15 years of consultation with aboriginal commmunities across all of Australia.

Developed, vetted and approved by practicing constitutional lawyers.

Good enough for me.

A summary of my viewpoint:

I am enormously sick of the no campaign brigading every discussion with terrible arguments in bad faith.

I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed. Similarly, the law is my degree. I've spent five years of my life studying it, and although I'm not a graduate yet (two units to go), I'd think I'd know more about this shit than Joe from bumfuck nowhere on Facebook.

There is no case for a no vote. None whatsoever. The change would not grant special rights to Indigenous Australians. It has been repeatedly explained by both lawyers and politicians. You can read the change yourself. It has to be a constitutional change, because that protects it from being outright removed by successive governments, which is the very thing that happened to the previous body that performed this role. By definition, it is not racist, as racism refers to negative treatment on the basis of race or ethnic background, and not differing treatment. This is one of three steps proposed by Indigenous Australians towards reconciliation, and isn't the endpoint. If it fails, it will be the endpoint.

When the colonisers arrived, Indigenous Australians outnumbered colonisers. Now, they make up just 2.5% of the population. We are driving them to extinction. If this fails, by the time we get around to trying again, it is likely the genocide will have all but been completed.

Ethically and morally, a yes vote is the only choice. Legally, it is the best choice for change.

For me, this referendum boils down to exactly the same pair of questions as for the same-sex marriage postal survey in 2017:

1. Does this affect me adversely? (answer: no, it doesn't)
2. How does this benefit those that want it? (answer: for the better)

Easy.

My thinking boils down to this:

1. We spend billions each year, but studies show the gap between other Australians and indigenous is worsening. We should be trying something. Anything.

2. For those concerned about 'the details', my understanding is that the pollies are responsible for those after the referendum. Do you really think a parliament and senate made up of mainly old white guys are going to significantly change how the country works? Seriously?

So, we've got nothing to lose, and hell, wouldn't it be awesome if it actually had some positive changes!

Why has every piece of "information" about the No vote always boil down to "we don't know". But the yes voters have a bunch of answers to every question.

I'm trying to understand the No voters.

They're saying because the details haven't been ironed out, the Voice could be given much more power than is proposed.

But in their worst case scenario, what do they think is going to happen?

This is the first referendum voting experience for me so I'm excited to be part of history even if the outcome is not the one I want. I'm personally in the critical yes camp where I hope the referendum is successful but still agree with the points raised by the progressive no campaign. I was unsure for a while because I'm not an Indigenous person and wanted to listen to as many different Indigenous perspectives as I could before deciding. What really pushed me to yes was the idea that while not every person who votes no is racist, all racists will vote no.

I honestly don't know how I'm going to vote. Something is needed, but is it this?

I agree with a concern from the 'no' camp, that this ends up being a bandaid or virtue-signalling; and if it passes then "job well done" and we don't keep moving forward.

Otoh, I very much fear that if the result is 'no', we have collectively just affirmed racism - the overt, the systemic, and the subtextual.

I have family planning to vote both ways, and they have put considered thought into their positions, not just gut reactions.

But I don't know, for me. I don't think I can in good conscience vote 'no', but I have not yet convinced myself that I can vote 'yes'.

#ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART

We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:

Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.

This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.

How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?

With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.

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. Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.

We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.

In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

so that 7 news story on the Adelaide "No" protest pretty much told me all I need to know about the No side.

conspiracy theorists, shouty people, antivax nonsense and racism. what any of that had to do with the referendum who knows

edit: sydney and melbourne too it seems. its almost as if certain types of people swing to the No side

For what it's worth, a lot of my neighbours have a vote yes sign on their doors. It makes me feel like we'll get the yes to change the constitution. That'd be awesome. I'm hanging onto hope.

Something I have not seen discussed anywhere.
They do not specify that this group will be elected. That mean they will be appointed. I just can't see future for this other than a punch of politicians mates from the inner city. Completely out of touch with the needs of those they represent.
I'm still leaning towards voting yes but I don't see this actually helping. It's probably just going to cost the tax payers a bunch of money and do no good.
If they were elected then they could be held to account.

You’re the voice that will make history The Uluṟu Dialogue | John Farnham

I'll be voting yes as it's the least we can do, foot in the door and all.
That said, it's literally the least we could do. Very much a 'yes, and' rather than think racism's solved with this one vote

FWIW I'll be voting Yes, but I doubt it will do much good.

Referendums never succeed in this country, unless they have bipartisan support. So what was the point of this exercise? What's Albanese's angle in all of this?