We should delve in to the concept of racism a little more perhaps?
There are many different 'races' living here, with many different ways and habits.
When we all live together as one commumity, a common set of laws and values must be devised.
And these must apply to all, regardless of race or colour.
Can there be exceptions?
I think so.
For example: if one particular race statistically lives for a substantially shorter time than the others, I can see the majority agreeing that they should be allowed to retire perhaps five years before the others.
People have a sense of fairness, and I think they would endorse such an idea.
And that idea is based on race, but would be a realistic concept.
But having special privileges, because of a tenuous connection to a race which lived here over 200 years ago, is a totally different and absurd notion.
So is the idea that somehow the 'white' races should compensate them for something which happened to their ANCESTORS?
Nobody alive today bears the slightest responsibility for the actions of their ancestors.
Nor can they benefit from any advantage gained by their ancestors.
Unless it is lawfully passed down through successive generations.
And then they could only benefit from things actually under the control of their ancestors.
Ancestors could not bequeath what they did not own.
So the idea of a 'voice' is not based on any logical or reasonable exception.
In fact it is merely a ploy: an attempt to gain further unfair advantage.
Certain persons individually have about twice the amount spent on them by the government, as is spent on the 'whites'.
The balance is already tipped well and truly in their favour.
And they want still more?
To assuage their hurt feelings no doubt.
And we are meant to believe all this?

"The NO camp pretends that the Voice could do something terribly dangerous and divisive."

Should the referendum succeed, a new form of nuisance would be created, but compared with all the nuisances we have already, calling it "dangerous" is a wild exaggeration.

I cannot even expect that the Voice would be divisive - it would be stupid alright to place it in the constitution, but having so many stupid things already in place, that would not make any significant difference.

A danger is when some untoward event is likely to happen, but the divisiveness that the referendum and its campaigns create is not a danger, but a fact already. For a concrete example of divisiveness, a couple of days ago I wanted to befriend someone, but upon seeing them wearing a badge of "say YES" I thought to myself, "nay, that will not end well, the topic is bound to come up in the conversation and spoil things, so better wait at least till after this stupid referendum".

A 'YES' vote would encourage more governments (left/right, it makes no difference) to bother us again with their referendums, as if they don't bother us enough already with their show of "elections" where we have the "privilege" to freely choose between their Tweedledee and their Tweedledum - A 'NO' vote would not make any difference in the treatment of aboriginals (if government wants to hear them then they would do so regardless whether or not it is in Australia's constitution and similarly if it wants to ignore them), but it would produce the one good effect of discouraging future referendums which are by nature bothersome, costly and divisive.

What a gormless article.

Has a bee in his bonnet about the use of the word "hither" in the statement so he is voting no all the while ignoring a sincere cry from the Heart.

"Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately
criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This
cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene
numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the
torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own
country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in
two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution."

Go back to your navel gazing mate while decent Australians step up and do the decent thing for a very decent cause and vote Yes.

I feel compelled to make a few more comments on comments.
Quote: Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. End of quote.
Could this possibly be because you break the law more often?
And why do you break the law?
What drives you to be so lawless?
Are you working on the assumption that you are the real owners of the country, and can do as you like?
And why do I hear so many of you who can barely speak english.
Didn't you all go to school?
Or are you telling me you lived behind a 44 gallon drum out in the never never?
Why didn't your parents get a job and send you to school like other children.
Don't give me a sob story about how you had your land taken from you.
You personally never owned it. You never had control of it.
I worked like a trojan to ensure my children could all go through university.
I have worked hard to make sure I have sufficient to live on through my older years.
And I speak and write english too. Well almost. ^_^

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«I feel compelled to make a few more comments on comments.»

Thank you for telling us about your feelings and being so honest.
It would be nice if everyone did,

«Are you working on the assumption that you are the real owners of the country, and can do as you like?»

This question should be pointed back at the people who now occupy this continent of Australia.

«Could this possibly be because you break the law more often?
And why do you break the law?
What drives you to be so lawless?»

Could this possibly be because "the law" is not their law?
Why should anyone follow the law of thieves?

The real owner of this and any other country, is God: only His laws should count!

Earlier you wrote:
«When we all live together as one commumity, a common set of laws and values must be devised.»

Yes, but these laws and values were already devised long before the world was created.