Mr Barnett, who early in his pre-politics career was responsible for writing surveys for the Australian Bureau of Statistics, said the double-barrelled question flagged by the Prime Minister posed a technical risk to the referendum’s success.
He said the chances of a voice being introduced in some form would be increased if the public were instead asked two questions: firstly, whether they supported an Indigenous voice; and secondly, whether that should be enshrined in the Constitution.
While he believed the Australian public would be broadly supportive of an Indigenous body that provides advice on issues affecting Aboriginal people, having that body enshrined in the Constitution could be a harder sell.He said he supported the idea of an Indigenous voice but was “far from convinced” that it should be enshrined in the Constitution.
“I think most Australians would support a voice, but there would be great doubts about it going into the Constitution,” Mr Barnett said.
Opponents of a voice, he said, could use the constitutional element to sow doubts about the overall plan and derail the voice referendum.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/indigenous-voice-question-flawe...Indeed.
Although you do not need a referendum to set up an advisory body of Aborigines and call it the Voice.
It just shows that the Voice doesn't need to be in the constitution and insisting on putt im ng it in there is NOT about establishing it but something completely different: sovereignty and treaty.
But if you put that to a referendum - do you support the recognition of 'First Nations' sovereignty and if yes, a treaty between them and the States and the Commonwealth - it would be supported only by the lunatic fringes of the Green Left and their media organs, the ABC and the Grauniad and Schwartz Media.
Forum
Pages: 
