Disagree! What the voice does is out there in the very statement referred to! And the parliament still retains a veto if any subsequent request asks for too much, e.g., sovereignty. The only dark thing here is the skin colour of the supplicants. And may create a precedent for other nations to follow, e.g., Malaysia?
Alan B.

Aboriginals already have representatives in the Federal parliament roughly in proportion to their numbers in the Australian population.

That is all they deserve and hopefully that is all they will get. Albanese is very coy about how its members will be selected and no one seems to have a clue about how much it will cost.

Also, why is the government not funding a NO case.

David

"Do you support an alteration to the constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?"

Agreeing to that statement would allow government to make ANY changes to any part(s) of the constitution, provided some clause is also included in favour of "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice"!

Also, since this term, "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice", is undefined, it could mean just ANYTHING. It could mean, for example, that aboriginal people have the constitutional right to freely scream in other people's ears, even to enter their homes at any time to do so, or it could mean the opposite, that it is OK to scream in the ears of aboriginal people at any time and place. Or it could mean that everyone must obey any orders of an aboriginal person, effectively turning everyone else into slaves (or vice versa), or perhaps it could even mean that aboriginal people have a constitutional right to speak to others with their fists (or vice versa), maybe even that they have sexual rights over others (or vice versa).

- Anything goes: saying 'Yes' in this referendum is signing a blank cheque which could give away all you got.

why is the government not funding a NO case.
VK3AUU,
Good one !

Yes just say NO. No tommyrot about details as per our timid Opposition Leader. Asking for detail gives credence to the principle of having a constitutional Voice. In other words, there is no point in seeking detail unless you agree with the principle of dividing Australians by race; and in the very document which sets out how Australia is governed.

What a poorly written article.

It claims: "Traditionally, the Australian Electoral Office (AEO) posts out to voters a summary of both the 'yes' and 'no' arguments before a referendum. The 'yes' case is written by parliamentarians who support a 'yes' vote in the coming referendum, and the 'no' case is written by those parliamentarians who support a 'no' vote in the referendum."

But says nothing of the fact that the indigenous question in the 1967 referendum did not include a "no" argument, just a "yes". That is the convention.

And here he is rubbishing on about a quasi third chamber of parliament. Even Sky News has essentially given up on running that line.

Hopefully he might get a chance of a rewrite because it sure as hell needs one.