I agree that it may have been bungled, but I think that some of what you said isn't quite right.
Fair point, I'd missed that in the pamphlet, it's still a super vague change though. Where are the definitions of what this body will look like, what powers it grants to said body and how do they define 'matters relating to indigenous australians'? Changes to our constitution can't be vague, they have to be clear and concise in what and how they grant powers otherwise they're ripe for abuse. I can think of about half a dozen ways it can be abused with the current wording.
The precise text of the constitutional amendment is already set forth. You can read it online. They put it in a physical booklet which was sent to every household in the country. You're right that the messaging was far from perfect, especially near the start, but saying that the "yes" side can't state what they want to change is a bit disingenuous.
I think my point above still stands, there is zero assurances or guarantees that 'listening to indigenous voices' and 'giving recognition' will lead to better outcomes for indigenous Australians, which is kind of the whole point of all of it.
Why I think it may have been bungled is that it's the sort of change that needed to be made from a position of political strength, and I'm not sure that Labor were quite there. The "no" side was always going to have an advantage in that it's usually easier to maintain the status quo than it is to change something.
They're probably burnt for the next election cycle if the LNP get their act together honestly, assuming it doesn't pass anyway.
This means that the "yes" proponents have to do a lot more work to argue their case, and when combined with the big problems that Australia is facing (cost of living, housing affordability, etc) I think a lot of folks who would be "in the middle" on the issue are understandably a bit irritated that the government can appear to be putting more work into this than those other issues.
Yeah that's basically the nail in the coffin for them, it's all well and good to do this but maybe don't time it when a not insignificant chunk of our population is having to choose between a roof over their heads and being well fed.
Society relies on products they've developed, the world would be a very different place without gramoxone, 2,4-D and glyphosate. Considering glyphosate is the safest of the widely used herbicides it's probably not a great thing to brand everyone who is against banning it a shill.