The Guardian, 24 March, provides useful info on:

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

"A bill containing the proposals will be introduced to federal parliament [ON Thursday 30th March]. It will be referred to a parliamentary committee, which will examine the wording of the bill.

The exact format and membership of the committee – which will run through April and May – has not yet been announced.

Asked [23rd March] if the proposed wording was final, Albanese said “of course it can be altered” through the committee, although he added: “I would take a lot of convincing before I would support any amendment.”

“This is quite clearly what we are going forward with,” he said.

The government hopes to pass the bill in June. Laws around referendums dictate that once a constitutional alteration bill is passed, the referendum must be held between three and six months later.

The government has already said it plans to hold the referendum between October and December, and it’s expected the vote will be held at the beginning of that period.""

More see http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/23/the-proposed-voice-to-parliament-question-has-been-revealed-what-happens-next

More from the Guardian, 24 March, article:

WHAT WILL THE VOICE LOOK LIKE?

The government maintains its longstanding position that many of the exact details of the voice – such as precisely how many members it will have – will be locked in after a successful referendum vote, after further consultation with Indigenous communities.

But on Thursday [23rd March], the working group – an advisory body of Indigenous leaders put together by the government – released a broad set of design principles.

Those include that:

* The voice’s membership would be chosen by Indigenous people in a way that suits local communities.

* It would be representative of geography and gender.

* It would have representatives from each state and territory, the Torres Strait Islands, remote areas and the mainland Torres Strait Islander population.

* It would be accountable and transparent.

* It would work alongside existing organisations, and not run any programs or have veto power.

* Uluru statement co-chair Prof Megan Davis, a referendum working group member and UNSW constitutional academic, said the voice would have “an extraordinary impact” on the government’s work because it could make proactive suggestions.

“It doesn’t have to wait to be engaged by the parliament, it doesn’t have to wait to be consulted, it can make representations on its own initiative … it’s a very powerful mechanism,” she told Radio National on Thursday.""

More see http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/23/the-proposed-voice-to-parliament-question-has-been-revealed-what-happens-next

MAV COMMENT

We'll see if the principles above pan out.

Hmmm, lot to argue about in this latest version.
It seems that multiple demands could be made on one issue.
One to the Speaker of the House, one to the PM and one to the Gov Gen.
Also another to the minister and another to various public servants !
I doubt it would get that bad, but several could be in the sights.
The one to the GG could be to dismiss the PM or a Minister.
If one of those refused to act as requested then a petition to
the High Court could be made.
As I understand it even to stop a declaration of war is possible.

However the fundamental question "Who is an Aborigine ?"
has not been answered. Foxy once said there are three definitions now
used by government.
Even Aborigines are unhappy about the Ticka-Boxers !

Note in California all blacks can be awarded $3 million because their
ancestor was a slave, even if he wasn't !
Look forward to something like that.

What would/could the Indigenous propose to Parliament with the Voice that they can't propose now ?

Indy,

Why are you such a hypocrite? When I told you I had Aboriginal heritage you then racially abused me, calling me a "CONCRETE JUNGLE BUNNY"! You have never posted one positive word about Aboriginal people on this forum, only negative. "You're the one with so much hatred towards those you call out" YOU, with your hatred of public servants demanding that 95% be sacked, for no other reason than YOU were dismissed, for mostly likely incompetence from the service yourself!

With your holier-than-thou attitude you criticise those on welfare, such as young folk, demanding that they be pressed ganged into some ridiculous 'Boot Camp' as a form of punishment, yet you are a welfare leach yourself, and have been most of your life in Australia!

Listening to a Constitutional lawyer last night he said the question is so vague it will affect every area of Government, as the Voice will have to be consulted on every Bill brought before Parliament if this goes ahead. This means that they have power over Government decisions and can go to the High Court if they disagree with decisions of Government.

Obviously Albanese has fallen under the spell of the elite aboriginals and is not confident in his decision, which is why he is shedding tears. He could not meet a delegation of dinkum aboriginals from Alice Springs whose concerns should be dealt with by the Voice. In other media reports I have seen of the welcoming of the Voice aboriginals were supporting the announcement with the black power salute.