Yes, it’s not meant to hold power. That’s why it’s called the voice. It’s the ability to speak and be heard. It’s not just a token gesture though. It adds pressure on any government who does not listen as to why they did not. It’s the same as the press. They hold power by holding government to account.

The voice enshrined in the constitution is the plan. The state,ent does not discuss its make up, nor the election process, nor the fine details. The constitution shouldn’t either. It may need fine tuning to be effective, not be rorted by bad actors, and to be representative. If all that is in the constitution, it’s harder to change later. For an example, look at what the constitution says about how we elect senators, who would have more power. Very little. It’s left to the states to legislate.

A no vote to reject what you call a performative gesture is more damaging than a performative gesture. I don’t think it’s just a performative gesture, to be clear, but it’s a poor argument.

I don’t expect any corporation or person to do the right thing unless it’s in their interest. I expect the voice to be a check on the powers in government, rather than a power themselves. Just like the oil and gas and mining industry has paid lobbyists that are very effective, the voice can do the same, but for the people. The press has no powers in the constitution, but Murdoch, for instance, has had huge power just be nature of his abi,it’s to spread information with his slant on it. The voice will have power, but it won’t have power to control our government.

Change comes slowly and then in a sprint. Stopping that progress doesn’t advance anyone’s rights and is a misguided understanding of how governance works. Your ideal is not necessarily everyone’s ideal. Even this limited change for the better is at risk of failure. A more extreme version would be even more so. Your resistance to good enough, instead of ideal is just as bad as the racists in outcome, even if your intentions are good.