It seems likely that a significant portion of Australians intend to vote ‘No’ in the upcoming referendum because they are suspicious of government motives, are following the guidance of someone they respect, or because they believe that Indigenous Australians already receive their fair share of recognition and respect.
This includes a significant minority of Indigenous Australians who also oppose the referendum.
The processes leading to and from the Uluru Statement of the Heart have been wide-ranging, but have not incorporated all Indigenous people. Indigenous Australia is not homogenous and unified, any more than non-Indigenous Australia.
In addition, the last 200 years have given precious little reason to trust government of any kind. It is also not at all hard to see how appalling it must feel to have the immigrants who have settled here since 1780 voting to decide whether to recognise the existence of those who have lived here for thousands of years.
There are also questions about how the Voice could possibly represent the diversity of Indigenous Australians, and on top of all this, questions about whether this process could cede sovereignty in some way that precludes more concrete legal opportunities in future.
Given all of this, it is understandable that many people are questioning the intentions of the government in holding this referendum.
My understanding is that the impetus for the Voice referendum arose from the same process that produced the Uluru Statement from the Heart. On election night last year, the current prime minister, caught up in the elation of an unexpectedly successful result, was moved to commit his leadership to enshrining it.
His government has subsequently followed through with this, supported by enthusiastic groups of people Australia-wide, yearning for greater recognition of Indigenous Australia, and the opportunity to live in a more unified and mature nation, one of which we can all feel proud.
They do not see it as an alternative to ‘Treaty’, but as a more immediate path towards greater self-determination, while treaty processes continue to proceed.
I will most certainly vote ‘Yes’, even though the polls confirm that the referendum is unlikely to succeed, the ‘No’ vote having the support of the same coalition of parties that have been in government for most of the last 25 years. (Historically, referenda have tended to fail, even with two party support, and this one has become party-political.)
One can also readily imagine that mining giants would want to see the referendum fail, wishing to avoid any political shifts that could potentially threaten their future interests. (If I were CEO of one of these organisations, I would consider it prudent to dedicate a chunk of spare change towards paying savvy influencers to frighten people away from voting ‘Yes’.)
The high likelihood of failure makes it easy to see running this referendum as misguided and unwise. However, it has already succeeded in widely publicising the Uluru Statement from the Heart, has spurred widespread discussion about the status of Indigenous Australians, and has consolidated relationships amongst those eager to see a more constructive relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia.
My hope is that the heart of this Statement from the Heart is strong enough to remain beating strongly through whatever shenanigans may accompany the remainder of this referendum process and well beyond it. This will allow us to continue to move towards the worthy goal of forging a more coherent, mature and unified basis for Australian nationhood.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
