Shadowminister,
This states at the beginning; A proposed Law : to alter the Constitution to recognise the first peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve of this alteration ?

Well, firstly, it says nothing about managerial input by the Indigenous, also the term Aboriginal is vague as the Australian Aborigines are Aboriginals of this Country & many Aboriginals from other Nations have moved here. Do they count as Aborigines now ? This could be exploited by a clever Lawyer devoid of integrity.
As to recognising the Aborigines as the First people of Australia I'd say we'd have 100% agreement !
As to the integrity & ability of pseudo-indigenous activists to make policies for the good & social harmony this Nation I'd guess the argument wouldn't even make it to the table going by past performance & present rhetoric !

Dear Banjo,

I am sure that the groups considering the Voice and recognition were very capable, but if capable groups of people were so reliable at solving problems I think we'd have had Utopia long before the written word.

Dear shadowminister,

Accusations of misleading voters are always part of the show, and your mention of Stuart Wood provides an example. He argues that constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians and the establishment of the Voice are separate questions, yet voters will only have one question on the ballot paper. The "fact checking" tends to assert that conspiracy theorists are claiming that there will be two questions on the ballot paper when in fact there is only one.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/voice-referendum-trick-question-claim-is-complete-nonsense/

Yes, the fb comment in the link is misleading, but there is no mention of it perhaps being a misinterpretation of legal opinion that the referendum asks a double barreled question.

No matter how much two or three posters knock themselves out arguing pointlessly with people as stupid as themselves, most of the 17 plus million Australians have already made up there minds how they will vote.

Here are two links that are worth a read:

http://auspublaw.org/first-nations-voice/is-the-voice-too-uncertain-or-risky

And :

http://auspublaw.org/first-nations-voice/the-voice-imagined-legal-problems-distract-from-the-substance

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm certainly no pundit on the issues of the Voice.
But I have tried to provide links to experts on
the issues involved. I hope that you will have a
read of the two links that I've just given. I found
useful especially in presenting the bigger picture.

provide links to experts on
the issues involved
Foxy,
Experts or self interest people exploiting good will ?