Now that the referendum question has been agreed to and we have more information on the proposed constitutional wording, my convictions for a No vote is higher than it was.
"A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"
The question still fails to disclose that "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice" is a body/pronoun. As explained in a previous post, this wording gives the impression that "Voice" means "a say" when the question is asked verbally, but when asked in writing, the capitalisation of Voice refers to it being a pronoun. Going by the literacy level shown here and other websites, I think most people will believe the question is asking for "a say" (and by doing so asking a loaded question), than understand that the Voice refers to a body.
A quick fix to the question: "A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice TM. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"
At least the "TM" would puzzle people into asking what it means while others might recognise that marking something as "TM" is a popular way of indicating that the subject is merely a label.
Maybe the more direct approach would suffice: "A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an entity named 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice'. Do you approve this proposed alteration?"
NB: I think "entity" is more idiot-proof than "body". "organisation" would be a better word, but it is also less accurate.
As for the constitutional wording "matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples" is too wide in scope.
