The referendum information makes it clear that it is an advisory body and only on matters affecting the indigenous community. There is no obligation on the government to accept or act on that advice. So how is this risky?
There are no details. Our constitution does not provide any detail on how parliament should operate. It makes no mention of a Prime Minster or Cabinet. The details are legislated by parliament. Shouldn’t we trust our parliamentary representatives to do the same for the Voice?
It risks legal challenges and delays.
There is no ‘litigation proof’ legislation. All legislation on the statute books is subject to litigation. What makes the Voice legislation riskier?
It will be permanent.
This is patently untrue. Section 127 of the Constitution was cancelled after the 1967 referendum. So too can the Voice if it meets the criteria for change.
It will divide us.
People vote differently on some issues without animosity and forget those differences on other matters. Why would the Voice divide us?
All the Voice does is restore some dignity and respect to a dispossessed people by guaranteeing in the constitution that the indigenous voice will be heard.