Well, the voice has no real power over government. The senate does. The method of electing the senate is also left up tot he government. If we trust them with that power, why would we not trust them with the power to legoslate for the voice in the same way.

As it’s in the constitution, they could not remove it. They could change it, and I would expect changes over time to make it more effective.

If the detail is being voted on now, we would need to have another referendum every time we make a change.

For me, it comes down to whether the concept of a voice is a good idea. Assuming we think it is, it’s up to the parties to campaign on how that should be. We can vote accordingly, just like every other policy. The only option off the table is no voice, unless they want to run on having another referendum.

Sure, there are those that think it shouldn’t be in the constitution. They are the same ones that removed it before, which is why it needs to be in the constitution. There are those that think it won’t work. They offer no alternative, and if it doesn’t work, we can vote again to remove it.

it’s been explained to you clearly and concisely here. If you’re too stupid, listen to legal experts or better yet, well regarded constitutional lawyers(they’re all yes voters)