Now that being said, it is interesting to note that there is some opposition to this from indigenous people themselves precisely because they view it as a performative empty gesture, as liberal virtue signaling that will not actually address their material concerns and only make white people feel better about themselves and their racist history.

However i find it very difficult to know what the real indigenous consensus is on this topic as someone looking at Australian politics from the other side of the world since there has been a concerted billion dollar campaign in the liberal media to promote the idea that there is virtually no indigenous opposition to "the voice" other than from fringe right wing groups.

Hilariously (and typically of the new cold war McCartyist paranoia), they have accused Russia of being behind the "fringe" indigenous groups who are on the "no" side. Why the fuck would Russia care about Australian internal politics? Australians have a way overinflated sense of their own importance. Outside of nerdy politics circles like ours nobody even thinks about them over here in Europe, and they are an insignificant afterthought even in Asia.

This is an article that does a pretty good job of explaining the indigenous opposition/skepticism to this proposal and why many would rather have a sovereign treaty in which they are recognized as their own nation and given tangible guarantees rather than a consultative body in the settler state which can always be defunded, disempowered or sidelined as the settler state pleases.

My own personal take on this is: it's an ok gesture but nowhere near enough. Voices can be silenced, ignored, drowned out by the crowd. Political power does not grow out of loud complaints, it grows out of the barrel of a gun. More than a "voice", indigenous people need a fist with which to take back what was stolen from them. Because as much as the liberals may protest otherwise, the settler state has not and will not suddenly grow a conscience.