Linda Burney says there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by supporting the Voice

The no campaign is split between: It does too much and it doesn't do enough. I'll vote yes.

Why not support the voice?

The 'Progressive No' movement has pretty valid reasons to be against it, though as a non-Indigenous Australian I find it very difficult to consider voting no myself. The fact that I actually get to vote on this is honestly ridiculous, particularly when my vote is worth twice that of someone who it is supposed to be benefiting.
- I mean, the fact that Dutton is supporting No would be enough reason for me to vote Yes
  
  Edit: I am not saying this is the only reason. I very much believe that the first nations peoples should have a Voice
- Yeah they keep saying there is a sound progressive case for no, but even Thorpe had a mouthful of nothing when asked to elaborate.
  
  Saying you have reasons that you then won't state isn't the same as an actual argument
- The simple truth is this is how modern politics works, you take the wins you can and keep scraping and clawing away for more, it's why the desperately avaricious are drawn to it.
- What do you mean by your 'vote is worth twice that of someone who it is supposed to be benefiting'?
  
  Is that in reference to the 'double-majority', where NT and ACT don't count for the 'majority of States' count (because a large number of Aboriginal and Torrest Strait islander people live in the NT)?

A few of my good friends are indigenous and their whole families are against it. I haven't really heard a good reason why this "voice" will make any difference - can anyone enlighten me? It just doesn't seem like it will have any actual power assigned with it. The elected person will say "You need to stop mining our land" and the government will go "lol no" and keep mining.

Based on how many indigenous groups our country was split up in, having a single voice representing them all doesn't seem like it will work either.

I posted this down below, but my personal take on this is that the Voice is meant as a symbol. A symbol embedded right into our constitution. One that cannot be hidden away behind govt bureaucracy. One that isn't beholden to the party machinery like so many aboriginal MPs are. The most important thing is that it gets aboriginal people a foot in the door. A lasting change that can be used as a stepping stone to Truth and Treaty. Something that will let them constantly be noticed by parliament instead of just having a bone thrown to them whenever a pollie needs to score political points.
We had some cultural training at work the other day - a whole day session. It was really great and I think a few people came away with changed minds and hearts over a few things that they just never understood before.

The real shock of the day came when the person leading it announced that she would vote no. She explained that they are currently actively fighting a native title battle with one of the neighboring groups, and that this was extremely typical. That a single 'voice to parliament' is akin to the original sin of having herded thousands of different language groups into singular camps, far from home.

I hadn't really thought of it like that. The facilitator is obviously out there fighting for representation but a singular voice to parliament sort of ignores the entire first nations culture, and grievances. It's a very white solution to a very black issue.
The Voice design principles say that local groups will be asked to provide input.

https://theconversation.com/10-questions-about-the-voice-to-parliament-answered-by-the-experts-207014

These principles commit the government to a Voice that is chosen based on the wishes of local communities, is not appointed by government, reflects gender balance and youth perspectives, and all members must be Indigenous.

This article is really worth reading, it addresses a lot of the fears and misinformation out there.
- Thanks for the article, will give it a read. I'm still undecided as yeh most indigenous people I've seen posting about it on my social media are against it, but surely giving them a protected seat at the table is better than not having one.
Put it this way: Imagine you'd been trying for fifty years to push a rock up a hill and failed. You've tried a different approach every five years and nothing seemed to work: sometimes it made it worse.

Then a committee of rocks representing the majority of rocks got together and volunteered to come up with new ideas for you. It wouldn't cost you much, and it would make the rocks much happier knowing there's a rock involved in the decision making.

What's the harm? You've failed to push that rock for so long. You've tried everything. Maybe they will be right? And if they are not, you'll be back where you started with sweet FA.

Sure, the rocks down the road are sceptical. But what are their ideas? Are they gonna do anything about it?

Either the Voice is successfully implemented and ends up being an utterly useless and expensive waste of time with no practical benefit, or it is not successfully implemented and it ends up being an utterly useless and expensive waste of time with no practical benefit.

I can't wait for this nonsense to be over.

The coalitions entire thing has been sewing doubt by lying about what the voice is and how it was started. I’m disappointed because their efforts most likely will result in nothing happening. And for what? They gain nothing from knocking the voice back.

That's the part I don't understand, supporting this could have been a watershed moment for the coalition, and right when they desperately need to appeal to a mainstream audience.
- I agree! I also really can’t understand that either. It seemed obvious. What happened to the “good long look at ourselves” they promised after the federal election? Maybe they’re done looking and saw only perfection haha.
They gain a maintenance of status quo and a liiitle bit more fearmongering
They probably want to deny Albo and Labor anything nice.
- It is the standard conservative policy. Block everything the opposition tries to do when they're in power and blame them for everything when they're not.

I think she's right, it's a fair and practical move. Not sure if I'd say that all No campaigns for the Uluru Statement use Trump-style politics like she says, but the Fair Australia one is certainly weak and uses the "pointing out racism creates division" thing that anti-CRT Americans like to use so much.

To be bluntly honest, if Lidia Thorpe is against it, it’s probably a good move.

i mean, she raises valid concerns, but on balance they don't outweigh the net gain. I'm reticent to just dismiss her concerns as they kind of highlight why this is so vital, the cultural cynicism and distrust in Australian politics takes on a far more visceral and personal bent for Indigenous Australians after all(rightly so).
I think Lidia is tops.

There is nothing stopping her making a Voice right now, and showing what it can do. I'm really afriad Linda Burney is in an echo chamber and doesn't see the massive flaws.

Not sure what you mean by that. How would she go about making a Voice on her own?
- By engaging with the existing representative body that has already been established - The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA).
  It employs 1,023 full time staff and manages a budget of $285M each year specifically for the purpose to "lead and influence change across government to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them."
  https://www.niaa.gov.au/who-we-are/the-agency
- Through parliament without a constitutional change. Or by making representation to the government on behalf of the aboriginal and Torres strait Islander peoples independently, as a unified body.
  
  I disagree. I think there are too many competing bodies to have one organically represent all. I think having it in the constitution adds gravitas and says that we as a society and country are listening.
We've tried that, the LNP dismantles it the second they get into power.

Are you a constitutional lawyer? If not, then I don't think you're qualified to talk about flaws in a constitutional amendment. Instead, listen to the ones who are (who overwhelmingly support it).
- This constitutional amendment doesn’t do anything to prevent the Coalition dismantling it. There’s zero detail of its makeup, other than the existence of something called “The Voice”. If he had control in both houses, Dutton could simply redefine “The Voice” as being the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, and disband everything else.
  
  You can’t say “it’s so important that it can’t be left up to the government of the day to legislate it”, but when people ask “where’s the detail?” the answer is “the detail isn’t in the amendment because the government of the day will legislate it”.
- Are you a lawyer? Have you read the actual wording of the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023?
  
  The proposed amendment says:
  
  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.
  
  That last paragraph means that the government of the day can still functionaly gut the Voice by altering its "composition, functions, powers and procedures" and then ignoring its representations anyway.
  
  To me the only real value I see is the first paragraph, which formally acknowledges the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as First Peoples.
  
  Edit: typo, no one will be recognised as "Dirst Peoples"
- It's not that simple. Each time that an agency was dismantled, it was always replaced by something else. If we were to look at the history:
  
  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission - established by Labor, dismantled by Liberals
  Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs - established by Liberals, dismantled by Labor
  Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination - established by Liberals, dismantled by Labor
  National Indigenous Council - established by Liberals, dismantled by Labor
  Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs - established by Labor, dismantled by Liberals
  Indigenous Advisory Council - established by Liberals and still exists
  National Indigenous Australians Agency - established by Liberals and still exists
  
  Looking back through the history, it could be argued that Abbott was responsible for the heaviest dismantling, but it wasn't really connected to election cycles.
  
  The current structure under the NIAA seems to be the most detailed, transparent, and accountable body that we have had so far. The Corporate Plan and Reconciliation Action Plan are worth a read. It definitely makes you wonder why we need a Voice when the plans, structure, and hierarchy is already in place.
  https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/niaa-rap-2022-25.pdf
  https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/niaa-corporate-plan-2022-23_0.pdf