It simply allows First Nations to advise parliament on laws and policies that
will affect them.
Foxy,
That'd be a good thing however, evidence is out there in bulk that predicts inevitable corruption & gross waste of much needed funding for where it is really needed. Definitely not in the pockets of bureaudroids !

indyvidual,

Give it a rest with the bueaudroids(?).

Come up with something new.

While many Australians have out-sourced their thinking to the authorities, I will continue to recognise that if those same authorities are working hard to hide the details of the proposal, it is because they know that many (most?) won't like those details.

For what its worth, if they were to tell me that this new body was going to be democratically elected using the same rules as those applying to parliament, that there would be guaranteed representation from all sectors of the aboriginal diaspora via electoral districts, that the finances of the body would be controlled by treasury, that all corruption rules applying to parliament apply to the Voice as well, that parliamentarians would be barred from sitting in the new body AND that the amendment would very specifically say the Voice was an advisory board, then and only then would I vote for it.

But they won't give us any of those details because they don't intend that those things will be part of the new arrangements.

bueaudroids
Foxy,
First Paul now you. I'm hitting nerves, eh ? Actually it's "bureaudroids" ;-)
I hope the term will make it into the Dictionary describing useless bureaucrats who do more harm to society than the corrupt !

Paul,

Frequently you have shown yourself to be legally illiterate, so let me give you a simple example.

Say a referendum for a voice gets approved in an election but Labor then tries to use this to abolish the senate. Because the referendum question and action are vastly different the high court can block the attempted change to the constitution. Essentially, if the referendum question differs significantly from the proposed constitutional change the high court could block it.

Previously the referendum question and changes have been close matches and as such no challenge has occurred. However, if labor's question is poorly defined, it could set up any proposed modification to be challenged.

Foxy,

The documentation is requiring cooperation at every stage of legislation. If this is constitutionally required, any legislation can be overturned if the "voice" claims a lack of adequate consultation.

This is a de facto veto if not a legal one.