In today's example of how not to win a referendum...

Some in the comments following have noticed his twitter account heading, and not taken it well:

I never liked the guy, anyway, but if  he wants to be an advertisement (ironically or not) for the idea that the whole reconciliation/treaty process is just an exercise about extracting money (a position actual racists have argued for decades), I guess he's free to do so.  

Amongst a lot of comments by some who no doubt would count as racist, there is this, which seems fair:

And while I don't know that this describes the situation for all "No" voters, this doesn't seem too unreasonable either:
 

Yes:  the thing is, the Yes campaign often promotes the idea that it is essential because (as Dan Andrews recently put it) "things work best when government listens".

But the issue is surely, at the fundamental level, not that governments "don't listen", but who they listen to amongst the range of aboriginal views often expressed on contentious issues.   

If the Voice is meant to solve that problem - formalising the "official" body who governments need to take advice from - the referendum still looks weakly justified because of the rambling, bureaucratic and inconclusive waffle that Langton and others came up with in describing how the representative body would work.