The whole thing was a fumble. They picked the wrong time and appealed to the wrong people. They also never sold why it needed to happen.
What does a Chinese, Afghan or Sudanese citizen even understand or care about a group of people when they probably have never even met one.
They appealed to the inner city rich snobs and no one else. The inner city was going to vote yes anyway. Why didn't they go where the no votes were?

The whole topic is now radioactive. No politician will touch it for at least the next 10 years.

This is about ensuring it can't be abused. They could have specified how the members would be selected in the wording of the referendum.
They wanted to leave the door open for them to abuse it down the track.

It even says in the Wikipedia article that they would design it after the referendum. They just had a couple of ideas about how it might work.

Don't just dismiss those that disagree with you as conspiracy theory believing nut jobs.
The Yes campaign majorly dropped the ball. They alienated the voters.

There were 2 main issues for me.

1. The wording did not specify how they would be selected.
2. The voice did not require that the members needed to be Aboriginal. So it would have been a bunch of non Aboriginal mates of politicians in the voice. Just like how Tony Abbott got to be the minister for women.

The yes campaign just said trust us it will do nothing so you don't need to worry. What was the point then?

I'm sorry. I did heaps of reading about this and I couldn't find any details. If it was out they did a terrible job of making it available.

There are very few in inner city Melbourne.

We are more progressive. The trouble is the amendment was too vague and if anyone asked questions or suggested that they might vote no, they got called a racist and told to educate themselves.
The Yes campaign ended up mostly using the argument that you should vote yes because conservative are telling you to say no.

This tastes like real milk, and only 2% fat.
Looks significantly at your stomach

Tensions were rising not dropping.

So if you encountered a criminal holding an innocent person hostage, you would shoot the hostage on the off chance that you might also hit the criminal. You would then shoot the paramedic trying to save the hostages' life.
Your version of the trolley problem must be pretty wack.

Don't threaten me with a good time.

With the exception of the festival attack you could just as easily be describing the IDF. Hamas and the IDF are evil.

I am one of the biggest critics of the Libs but I don't think the whole AUKUS debacle can be 100% blamed on them.
The whole thing screams the US forcing Australia to buy the subs to ensure long term control.
If the government doesn't do what they are told then the US can refuse to maintain the subs.
Remember the last prime minister who looked out for Australia's best interests rather than the US's interests got kicked out of government and an unelected lib Prime minister replaced him.

Maybe try some of the newer oat milks.
They don't taste the same but they taste good.

The problem with that argument is that if a house is owner occupied then that still happens.
If the hot water goes then it doesn't matter who owns the house. A plumber will get paid to fix/replace it. In fact he will probably be paid more if the owner lives at the property because they will want a better system so that they can have longer showers.

The rich put them there. We Australians don't really have a choice. The Libs are complete garbage and Labor have abandoned their principles just to get power. They are only slightly better?
What other choice do we have?

The problem is that those people who will be given the voice will actively work against the needs of those they pretend to represent. Just like all politicians.
How will that help anyone?

It's very relevant. We need to decide if we want to irrevocably change the country. We need more than "don't worry about it"