The idea that the voice is some sort of useless idea is seriously flawed. Policy institutes and Parliamentary hearing and committee are the biggest drivers of policy in this country. Media attention and petitions aren't nearly as effective in this regard. The voice will likely not be integrated as a Parliamentary comittee is, due to its being a separate body, but will still offer valuable representation to Parliament to those who came before these institutions and this country. Aboriginals had their own traditions, nations and sovereignty on land that was not ceded. We have accepted their legal and unique history with this land, this is merely saying that within the framework of Australia as a country, that Aboriginals deserve access to our legislature and executive on matters that affect them.

The popular argument by resident no voter @whirlybird@aussie.zone seems to be that this is virtue signalling and that this would be the end of social justice for Aboriginals, that resistance would develop in trying to advance a cause further. They seem to suggest that we would be better off doing something of substance, as to not foment resistance and resentment. I would hope that on the first point, its been made clear that there is real benefit to having a Voice, and the second is irrelevant, the Australian population will tire after a no vote, and after a yes vote. Its the jobs of those politically active, the media, the Voice itself, politicians, and those non apathetic people to push for more when the time comes.

A second argument I hear, and the most factually true argument I hear is lack of detail. It is true that there is a lack of official detail from those legislators who will be advancing bills if the referendum finishes in the affirmative. It is also understandable to want to know in substance what the fruits of your vote would be. Id encourage those who would like to learn to listen to ideas from the referendum working group and those associated with the yes campaign on rough ideas of a Voice if this is the case. Its important to remember that we are voting on the amendment though, not the bill itself. There are significant measures that must go into establishing the voice in substance:

• Will the voice exist entirely under its own weight, legislated by Parliament and run by itself, or will the bureaucratic arm of the voice exist in the Australian Public Service
• How will the voice be elected? How will regional voices be represented? Is a federal model (each nation receives x representatives), a state based model (each state receives x amount of reps) or a unitary, population based model more effective?

All of these questions take significant time. If you can focus on the amendment, and whether support those ideas outside of what a future voice may look like, it will help.

What is it with all the people taking pens with them to the vote?

Do they not understand how polls work? What scrutineers do? A simple search can find information on how everything works.

Who the hell is telling them to take pens because if you use a pencil someone can change your vote?

I will be out of the country that week. Anyone know if postal votes and/or early voting will be a thing for the referendum?

What a surprise

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-04/security-experts-warn-foreign-actors-are-tampering/102935524

Voting no to this is simply reaffirming the status quo that violence is the only way foe minorities to gain a seat at the table.

This is an unprecedented, earnest, consensus, peaceful approach to a way forward. A way without killing.

Slapping it back out of fear is a vote in favour of violence, for that is the only other way indigenous people have gained political power in colonial nations.

Just be kind, choose to be kind. Please.