.

(Continued …)

.

Professor Anne Twomey, one of the experts advising the federal government on this referendum, explains that a simple constitutional amendment followed by more detailed legislation makes sense.

"We don't want things frozen into the constitution that might be hard to change in the future. We want to have flexibility".

"So, if the Voice isn't working well, if there are problems in it, say corruption or some sort of other issue, then you can legislate to resolve that."

That seems good sense to me. Unless there is something contrary to that in the wording, I shall probably vote “yes”.

The racist arguments of the politically conservative religious organisations don’t hold water so far as I am concerned (c.f., Jeremiah 2:13 KJV).

This is how I see it :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrLTe1_9zso&ab_channel=rich963

.

Dear Banjo,

Your comments raise another problem with the referendum. The government could just legislate the Voice. This would save $300 million and would allow voters to see how it works in practice. If it works well then a referendum could be proposed if it were thought necessary. If it fails to meet expectations, then the legislation could be amended or repealed. This approach would also the Voice to be replaced if a better solution were found.

To give an analogy, it is like committing to full production without making or testing a prototype, which strikes me as ill-considered.

The Voice has zilch to do with social, economic or humanitarian issues, it's about power to satisfy the unwarranted hatred of pseudo indigenous activists !

Dear Fester,

The following link explains why we just can't establish
the Voice to Parliament:

http://theconversation.com/why-cant-we-just-establish-the-voice-to-parliament-through-legislation-a-constitutional-law-expert-explains-203652

The heavily government-subsidised and pampered Qantas has joined the the Yes cheer squad. How much of our money is being used by Albanese to garner support from the corporates. There is really nothing in it for Big Business to barrack for the Voice: it certainly pisses consumers off. So, they must be getting nice big bribes and benefits from the corrupt Albanese government. Same with sporting organisations.

Dear Foxy,

The four points in your link are:

-Constitutional change is part of the Uluru statement.

-Constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians.

-Constitutional change will make the Voice impossible to remove by an act of parliament.

-Constitutional change will give the Voice strong popular legitimacy.

These are far from good reasons not to test a legislative prototype of the Voice, which the opening sentence of your link admits is possible. Further, if the referendum fails, then it might be difficult for a government to legislate the Voice in the face of public disapproval. This would be especially bad if the Voice is as good an idea as you believe.