Today I wrote about the referendum machinery bill: - Bipartisan consensus on bill is great news - Sadly we're stuck w/ flawed pamphlet & weak $ disclosure rules - Neutral civics campaign is welcome if run well theconversation.com/the-referendum… via The Conversation - Australia + New Zealand

It appears that the Opposition is now asking for *less* detail on the Voice… “The Liberal frontbencher [Julian Leeser] said the referendum would have a greater chance of success if the second clause of the proposed amendment was deleted.” smh.com.au/politics/feder…

Disappointed in The Oz today Albrechtson again misleadingly using my scholarship on Voice as part of a scare campaign. @RonWLevy & I have already replied to this before. I hope people will take the time to read us explain how the Voice offers promise for our democratic system 🧵

Coming up on #Auswide 🌀Michelle Stanley says #CycloneIlsa expected to cross land at category 5 this evening 🎙️It's been 24 years since Australia's last referendum in 1999. Are we out of practice? Paul Kildea on campaign funding, endorsements, ads, blackout periods and pamphlets

Legislation is an unsatisfactory way to institute a Voice to Parliament. Among other reasons, writes constitutional law expert Paul Kildea (UNSW), it would make the body insecure and vulnerable to the whims of different governments. #auspol bit.ly/3onjLWZ

It has been claimed the voice will enable Indigenous Australians to change any decision made by parliament by taking matters to the High Court. This is highly misleading. Experts George Williams, Dr Gabrielle Appleby and Anne Twomey are in agreement. #AusPol aap.com.au/factcheck/high…

Lots of good reading here, including observation that this referendum is probably the first to combine “universal second-tier support and a lack of federal bipartisanship” insidestory.org.au/peter-duttons-…

"Don't Know? Find Out." This is a pretty good place to start. theconversation.com/your-questions… via The Conversation - Australia + New Zealand

Excited to be part of this new #voicereferendum initiative with colleagues from UNSW Law & Justice. We'll be responding to questions & addressing common misconceptions.

Our first post is up - here Dr Gabrielle Appleby responds to claims that the reference to the Executive in the proposed wording is 'risky'. In a nutshell: the vast majority of expert legal opinion says it isn't.

Get some Friday facts on the Voice referendum. Here I explain why Scott Morrison's claim that there are "no limits" to what the Voice will speak on is incorrect.

Great thread by Lucas Lixinski Lucas Lixinski. #Voice proposal is not based on race, but on "the internationally recognised right of self-determination of Indigenous peoples"

Great to see an account devoted to Voice FAQ! Part of getting reliable facts is knowing where they come from - can I ask who is posting to this account and what are your affiliations?

Prominent No campaigner Warren Mundine claims that the Voice is not needed, because Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander people already have voices. Prof Appleby explains that there is currently no individual or organisation that will perform the functions of the proposed Voice 1/

More Friday facts on the #Voice. Here Dr Gabrielle Appleby explains why the 'Canberra Voice' slogan gets it wrong. In reality the proposal is for a broadly representative body with members chosen in line with the wishes of local Indigenous communities.

Is the Voice a race-based proposal? No. Justine Nolan explains why in this great thread.

Really enjoyed this chat with Ben Raue and André Brett about all things referendums. It's the first in a series, with other topics and guests to come.