Australia

Wanting more clarity is just a case of people trying to find a reason to vote no.

One thing that aggravates my parents (definite No voters) is that there is no acknowledgement from the Yes campaign of the internal failures of previous bodies like ATSIC. It's fair to state that the government dismantled bodies like ATSIC, but the Yes campaign seem to be deliberately hiding or ignoring the fraud, corruption, ineffectiveness, and nepotism that existed in these organisations.

One can read all about the structural problems, lack of accountability, and failure to deliver results that were detailed in the parliamentary findings on ATSIC. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/indigenousaffairs/report/final/c02

If you have library access, the 2003 report, In the Hand of the Regions, is also worth a read: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26479564

There were also criminal investigations launched into both the Chief of ATSIC, Geoff Clark, and the deputy chairman, "Sugar" Ray Robinson.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11071533/Geoff-Clark-ex-ATSIC-chief-facing-2million-fraud-charges-threatens-senator-Jacinta-Price.html
https://www.smh.com.au/national/former-atsic-leader-sugar-ray-in-court-20060118-gdmsov.html

For No voters like my parents, they question why we should force a similar organisation into the Constitution, particularly when there were so many systemic (and even criminal) problems with ATSIC.

California has a proposition voting thing. It sounds like a good idea but it has caused them problems. A lot of it is in the wording of the proposition and omitting any negative consequences. For example, people might vote for less property taxes without realising that means less money to fund schools etc. Everything is a trade off and it's hard to convey that to the general population.

I think some of the "No" reasons are valid questions to ask, so simply brushing them off as irrational is not going to win over anyone sitting on the fence. When I have spoken with family & friends, some of their uncertainty and concerns can be found amongst the ten No arguments.

For example, the question of inequitable representation (point #3 of the No arguments) is a fair one. Shouldn't all Australians, regardless of their gender, race, or ancestry be represented equally in the Constitution?
In 1962, all Indigenous Australians were given the fair right to vote, giving them the same level of voice and representation as that of any Australian citizen. This resolved the issue of equal voting rights, which allows all Australians to have their voice equally represented in parliament. The Voice would now add an additional representation above what voting provides to the average Australian and it will be mandated in the Constitution.
Which personal factors determine if one can be awarded this additional amount of representation? Do you have to prove you are Indigenous by way of a blood test, a written exam, a form of ID, or just by stating that you identify as an Indigenous Australian? I even know of some people who have claimed benefits of Indigenous Australians (e.g. scholarships) when they themselves were Pacific Islander. How pure does your bloodline need to be in order to receive additional representation?

I mean, there’s a 270 page report about the design of the thing here https://voice.gov.au/resources/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report

The Government literally won’t divulge the details of what the Voice actually entails.

That is miss-information propagated by the "No" campaign. The governemnt absoltuely has divulged what The Voice entails, and it's really simple. These words will be added to the constitution:

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

Let me make it even simpler:

There will be a group of people authorised to give a small speech on indigenous issues when parliament is in session and occasionally have meetings with relevant politicians/government workers.

The government will do their normal job (passing laws, etc) after taking into consideration what was said.

It's not complex. There is no risk. We're not giving Indigenous Australians some kind of exclusive right. The reality is anyone can write a letter to a politician, and if the letter has any merit at all a staff member will ensure the politician reads it. If the contents of your letter are actually important the politician will even meet with you in person.

The only thing that this changes is The Voice won't need to have their message approved by the staff member. I suppose in theory, that could result in wasting a few minutes of our politicians time... but I doubt that will happen. The reality is sensible people will given the power to speak for all indigenous peoples, and they will only talk about the most important issues affecting indigenous people. They will have an endlessly long list of points to bring up, and they'll pick the most important ones - which will never be a waste of time to bring up in Parliament.

At the end of the day it's a matter of respect. It's a formal process to do what is already being done informally. Indigenous issues won't need to be raised via back channels anymore.

A few details, like how many people will be on The Voice and how long they can speak in Parliament for, etc are still to be decided on, but none of those really matter. Does it matter if there's ten people or fifty in The Voice? Only one of them will be allowed to speak in any given parliament session. There's generally a 15-20 minute time restriction on anything raised in parliament, and I'd expect the same limit will be applied to The Voice. But if they allow 60 minutes instead... honestly who cares. By not putting it in the constitution the government is allowing those decisions to be changed without going back and doing an entire referendum all over again.

I’m still seeing too many ‘No’ people wanting more than a voice, like treaty. Why can’t we have both? A no on this one is going to push treaty back further.

@Whirlybird @Mountaineer I am similarly not decided. If it helps, these are the official pamphlets

https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-yes.pdf?v=1.0

https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/the-case-for-voting-no.pdf?v=1.1

Which is why the constitutional lawyer Dutton quoted is demanding his quote be removed pending legal action

The pamphlets are for the people who decide in the voting booth, it's worthwhile to look for more detail on the questions you have.

I'm voting Yes for two main reasons.

1. When I look at NZ and the recognition of the Maori I feel embarassed that we have the oldest continuous civilization on the planet and we don't give a shit about it at all.

2. We haven't moved the dial on any of the major markers impacting indigenous people in the last twenty years. Perhaps it's time we actually started listening and giving them a voice isn't a bad start.

Also there's nobody on the No side I have any respect for. Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine are Opportunists, Lidia Thorpe is just the other side of the same coin. That tells me enough about the right side to be on.