Voting "no" keeps the situation as it is and results in more circle games achieving zilch. It also means the Angry stay Angry and probably get more Angry.
A "yes" vote win may result in an improvement which can only be positive. Still a gamble because we don`t yet know how things may be achieved. It may also result in just more bureaucracy and money wasted. ie zilch yet again.
I think the risk is worth taking although much work and effort by all sides will be required.

Yes. A lot of goodwill is needed for that new start.

Unfortunately, the Two Party Preferred system,now afflicted with winner-take-all no matter what, militates against any goodwill or good sense for our heirs.

Yes. A lot of goodwill is needed for that new start.
Chek,
We have provided that & all the indigenous need now is the will to rid themselves of the activists !

The reason is to apologise for the considerable pain and conflict that we white Australians have inflicted on aboriginal people,

Peter Bowden must have been hiding under a rock if he missed Rudd's & Keatinge's apologies & the Billions spent on anything & everything Indigenous in Australia over the several generations.
The tokenism alone is worth several fortunes.
The outcome of the referendum appears a certain NO & not because of "toxic scare campaigns" but because of people who know better than all our academic & social experts & activists combined.
Now our Labor govt should put the NIAA on the spot & make them do what they're supposed to be doing, being a Voice to Parliament !

A big, fat decisive fat NO.

I predicted this outcome and take no pleasure in being vindicated. There was no bipartisan support and that guaranteed it didn't get up!
Alan B.