Paul,

Indigenous lived 10-20 years longer than those in Britain. Really

Do you have real proof of this? I call bollocks.

I do not bother to listen to Paul, Steele, and Foxy as they have no input to the Voice and what is proposed by those elite aboriginals pushing the Voice to be in the constitution. Linda Burney upholds that the Voice will make recommendations on health, education, and employment. When asked in Parliament, she said it will not be about parking fines - which is State government. She is not across her indigenous Ministerial position and is hiding the Uluru program.

Josephus,

Evidence please or go away.

As we know - the YES campaign has kicked off and is
gaining momentum despite the Nay sayers and misinformation.

We need to look closely at precisely what it hopes to
achieve and what do the critics say - and what are the
next steps.

http://smh.com.au/politics/federal/with-the-yes-campaign-set-to-officially-begin-why-is-the-voice-referendum-on-a-knife-edge-20230627-p5djx6.html

Foxy, from your link:

"Pretty much all the detail about how it would operate, who would participate and how it would make its views known will be finalised and then legislated only if the referendum succeeds"

Nar, it doesn't work like that...

You don't buy a house, and then they tell you the price and interest rate after you signed on the dotted line.
- Only an idiot would entertain this kind of a process.

I want all the information fully detailed first.
Then I will decide, otherwise it's an automatic NO.
It's not even something that can be considered or voted on, if they wish to lay out the fine print afterwards.

The answer is 'no', but no just ANY 'no'.
It's a 'no' that is the absolute end of the question,
Treated with contempt, like it's ridiculous even asking;

If you don't want to lay out the details before I sign,
- Then it's an automatic 'no', end of story.

The government should stop wasting everyones time and money.

Dear Armchair Critic,

In answer to - Do Australians have enough detail to vote
at the referendum?

Law experts explain that:

There are TWO typed of detail.

The first is the detail about the constitutional
change. This is the bit Australians are being asked to vote
on and the bit that is "permanent." Subject to a future
referendum. There is heaps of detail in relation to the
constitutional change including the wording of the amendment,
the referendum question. The explanatory memorandum to the
amendment, a parliamentary report and the government has
even taken the extraordinary route of releasing the
solicitor general's advice on the legal soundness of the
amendment.

The 2nd is the detail about the legislation establishing the
"nuts and bolts" of the Voice. The detail is not part of the
constitutional amendment and it is entirely normal
for constitutions to leave this type of detail
to be worked out in the future by the parliament.

It would be misleading to release final detail of the Voice
because this detail would need to be passed through parliament
and would be subject to future change.

However, there is some detail what the Voice will look like.
The government has taken the sensible option of indicating
what it will do following a successful referendum, and
how it will go about setting up the Voice.

It has worked with the Referendum Working Group to finalise a
set of design principles that provide the outline and what
the Voice will look like, who it will represent Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people across the country
and what functions it will have and how it
will be accountable.