mhaze,

The following link may help clarify some of your questions:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2022/aug/15/i-will-be-voting-yes-to-establish-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament

"The following link may help clarify some of your questions:"

Well no, it doesn't. Please advise which question(s) were answered in the article and what the answer was.

______________________________________________________________________

Another question....will people be allowed to sit as members of the Voice and MPs or Senators at the same time?

______________________________________________________________________

There is a clear dichotomy in thinking here. Some people are saying they won't decide whether to support or not support the so-called Voice until all of the more important issues about it are resolved and delineated.

Others, more used to leaving all those icky details to others to work out, are saying they'll support the Voice purely on emotive grounds. For these people the details are in the too-hard basket and they'll trust the government to tell them what the details are AFTER the vote. These people are used to deferring to authority.

This is why the government and the aboriginal industry are desperate to keep the issue in the realms of emotion and avoid all questions of detail.

mhaze,

Read the link again, then again, then again.
Keep reading it - it may with any luck eventually sink in.

Patrick Dodson put it rather well when he said that:
" The Australian people are being asked to vote on
principle not on detail."

Australians are not being asked to vote on a specific Voice
model. Rather the Voice will be determined by parliament with
the impact of the community and the Voice itself, and will
evolve and change over time. There's more at the following:

http://theconversation.com/what-do-we-know-about-the-voice-to-parliament-and-what-do-we-still-need-to-know-195720

"Read the link again"

I had a little bet with myself that that is the answer you'd give.

To translate, the link you gave which you claimed would answer the questions doesn't answer the questions but you haven't got the integrity to admit it.

Then hilariously you tell us that " The Australian people are being [a]sked to vote on principle not on detail" which is what I've been saying all along and which you've been denying. It must be interesting to have such flexible principles.

But that's the crux of it. We won't get the details because most would vote 'no' if they knew exactly what they were voting for while others (eg Foxy) are so used to deferring to authority that they don't want to be presented with icky details.

Foxy,

I did read the report, and it calls for a lot more input than simple "advice"

Putting it into the constitution makes it irreversible and if as you stated that all other attempts have been failures, what makes this different?

Giving it a "chance" is all good and well if you can reverse it if it proves to be a disaster.

This has all the hallmarks of a monumental labor cock up.