When the Republic referendum began gaining momentum in the 1990s, the pro-Republic movement also pushed for a referendum based on the principle with the detail to be followed later. They were in favour of a republic with an appointed head of state but preferred to keep that model in the background.

It was the genius of Howard that forced them to put all their cards on the table and when the voters saw what was really being proposed they responded with a "thanks but no thanks".

Same here. If those pushing this thought for a second that the public would be supportive of the proposal if all the details were released, they'd release those details. The simple fact that the details are being hidden is prima facie evidence that they know it would be unacceptable to the public. So they go down this very undemocratic path - give us the power and then we'll tell you how we'll use it.

But if the pandemic lockdown policies showed us anything it is that the public are no longer prepared to defend their freedoms and prefer to delegate their thinking to authoritarian bodies.

I think that we'll look back on all this years from
now and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Anyhow - I trust our government. I support the Voice
to Parliament. I feel that most Australians support
it as well. We can argue over this for as long as
we like - however the end results shall speak for
themselves. Australians usually get it right in the
end. As our recent elections has shown. Anyway - that's
my opinion.

SM,

All legislation can be challenged in the High Court, the parliament has not only the power to enact legislation, but also the power to negate and/or amend legislation. In 1967 when the people voted in favour of giving the Federal government the power to enact laws pertaining to Aboriginal people, there was at the time no specific laws proposed, should not have the people voted "NO" on the grounds that the Tories could not be trusted to enact laws in the interest of the people. The Australian Constitution was not voted on by Australians, but was passed into law by an act of the British parliament. Some in the Aboriginal community are not longer clamouring for recognition through "settler" law but are seeking sovereignty, something that has never been ceded to the settler state. In NZ one of the sticking points with the Treaty of Waitangi is the wording where the treaty cedes "Governance" to the British crown, it does not cede "Sovereignty" which has a different meaning. To this day the Maori hold sovereignty over the lands of Aotearoa. Like in Australia the settler state took sovereignty over the lands upon themselves without establishing any legitimate claim.

Dear Paul,

I've come across the following link which gives
a very clear explanation as to why non-indigenous
Australians should not fear a first nations Voice
to Parliament. It explains things very well:

http://theconversation.com/non-indigenous-australians-shouldnt-fear-a-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-176675

Paul,

You didn't read or understand my post as you repeated much of what I said.

If the exact details of the voice are written in the constitution, they cannot be changed by the high court. If they are defined by legislation the next government could change the voice into 5 people in a shed near the parliament house.

If the referendum is completely vague, any amendment to the constitution can be challenged in the high court.

shadowminister,

I feel that your concerns are not warranted. Read
the link I've just given. Try to keep an open mind.