There are too many pertinent details that haven't been released. There can only be two possible reasons for that:

* they haven't worked the details out yet, in which case what's the rush?
* they have worked them out but suspect that if the details were released many potential "yes" voters would become firm "no" voters.

Its safe to assume that the details are being withheld because they would be unpopular. It'll be interesting to see just how compliant the population has become and if they'll just 'trust' their rulers as they did with the pandemic.

The only saving grace out of all this is that future parliaments will be able to fix whatever disasters this bit of virtue signalling creates. (Rhian is right, one parliament can't bind its successors.)

Josephus,

Foxy advised "I am not going to spoon-feed you."

Whenever someone refuses to provide evidence for their suspect claims by asserting that you can do it yourself, its safe to assume that there is no such evidence and, worse, that they know there's no such evidence.

Case in point...
Foxy says "The Constitution has specific laws just for Aboriginal people and they are discriminatory laws. Look them up for yourself."

Don't bother. The Australian Constitution contains no, nada, nix references to aboriginals. All such references were removed in 1967.

People who misunderstand so much or are so easily misled are going to vote "yes" - the carpet-baggers are counting on it.

Ttnb

Yes, you’re right, what’s in the constitution can only be changed by referendum. But that’s not my reading of what Everald is advocating. He suggests passing legislation detailing how the Voice will work in advance of the referendum, to be triggered only if the referendum returns a “yes” vote. The enabling legislation and constitutional change are linked, but separate. That might work, and has the merit of clearing up any confusion about the details of how the Voice will work in practice in advance of the referendum. But unless all the detail of the enabling legislation is repeated or mandated in the constitutional amendment – which would be highly unorthodox, and fraught with its own problems – then there would be nothing to stop subsequent parliaments changing the enabling legislation. In a nutshell, the constitution mandates there must be a Voice; parliament decides how that is put into practice, and passes legislation to that effect. But the current parliament cannot prevent a future one from changing the enabling legislation in future, as Everald proposes.

Indyvidual

Over the years there have been many different legal and administrative definitions of indigenous people, all of them in some way problematic:

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/essentially-yours-the-protection-of-human-genetic-information-in-australia-alrc-report-96/36-kinship-and-identity/legal-definitions-of-aboriginality/#:~:text=These%20statutes%20have%20generally%20defined,the%20Aboriginal%20race%20of%20Australia'.

I don’t think what people look like is particularly important – ancestry is an element, but also culture and being recognised as a member by a recognised indigenous group. We can live with this ambiguity for the moment, but if people have to prove they are indigenous to be a member of, or vote for a member of, the Voice then I can’t see how that can work without verifiable and objective criteria defining who is and is not indigenous, which I think would be very problematic

legal and administrative definitions of indigenous people,
Rhian,
I'm all for indigenous Australians to make decisions that affect their lives. However, from my observations there are now people identifying as indigenous although they do live the live they say has been denied to them. Many in fact live far more prosperously without the effort those whom they accuse of having denied them opportunities have to put in.
I know people who identify as Australian indigenous when they're actually not. The danger I can see with this VOICE is that more such people clamber aboard the bandwagon, pushing genuine indigenous aside. It has, is & will happen more if the VOICE takes effect. Integrity-devoid bureaucrats of every complexion will syphon the coffers dry just as they did & still do.
That's my concern.

Josephus,

I was so sure that you'd be able to find your own answer
to the question you asked me earlier. But then mhaze
stepped in and re-assured you there was no such
thing, so of course why should you bother looking for it.

However, may I politely suggest that you look into
Section 51 (26) of the Constitution. It's about the
Australian parliament's access to make special laws
regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Its the race power law.

And then there's also Section 25 of the Constitution which
is no longer used - but it still exists.

You're welcome.

Oh dear Foxy, you are so easily misled....

Section 25 doesn't mention aboriginals/natives/indigenous or any other euphemism. But it is true that it once applied to races like aboriginals. But it wasn't discriminatory against them, it was used to penalise states that discriminated against them. ie it was pro-aboriginal not anti-aboriginal. Is that too complex for you to follow?

Section 51(xxiv)..." The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good
government of the Commonwealth with respect to:...
(xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."
Note: "any race". But the clueless are fed the line that it is discriminatory and they fall for it, facts be damned.

Note for the clueless - s51(xxvi) once did indeed discriminate against aboriginals but was changed in 1967. Some people haven't caught up yet.