@wogarlb; I've listed below
just a few of those details your requested from the 'fact checking' the "NO" case. The blue-highlighted bits are what's been asserted in the "NO" case, what follows it the fact check finding:
This Voice specifically covers all areas of “Executive Government”. Thismeans no issue is beyond its reach.
The voicewould have no right of veto, and would not be binding on the parliament,according to the prime minister, Anthony Albanese.
The High Court would ultimately determine its powers, not theParliament.
Incorrect.The referendumamendment clearly says parliament will have the power to make laws with“respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderVoice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures”. Legalexperts – including Australia’s former chief justice – say high courtchallenges are unlikely and even then, the court cannot change a decision madeby parliament. It can only send a matter back for reappraisal.
Australians should have details before the vote, not after.
Misinformation.The referendum is a vote to give parliament the enabling power to design thevoice. Those details do not belong in the constitution. As the constitutionalexpert Anne Twomey said in January: “Constitutions are not placeswhere you want to freeze details. It is appropriate to leave it to parliamentas this gives greater flexibility to adjust for future needs.”
Some Voice supporters say this would just be a first step to reparationsand compensation and other radical changes. So, what would come next?
As notedabove, advice from the voice would not be binding on parliament. Any proposalsfor reparations or compensation would need to gain the support of MPs, just asthey would if a political party brought them forward now.
Many Indigenous Australians do not support this.
Twodifferent polls have shown 80-83% ofIndigenous Australians support it.
We don’t know how many members this Voice would have.
Thesedetails will be decided through normal parliamentary procedures of legislation,and would be able to be altered by the parliament of the day, as conditionsneed.
A centralised Voice risks overlooking the needs of regional and remotecommunities.
The voicedesign principles include each of the states, territories and the Torres StraitIslands, plus specific representatives from remote regions. The Calma-Langtonreport proposes remote representatives in NSW, NT, Queensland, WA and SA, inaddition to other members.
By definition, a treaty is an agreement between governments, not betweenone group of citizens and its government.
Incorrect. Atreaty is a binding agreement between two or more parties. A treaty sets outthe terms of engagement and obligations of all sides to maintain the agreement.New Zealand (Aotearoa), Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, Greenland andthe US have all negotiated treaties with Indigenous peoples.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2023/jul/20/the-vote-no-pamphlet-referendum-voice-to-parliament-voting-essay-aec-published-read-in-full-annotated-fact-checked
