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.

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.

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

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