NOTE there are TWO parts to the question and that you only get to give ONE answer.
The question has TWO separate concepts in ONE question. One concept is recognition of First Peoples. The second concept is establishing a Voice. It is possible that the Australian peoples want to “recognise” but not give a constitutional “Voice.” It is also conversely possible the Australian people want to give a constitutional “Voice” but not “recognise.”
Reasearch shows that Australians will vote YES to “Recognition” but are greatly concerned about entrenching a racially specific power in the constitution. (Voice) The draft referendum question intrinsically links these two distinctly different concepts and only gives one way of answering. (YES or NO.)
Does this confuse the Australian people over the precise part of the question to which they are answering YES or NO? Why is that? Is the question designed with a political motivation to illicit only a YES Vote? Is the Australian population being manipulated?
The question asks the Australian people if they wish to recognise the First Peoples of Australia; the word Firstuses a capital letter and therefore FIRST can be construed as meaning:
1) recognised as a superior status or class of Australian peoples, OR
2) arriving in the country prior to any other subsequent wave of migration of other Australians.
The referendum question leaves both these options open for interpretation by the voters, and eventually, the Parliament or High Court. Do you think the voting Australian population will get confused by the current referendum question wording?
What FIRST are you voting for? Should we define Aboriginal? Why is it unclear? How will this lack of question clarity impact the result and therefore the future operations of our country over the future decades and centuries?