Western Australia's vastness, the variety of different Aboriginal views and experiences of entrenched disadvantage are likely to shape the state's coming vote on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
That's the view of Yamatji Noongar woman and law lecturer at the University of Western Australia, Karinda Burns.
"It's different in Western Australia, because it's such a huge, diverse landmass and the different countries that are in it," Ms Burns said.
"The Indigenous population here in Western Australia is very diverse … and their level of opportunity is varied.
"The Voice will be important here to elevate the position of Indigenous communities, so we can actually contribute an outcome for ourselves, because we haven't been provided an opportunity."
However, within the Aboriginal community — just as in the non-Aboriginal community — there is a wide range of views on the Voice.
Western Australia had the lowest "Yes" vote of any state in the 1967 referendum to count Indigenous people in the census that would allow the Commonwealth to consider them in laws, at 80.95 per cent.
That does not mean a similar level of reluctance for change will play out again this time in Western Australia.
However, almost 60 years later, Indigenous disadvantage and marginalisation remain at the heart of the latest referendum debate.
The main argument centres on what a Voice and constitutional recognition will achieve — how will it help close the gap in the west?
Lack of 'details' drives division
It has created differences of opinion along political and social lines.
The "Yes" vote has firm support from the McGowan government and many West Australian Indigenous leaders, who believe it will bring about substantial positive change.
Somewhere in between are the West Australian Nationals, who say they support the Voice but won't be actively campaigning for a "Yes" vote. A sort of soft "Yes".
On the other hand, the West Australian Liberals are a soft "No".
Leader Libby Mettam says she personally supports the intent of the Voice but — like her Federal counterpart Peter Dutton — has questions about the details.
"I do have some outstanding concerns about what this will mean from a practical sense, and how the Voice will improve outcomes for Aboriginal people, or our First Nations people," Ms Mettam said.
Those more firmly in the "No" camp included some talkback callers to ABC Radio Perth, such as Graham, who said it was "nonsense", would achieve nothing and Indigenous people needed to take responsibility for themselves.
"This is going to separate us into 'them and us'. We need to be Aussies together," he said.
Another caller, Brian, was concerned Indigenous people would be given an unfair advantage through a "second voice" on top of existing rights.
"I find it difficult in that way that they are getting a second voice, and other Australians are not getting that second voice," he said.
'This cannot be distraction politics'
However, the "No" camp also encompasses people coming from a totally different perspective, such as Indigenous figures who think the Voice and constitutional recognition will do nothing to improve Aboriginal lives.
Prominent Indigenous social justice advocate Megan Krakouer has no faith that the Voice will reduce Aboriginal incarceration rates, child removal and suicides in Western Australia.
"This cannot be distraction politics. We must stand up to give voices to those [who] are forgotten," Ms Krakouer said.
"We must have tangible outcomes."
However, Professor Peter Yu — a Yawuru man from Western Australia's Kimberley region and a member of the government's referendum working group — pushed back against arguments that the Voice would make no material difference on health and wellbeing, incarceration and suicide rates.
"I think what they fail to recognise is that the reason — [the current situation] is so bad — is because there is no accountability currently," Professor Yu told ABC Radio Perth.
"It's completely out of the hands of the Aboriginal community, in regards to those very statistics.
"I think the Voice will make a significant difference by allowing Aboriginal people to have a say for the very first time as to how we respond to these ongoing crises.
"At the grassroots level, particularly, it gives us the opportunity for the first time to have a significant opportunity to voice our concerns, to be able to also, you know, work with governments."
Ms Burns urged people to remember the Voice was not the end result, but a means to better address the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
"If every step is a practice in equality, then we will be moving in the right direction, now and in the future," she said.
PM speaking 'from the heart', says Indigenous leader
That way of thinking appears to have resonated with another West Australian Indigenous rights campaigner, who had strongly opposed the Voice.
Noongar Minang man Mervyn Eades had spoken out against the change, questioning how it would actually help people on the ground, and instead pushing for a treaty.
However, after hearing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announce the proposed question that Australians could be asked at the referendum and the draft constitutional amendment, he's changed his mind.
"I didn't like the Voice, but when I heard him talking this morning, I think it's a great idea," he said.
"It's from the heart, it's not a token issue."
"I thought it would cede our sovereign rights. But it will not remove our sovereign rights, as it's only to have a voice in there. We've never had a voice in this country."
The "Yes" camp will be aiming to change the minds of hundreds more West Australians in the lead-up to the referendum.
Professor Yu said only a small minority had completely made their minds up to vote "No" and the "great majority" would support the Voice.
Referendum a 'risk we don't need', Colin Barnett says
However, the problem from former Liberal leader and premier Colin Barnett's point of view, was that the referendum lumped together both constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people and support for a Voice to parliament in one question.
He said he supported a Voice but was not convinced it should be written into the constitution.
"If people feel strongly about that, they will vote 'No', even though, underneath it all, they're probably very supportive of the Voice," he said.
"If this is defeated totally, because of it only being one question, it would be incredibly damaging for the wellbeing of Aboriginal people, and for the relations Aboriginal people have with the wider community.
"That would be a very sad outcome and, in my opinion, it's a risk we don't need to take."
Mr Barnett proposed splitting the referendum into two questions to make it simpler for people to support recognition or the Voice.
The wording of the question may still be changed when considered by federal parliament.
