From Foxy's link, "In an interview with Sky News Australia, Ms Perkins pointed to the fact there is already a provision in the Australian Constitution for the government to make laws around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It’s been there since 1967, so it’s already there. So this is a minor change in some ways”.

Get rid of all racist inclusions in the constitution, I say. Nor should the Australian constitution refer to anything pre-existing the Australia 'Project' (Lydia Thorpe's term, “I signed up to become a senator in the colonial project, and that wasn’t an easy decision for me personally, and it wasn’t an easy decision for my family either to support me in this” http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/greens-senator-lidia-thorpe-said-she-is-here-to-infiltrate-australias-parliament/news-story/6d16a6a660f7f55612e20455d28d9fc8 ).

Aborigines wanting to destroy our 'Project' can try it without the facilitation of using our words against us, which is exactly how Voice and treaty will be applied. Also, on the back of her own statements, Lydia Thorpe should not be allowed to be a member of Parliament.

How realistic, and just, is it for 350,000 people, estimated to have occupied and wandered over this continent 250 years ago, to claim through their full, partial and even non-progeny, the entire continent and its surrounding ocean as theirs alone? 'Always was, always will be' seems like fighting words to me, and I'm damned if I'm going to give them the words, as well as the legal system free for their use, to destroy the work of our pioneers, my ancestors, who they paint as evil-doers. Frankly it was war, in parts, and not by one sovereign nation against another, so there's no validity in retrospectively applying modern concepts. Treaties are signed when neither 'nation' has won to its satisfaction. This is not that situation, if my vote counts.

It is a lie that details have not been settled and will not be available prior to the referendum. Since 2011, there have been 10 gabfests, and 7 long reports produced. These reports have answered these questions: what the Voice would actually do; who would be on it; how would they get on it, appointed or elected; would it be advisory or would it have legislative powers.

Politicians want to hide the details because they think, or know, that the referendum would not succeed if the revealed them. A great democracy we live in!

Some people also thought that our world would
collapse, regarding same-sex marriage. It didn't.
And if anyone wants explanations - there's enough explanations
on the web for anyone interested enough to search
what the Voice would entail and how it would work.
As it is the design and further details will be
worked out by Parliament. This is only the first step.
And it concerns only laws and policies that will affect
the Indigenous people - so why anyone should have a problem
with that is beyond my understanding.

Indigenous people have put up with a lot - why can't we give
them a say in their own affairs?

A society is judged by the way it treats its most vunerable
people. It's time we Australians gave our Indigenous people
the self-determination that they deserve - which has been
denied to them for decades - be from being able to vote, to
being counted in the Census, to being allowed to drink in
pubs, to having their children taken from them, to not being
given wages for their labour, and the list goes on.

And now some have the cheek to suggest that they are equal to
the rest of us?

Some ideas given here are as useless as rubber lips
on a woodpecker.

For anyone really interested in knowing what the
Uluru Statement From The Heart really is:

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/what-is-the-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-20220524-p5ao6y.html

Troy Bramston has a piece in today’s Australian – “Establish a voice, and let parliament sort out the details” - which raises some interesting points and has caused me to change my view a bit on the level of detail we need before the referendum.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/troy-bramston (sadly, behind a paywall)

I don’t agree with all his points, but these seem valid. He argues:

1. It is highly unusual for constitutional change to be preceded by detailed legislation. The constitution establishes the head of power; Parliament legislates to give that effect. There is no reason why the Voice should be different.

2. Critics of the Voice argue that it could undermine the sovereignty of Parliament. But surely one of the best counters to this is to give Parliament the role of determining exactly how it will take account of the advice the Voice offers.

3. It may be that the form of the Voice, its membership and the mode of their appointment will need to change or adapt over time. This will be much easier to do if these features are not prescribed in the Constitution.

These seem to me quite solid reasons why we should not be too detailed and prescriptive in describing before the referendum how the Voice will work in practice. I still think the government should give some indication of what it has in mind before the vote, but a degree of flexibility in implementing it could be a good thing.

We used to have an aboriginal organisation designed to liaise with government. It was called ATSIC.

It was closed down after operating for 15 years amidst massive corruption and nepotism.

In the age of where people aren't interested in what went before, it seems each generation has to learn through making the same errors as the previous generation.