Still undecided? The key reasons for and against the Voice ahead of Australia’s historic referendum

While support for the Voice is still falling in official polls with just two days until the referendum, the reality is that many Australians are still undecided whether to vote Yes or No.

Not surprisingly, both campaigns are hoping to secure the lion’s share of the still undecided vote.

Polls across the board have the No vote in a comfortable lead – Redbridge’s latest poll has just 35 per cent of respondents voting Yes, while Essential has the Yes vote at 43 per cent.

Both campaigns have accused the other of disinformation, disinformation and division throughout the course of the debate.

Here, Daily Mail Australia sets out the reasons for and against the Voice as argued by each of the respective campaigns.

ABOUT

This idea came directly from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

The main argument of the Yes to Voice camp is that it is a direct request from First Nations people.

For decades, governments and various authorities have made policies for indigenous people, but the Uluru Declaration from the Heart urges lawmakers to instead work with them to achieve better outcomes.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says a constitutionally guaranteed Voice is the model that was established at Uluru and is therefore the only form he is considering.

ANTI

There are no details

The No camp’s strongest argument against the Voice is that it lacks detail. The Albanian government has repeatedly tried to cancel this narrative, but polls show that it has stalled.

The government has not provided any concrete details about the composition of the Voice – and they argue that there is good reason.

The details of Voice are yet to be determined and will be decided by Parliament once the government is given the mandate to proceed with the advisory body. Mr. Albanese says that doing this before the referendum is a waste of time for something that may not happen.

But the flip side of this decision is that, without the parameters set in the vote, the No campaign has successfully argued that the advisory body’s scope is potentially endless.

ABOUT

One voice will save the government money

The Government says Voice for Parliament will actually save money on annual Indigenous Affairs spending.

An advisory body can help the government fund initiatives and programs that are directly beneficial to the communities they aim to serve.

ANTI

This voice will be permanent

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the Coalition have filled the government with concerns and questions about the Voice being a permanent body.

A Vote, once written in the constitution, cannot be undone. Instead, future governments will have the ability to shape it as they see fit, as long as it remains an advisory body.

“We’re going to be stuck with negative consequences,” Mr Dutton said.

ABOUT

A Yes vote will unite our country

The government says One Voice will unite the nation and be a step towards healing the rift caused by colonisation.

Mr Albanese has repeatedly said a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum is a ‘modest’ request which will not affect the lives of most Australians, but will make a world of difference to the country’s most vulnerable.

And Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney said she hoped One Voice would target the “systemic and structural disadvantage” of First Nations, referring to numerous attempts to close the gap over the years which have failed.

ANTI

This proposal divides us

Meanwhile, the No campaign is delivering the opposite message: one that actually further divides Australians.

Citing in-fighting and in-fighting between supporters of each side, critics say the proposal alone has been enough to spark chaos in Australia and warn it will only get worse if a “Yes” vote is passed on October 14.

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and the Fair Australia campaign have repeatedly warned a Constitutionally enshrined Voice for Indigenous Australians will ensure racial segregation in the country forever.

ABOUT

Practical advice that works to ensure people have a better life

The government says a Voice advisory body will be able to explain in the best possible terms which government initiatives are and are not working in communities.

Armed with first-hand knowledge from Voice, the government will be able to act on the advice and tailor its response, which they say will improve the lives of disadvantaged First Nations people.

ANTI

It won’t help and there are better ways ahead

The No campaign argues the Voice will not help the most disadvantaged Australians in the way the government hopes.

Instead, critics argue that the Voice will be another bureaucracy which will benefit a select few but do little to help remote and rural communities.

The Coalition and No voters are calling on the government to make changes regardless of the result.

ABOUT

If not now, when?

While the No camp has found success with its slogan ‘if you don’t know, vote No’, Mr Albanese has a slogan of his own: ‘If not now, when?’

The Prime Minister noted that governments for decades have committed to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, pouring money, time and resources into efforts that have simply not worked.

All along, he says, indigenous communities have been looking for a way to better communicate their needs to the government: a Voice.

Mr. Albanese has made an effort to structure this referendum as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix issues that need to be targeted.

“If this is not successful, it is not like a month later there will be another referendum,” he said.

“People need to understand that, after such a long period of time and consultation, this is the opportunity Australians will have… If not now, when?”

ANTI

It has no borders, is legally dangerous and will be another costly red tape

Co-existing with the No camp’s argument for lack of detail is a concern that, without defined boundaries, ‘no matter is beyond the purview’ of the Voice.

Politicians who support the Voice have repeatedly laughed off questions about whether the Voice would advise on parking tickets, Australia Day, interest rates or the AUKUS nuclear deal.

But critics say that without legislation and a detailed framework, the government cannot give any guarantees about what Zeri will and will not advise.

The range of different interpretations of the Voice’s powers could also spark long and expensive legal battles, anti-Voice politicians have warned.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said: “Every word can be open to interpretation. The inclusion of the Voice in the Constitution means that it is open to legal challenge and interpretation by the Supreme Court. Legal experts disagree and cannot know for sure how a high court will interpret such a constitutional amendment. This opens a legal can of worms.

Labour’s proposed voice model is not just for parliament, but for all areas of executive government. This gives it essentially unlimited reach – from the Reserve Bank to Centrelink.’

Again, this is a concern that has been denied by the Yes campaign, who say the question has been crafted with the help of constitutional experts to avoid any problems down the road.