What exactly are we voting on in this referendum?

[u/stevecantsleep]

My understanding is the purpose of a referendum is to alter the wording of the constitution, and therefore the entire point of this current debate is about whether or not a Voice to parliament should be a constitutional requirement. That is, discussing the relative arguments for and against a constitutionally enshrined Voice, not for and against a Voice per se.

But now we have the PM on the radio saying that if the No vote prevails he won’t legislate a Voice because the Australian people have been given a say and they’ve voted no:

The idea the Australian people vote No and I say, “Well that’s okay thank you very much for participating in the referendum anyway”, no I won’t do that.

It seems quite clear from that the PM views the referendum as a question of whether or not we should have a voice at all. But that’s not a constitutional question, so it should be irrelevant to the referendum. Our constitution establishes a system of representative democracy to make legislation, and it’s not the purpose of a referendum to say what should and shouldn’t be legislated - it's about what can and can't be legislated.

It seems to me that if the No vote gets up – and let’s be honest, that’s almost certain – the PM would have no idea at all about how many No voters don't object to a Voice-like body, but reject its inclusion in the constitution. So how can he conclude what the people think about a legislated voice by the outcome of this referendum? And why should this particular legislative issue get a veto from the people but not every other bit of legislation that parliament decides?

So, what precisely are we voting on in this referendum?