works rather than having an extra house like the Voice and add extra cost and complexity to how government must function in relation to Aboriginal affairs?

Question 2: Why can't we simply replace any current, non-productive staff/advisors with the best ones from the pool of Yes Campaign advisors / leaders?

Clearly, we are NOT dealing with the recognition of Indigenous people in our constitution, which is what this referendum should have been about.

And we rightly wonder if this Uluru Statement is really a document to recognise Indigenous Australians, to help lift their lot and close the gap.

Looking at the bottom half of the page one Statement, it seems more like a cleverly designed quest for unfettered and 'non-justiciable' power by the Indigenous elite, manoeuvring the Yes campaign.

It is not surprising to see Yes protagonists getting irate when quizzed about details.

That technique is no less than intellectual and emotional blackmail in many ways. They at times, carrying an air of exclusionary entitlement, suggest all non-indigenous Australians are somehow guilty of base racism and do not have the right to ask any questions.

That is exactly where the problem lies.

It is not disputed that wrongs have been committed in the past.

It also cannot be disputed that redressal of those wrongs should be part of the solution to close the gap.

But the question is whether what is being proposed is the best way forward.

It should be common sense and beyond reproach to compare what we have in place with what is being proposed, to see if the proposed change is necessary.