My summary:

a) It's pretty toothless and has very little effect in law, and

b) It's also symbolically important to recognise a highly disadvantaged group of people

I think that means we might as well vote yes because at least it's a symbolic nod to an inequity. And there's no reason to vote no because it doesn't really have any legal effect, let alone downsides.

Bonus conclusion: politicians claiming "it could be interpreted unpredictably by the courts and lead to legal uncertainty" are being disingenuous and we should treat those people with suspicion.

That was a refreshing take on the voice and what it’s really about.

Thanks for posting, was definitely worth reading to cut to the simple facts. Presented both sides without getting bogged down in it.