I have not heard anything about this in the media but then again I don’t really follow a lot of news channels unless something is important to me. I would hardly think we Brits would think and say that about Australia if anything most people I know here very much like the way Australia “goes about” things. Here in the UK some who think differently from say the Woke, Environmentalists /Greens/migrants/animal rights
etc then your a biggot and racist

Hadn't heard about it in NZ either, so I was pondering the same question.

https://www.niaa.gov.au/indigenous-a...islander-voice

Point 3 in the constitutional amendments is the divider.

Thanks for the link Beoz.

I think the constitutional change is quite balanced - yes there will be a voice (1), and yes the voice can make representations to parliament (2), but at the end of the day parliament retains control (3)

It's the bit about executive government that's the sticking point. It was not in the original proposal but was put in at the insistence of the people developing the voice. Because it's so vague, it's open to interpretation - and potentially the courts will have the final say, effectively overriding parliament. Airbus Albanese needs to give much more detail on this but is currently refusing to do so. This really needs to be sorted out because without doing so, it will probably fail.

Its only fair and right that the voters know exactly what they are voting for…..if on a “vague” this is how it will work by the PM and it’s a major point then I would be very wary in which way I would vote (not that I would even if I could)

And its supposed to be an advisory body. Do we need a referendum to create an advisory body which advises politicians about decisions effect on indigenous people? Surely an advisory body can be created if needed? There are all sorts of advisory bodies available to politicians that didn't need a referendum. Which then leads to my next question. If it does require a referendum, which binds this advisory into the constitution, how much power will they have over decisions which serve a few over the many?

How will this change to the constitution operate in 10 years time, 100 years time, 1000 years time?

The constitution has changed in the past. Before 1967:
The change in 1967 removed 'other than the aboriginal race in any state' from point 51 (xxvi), and point 127 was repealed in entirety.

I think the last change was in the 1970's, but Google can probably give you the facts.

I'm going to guess if it was changed before, and maybe changed now, then it can also be changed in the future.

I'm ineligible. This problem is all yours to deal with.

Yes, yes, and yes.

And long overdue.

If it passes, it won't create any wrenching, immediate change, for good or ill. It will be more like the Mabo case: ground-breaking, in the sense that Mabo broke the illusion of the 'Terra Nullius' argument, and created a "seat at the table" for Aboriginal stakeholders, based on property rights.

Rather, the Voice will create a different seat at a different table, i.e. one which decides on federal social policy, especially as it applies to ATSI people.

Yes

Do we not already have federal social policies that apply to ATSI people?
Do we not already have vocal bodies giving advice on social policies that apply to ATSI people?
Should "one" seat at the table decide on the social policies for ALL ATSI people?
How does this one decision, decided by one body affect non ATSI people?
Every decision made by governments affect Australian citizens which includes ATSI people. Can this body have the power to change all government decisions?

I could rattle these questions off for days but some for a starter.

As posted above, the current wording of the constitution allows "51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:…(xxvi) the people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws" so the argument could be that creating the voice is already allowed for.

A seat at the table doesn't necessarily mean a single seat.

So the Voice virtue signalling if its already allowed for in the constitution? And if its already allowed for then why is it being pushed?