Recognise aboriginals in the constitution and add an advisory board that can’t simply be removed by the next government. It says it right there.
That’s not the details people are asking for. How many people would be on the advisory board? How would they be selected? How long would their terms be?
They. Would. Not. Give. Us. Any. Details. This is a huge part of the reason why they lost. People don’t trust the government, and this was a huge “trust us, we’ll definitely do the right thing this time” move. It’s no surprise it backfired so badly.
So now you know, had you done some basic research you would have gotten your answer.
Maybe try not being so smug when you’re incorrectly answering questions next time.
They list the constitutional amendment process on the page, a lot of the finer details are decided on afterwards, this has been the case for almost all referendums. It mentions specifically that consultation with aboriginal leaders, parliament and the broader public would help design the voice. It also mentions that it would work alongside existing organisations and structures, again, advisory boards are very common.
They also explicitly state that the voice would be chosen by aboriginal and torres strait islander people based on the wishes of the community. It also says members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the torres straight islands.
If it’s the structure of a referendum that you have a problem with then cool, but it wasn’t a good reason to vote no.
Also please read, it talks about all of your questions. It’s honestly frustrating to hear you say it doesn’t talk about any of it when all of these things are covered in the official literature.
This isn’t one of the things that should be out in the constitution and “have the finer details decided on afterwards”. An advisory board with no power doesn’t belong in the constitution.
There is no “official literature” with what it would look like if it won. There are lots of ideas, but nothing concrete. It can’t be both “we’ll work out the details later” and “here are the details”.
They give you the details in the literature but parliament is still the one to decide what it ultimately looks like if it passed so what’s the point in making it all “concrete” if it all changes? I really feel like you have no idea of how any of this works. And they tell you exactly what would have went into the constitution, if they changed the law so that the board had no power it would be unconstitutional.
I’m not going to respond anymore because honestly you just seem willfully ignorant.
You yes voters just can’t help but keep trying to make everyone think that you’re so much smarter than us no voters can you? 😂
I know how it works, which is why I think attempting to make a Constitutionally protected advisory group is stupid.
Labor didn’t even put out a “if this succeeds this is what we will do and this is what the voice will look like”. Something as simple as that would have made a world of difference.
I’m happy you won’t respond anymore, I’ve had enough smug virtue signalling.
That’s not the details people are asking for. How many people would be on the advisory board? How would they be selected? How long would their terms be?
They. Would. Not. Give. Us. Any. Details. This is a huge part of the reason why they lost. People don’t trust the government, and this was a huge “trust us, we’ll definitely do the right thing this time” move. It’s no surprise it backfired so badly.
Maybe try not being so smug when you’re incorrectly answering questions next time.
literally everything you just asked is answered in the links, maybe try learning how to read lol
Literally none of it is.
What was this Albanese governments makeup of the voice going to look like? How were they going to be selected? What were the term limits?
They list the constitutional amendment process on the page, a lot of the finer details are decided on afterwards, this has been the case for almost all referendums. It mentions specifically that consultation with aboriginal leaders, parliament and the broader public would help design the voice. It also mentions that it would work alongside existing organisations and structures, again, advisory boards are very common.
They also explicitly state that the voice would be chosen by aboriginal and torres strait islander people based on the wishes of the community. It also says members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the torres straight islands.
If it’s the structure of a referendum that you have a problem with then cool, but it wasn’t a good reason to vote no.
Also please read, it talks about all of your questions. It’s honestly frustrating to hear you say it doesn’t talk about any of it when all of these things are covered in the official literature.
This isn’t one of the things that should be out in the constitution and “have the finer details decided on afterwards”. An advisory board with no power doesn’t belong in the constitution.
There is no “official literature” with what it would look like if it won. There are lots of ideas, but nothing concrete. It can’t be both “we’ll work out the details later” and “here are the details”.
They give you the details in the literature but parliament is still the one to decide what it ultimately looks like if it passed so what’s the point in making it all “concrete” if it all changes? I really feel like you have no idea of how any of this works. And they tell you exactly what would have went into the constitution, if they changed the law so that the board had no power it would be unconstitutional.
I’m not going to respond anymore because honestly you just seem willfully ignorant.
You yes voters just can’t help but keep trying to make everyone think that you’re so much smarter than us no voters can you? 😂
I know how it works, which is why I think attempting to make a Constitutionally protected advisory group is stupid.
Labor didn’t even put out a “if this succeeds this is what we will do and this is what the voice will look like”. Something as simple as that would have made a world of difference.
I’m happy you won’t respond anymore, I’ve had enough smug virtue signalling.