Seems like a fairly non-sensationalist article that uses non-scare tactics to support the voice.
Thank you for sharing this. It is really concise and informative.
I’m confused by the response to question six, though. We already have the National Indigenous Australians Agency.
https://www.niaa.gov.au/who-we-are/the-agencyIn 2022, they were allocated government funding of $269M to fulfil what seems to be the intention of the Voice.
It’s kinda interesting. The nuts and bolts legislation will only be ironed out after the changes to the constitution. Which is not unusual, apparently.
So, it’s almost like voting for the principle of the Voice.
Also, I wonder if the singing show The Voice will have to to change its name…
They should rename the show to “Feelgood Tripe To Help Forget Peter Dutton is Still Liberal Party Leader” lol
Thanks for sharing, hopefully this will help counteract some of the disinformation we’ve seen spread.
I’m all for it. More democracy sounds good to me.
To be clear, this detail is not part of the constitutional amendment – and it is entirely normal for constitutions to leave this type of detail to be worked out in future by the parliament.
That statement is completely false.
There is not a single constitutional vote that has not outlined in full the changes to the constitution.
It’s extremely common for law to be established in 2 seperate ways, an act that defines what it’s for and who it effects and regulations that establish the how.
I think that’s what the article is saying; we are being polled on the concept of the voice, the actual wording of the specific law will be nailed down in parliament once they have approval to do it.
In an area that I happen to know a lot about, Gun laws in South Australia, there is the Firearms Act 2015 and the corresponding Firearms Regulations 2017
