Yes the proposed change to the constitution lacked detail, but that is entirely in keeping with the constitution as a whole, it is a "high-level" document after all. The detail would have come in the legislation that enacted it, with plenty of public consultation and discussion in parliament, no different to any other legislation. In its final form it would have probably looked a lot like previous advisory bodies that we used to have, with the critical difference being that it could not be disbanded just because the government of the day didn't like it.

I'm not familiar with the Australian political terms, can you share what this means:

inner dialogue between their mobs and local governments

To me, that sounds like the Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islanders are free to think about what they want, and then form a potentially violent, roughly organized group of people to confront local officials... But I assume I'm missing something.

Yeah as someone outside Australia I've been surprised at how biased and simplified the reporting has been. A complex constitutional issue is being painted as a simple "good people, bad people".

When I read about the changes myself (after having to go hunting for some actual detail - the reporting is pretty poor on this) it honestly seems more like virtue signalling rather than useful or meaningful reform.

Relevant: the Black Peoples Union position on the referendum (interview on ABC).

An aggregation of written statements collected from socialist, anarchist and radical Indigenous groups, showing the diversity of thought on the matter: http://old.reddit.com/r/AustralianSocialism/comments/161r8r1/megathread_of_leftist_statements_on_the_voice/

(PS: don't just take all the 'yes' and 'no' summaries in that list at face value, a couple of them are misinterpretations or oversimplications)