I think you are confusing valid concern with valid point. None of the information in the “No” pamphlet is based on fact, only conjecture based on possibilities.

The concerns about the voice to parliament made by the “No” campaign is based on what could happen if we implemented a voice poorly, not what will happen if we added a few lines to the constitution making a voice mandatory.

While it’s splitting hairs I believe that the No campaigns arguments don’t really amount to much beyond scare mongering. The question asked (as I understand it) is should a voice to parliament be made a mandatory part of our constitution. With the government of the day deciding its scope.

The dreamer in me wants to think we can solve the problems of Australia without making mandatory what should be a given. The realist in me understands that sometimes you have to spell it out to stop those in power forgetting.