So will the members of the Voice be elected or appointed? Don't know? Well how can you say you support the idea of the Voice?

Or don't the details matter as much as the warm inner glow?

In July 2021 the Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process
co-chaired by Marcia Langton and Tom Calma is explained
at the following link as is - what detail already
exists about the Voice:

http://theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-how-will-the-constitution-change-and-what-will-australians-be-asked-to-vote-on

Prof. Marcia Langton says:

"When people say they want more detail, all that tells me is
they refuse to read our report because all that detail is there...
I see this demand for more detail as mischief-making and
sowing confusion. We couldn't have been more clear then we
have been... What we've set out in our report for a Voice is
very straightforward and clear, and is the preferred option for
most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people."

This First Nations rubbish has worn very thin.

"First Nations" really refers to hundreds of (often warring) tribes across the continent of Australia that speak over 250 different languages. There was no pre-colonial nation, much less several.

The actual First Nation on this land was established in 1901

Abos couldn't produce a written language in their 50,000 years, and they are not even the oldest continuing group on Earth, as that other blatant lie has it. That distinction belongs to the San people in South Africa, who have been around three times longer than Australia's indigenese .

Foxy

All those BLAXITEER numbers you quote, as some sort of desperate proof, at:

"Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 3 August 2022 2:25:47 PM"

Won't be worth a Tinker's Fart when 15,000,000 Australians vote "NO".

Here is the final report of the Indigenous Voice Co-design
Process:

http://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf

And here's what the public had to say:

http://theconversation.com/what-did-the-public-say-about-the-governments-indigenous-voice-co-design-process-163803

Dear oh dear Foxy,

"When people say they want more detail, all that tells me is
they refuse to read our report because all that detail is there..."

But the PM has said it hasn't been decided if it'll be elected or not. So just because the aboriginals produce a report that trumps what the PM says? Is that your view Foxy?

This of coarse is the essential problem with the entire process. They call it an advisory group but they and people like you treat advice as though its an instruction.

And until we see the details (remember them) of how it'll work, its safe to assume that that is how it will play out. They call it advice and treat it like an instruction. And if the government of the day fails to adhere to the instructions, then every lever of pressure from the ABC through to the courts and the HREOC to the various UN bodies will be employed to enforce the 'advice/instruction'.

I know you can't or don't want to get this but as the campaign to get this through gears up and the voters find out just how little detail the government is prepared to release, I suspect those more concerned with the welfare of the nation rather than the warm inner-glow, will be reconsidering their original agreement with the Voice.

So if you believe all the detail is out there, why won't you answer the original question? You say that people who ask for detail just haven't read enough yet you can't answer the simplest, most fundamental question.....Will they Voice be elected?