As to the author's concluding remark I'd say if it ain't broke don't fix it. Today's aborigines use smart phones and some have blue eyes and red hair, not the case in 1901. If the referendum succeeds I predict no end of trouble unlike the grudging acceptance by many of the same sex marriage poll. Most of the noise on aboriginal affairs will come from urban based and mostly Caucasian 'aborigines'. They will blame everyone but themselves if the remote area disadvantage metrics don't improve.

Another outcome that is likely to jar middle Australia is stopping resource projects at the same time asking for more money. Examples include Barossa offshore gas, Beetaloo fracking and closing Burrup Peninsula. Middle Australia who would like prices not to increase so much might wonder if they should also have a say. Recent migrants might wonder what they did wrong to be short changed. You also have to wonder if this is all a beat up by the woke crowd who seemingly have no answers to issues like housing affordability and power prices.

I think Ian misses the point. There is little opposition to indigenous recognition in the Constitution – both major parties support this. And though changes are rare, I haven’t seen anyone argue that the Constitution should not be changed in principle. All constitutions are “living documents”.

There are many arguments in the “No” case, and some are mutually incompatible – Jacinta Price’s reasons are very different from Lidia Thorpe’s, for example. I have yet to make up my mind on this issue, as I think there are strong arguments on both sides. These seem to me the strongest arguments against:

1. it is a core principle of liberal democracy that people do not get different rights under the constitution based on race.

2. All past attempts at providing indigenous peoples’ input into political decision making have failed (e.g. ATSIC). The Voice will be no different, and enshrining it in the constitution will make it much harder to abolish or reform if it proves another failure.

3. Claims that it will close the gap and end indigenous disadvantage are wildly optimistic.

4. We do not have enough information on how it will work. Questions such as who will participate in the Voice and how they will be chosen are not mere matters of minor detail. These are properly addressed in legislation not in the constitutional amendment, but that is no good reason not to be transparent about what is envisaged.

5. the scope has progressively widened. “Matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” could be any matter considered by government. Extending representation to executive government as well as parliament opens up the possibility of obstructive lawfare and could create a large additional burden on the bureaucracy.

6. The Calma-Langton model envisaged an interacting network of local and regional Voices as well as a national one. By focussing on the national level, a bottom-up model is replaced by a top-down one that may not deliver the type of representation First Nations people want.

Constitutional recognition of Australia's first peoples is overdue, and should have been in the original document. Fear of change is in the minds of those conservatives opposed to any change. How much of the opposition is motivated by preexisting prejudices towards Aboriginal people is uncertain, but I am sure there is a "Liberal" amount of bigotry and racism involved.

Because I know what type of characters are pushing for the VOICE I’ll vote No if there is no paper published on how this VOICE will work before it is accepted.
Just because Academics & bureaudroids of unproven merit & heritage are saying that they’ll support it (only because they can smell $$) is no proof that they have the good for the future of the indigenous in mind. I for one do not believe them at all ! I have witnessed their antics first hand for too long !

According to Jacinta Price (I never read what the BS artists themselves say, being a 100% dinkum NO voter) the expensive first yes campaign doesn't even mention the Voice.

They are "too scared to say the words 'Voice to Parliament'." They know that people are waking up this is not just the 'modest', 'close the gap' crap the Albanese is lying about.

I was reminded by David Flint that the YES mob don't have the guts to have a convention, where real people - not activists and politicians - are elected to discuss the matter prior to any referendum being staged.