"1) A simple YES/NO question will be asked."

Just like every other referendum. That's how referenda work. That's equivalent of telling us the sun will rise in the east.

"1) The government will outline key elements of the Voice
by the end of 2022."

Finally. We got there. So the details aren't as yet known....despite telling us earlier that if only we were as well read as Foxy we'd know the details.

Therefore all those signalling their immense virtue by agreeing with this are doing so while not actually knowing what they are agreeing with. (It reminds me of Bill Shorten..."I don't know what the PM said, but I agree".) Standard thinking of the left it seems. Falling into line is more important than considered opinion.

As I said all that thinking and facts are so icky!

__________________________________________________________________

Shadowminister wrote: "When you put something in the constitution you need very specific"

That's true IF and only if you don't want there to be any ambiguity. OTOH if you make the wording vague you can rely on the lawyers and courts to implement it in ways that the public would never have agreed to

"Therefore all those signalling their immense virtue by agreeing with this are doing so while not actually knowing what they are agreeing with. (It reminds me of Bill Shorten..."I don't know what the PM said, but I agree".) Standard thinking of the left it seems. Falling into line is more important than considered opinion."

I have linked to the proposal for how this process would work more than once. I have pointed out more than once that it is CLEAR this body would have no real power, just a voice. You just don't want to hear

Will the voice be elected and if so, who will constitute the electors?
Will the Voice have to be a member of a specific minor branch of the human race?
Or will any. Australian be eligible to stand?

If eligibility is based on ‘race’ then the proposal is racist, if it isn’t racist then could someone explain why it isn’t?

What will be the pay rate for the Voice?
Will the Voice sit in Parliament?

Foxy has told us that everything about the proposal has been told to us, Burnley says that it hasn’t, one or the other is seriously misinformed.

As the Voice is said to be advisory only, why can it not be set up the same as any other advisory body by a simple act of Parliament?
Why does it need to be in the Constitution?

If it doesn’t work we need to be able to get rid of it without the expense of a Referendum.

suggestion that the "Voice" will be a star chamber of Aboriginals enacting legislation or vetoing parliamentary bills, just not true.
Paul1405,
So, what are the facts ? Will those who perpetually ask for more, suddenly find themselves satisfied ?

VofR:"I have linked to the proposal for how this process would work more than once. I have pointed out more than once that it is CLEAR this body would have no real power, just a voice. You just don't want to hear."

Yes, you did link to a proposal.
But NO you didn't link to a proposal of a process that explains how it WOULD work, but rather how it MIGHT work. And there's a hell of a lot of difference between these two!

While I grant you there is a good chance that if the referendum resulted in a yes vote then the system we get, initially at least, will be somewhat like your proposal. There is also chance, a lesser chance admittedly, that it will be something COMPLETELY different. And having such an unknown, unseen, alternative of the government's own desire is something that we simply cannot take a chance on. Why? Because we are creating a new entity with constitutional power.

The other point you should note is my use of "initially at least" in the above paragraph. Why have I inserted this? Because by the "The Parliament shall, subject to this constitution, have powers to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice." provision that they wish to insert in the constitution (or some wording like that) the deep future maintenance/control of the implementation of the voice will by acts of parliament. So even if we do initially get the voice that your links roughly sketch out the details can change at any point in the future by whim of the government*. And this is for an entity that is constitutionally established and consequently has constitutional backed power. That's nuts!!

[PS: I'm surprised that the aboriginal elites themselves approve of this, because while it's possible that the some future government will increase "The Voice" to something more like "The Screaming Obligatory Demand" (quite plausible given the current trends in politics) it is also theoretically possible that they could reduce it to "The Whisper".]