Some, such as Natini Padmanabhan (CCN 408), argue that The Indigenous Voice to Parliament should not be based in the Constitution.
But let’s consider what having that basis means in practice.
Because of Constitutional underpinning, a group of people would be recognised as having the status of being the agency for delivery of advice federally on issues relating to indigenous communities all over the country including the Torres Strait Islands.
It is not about creating more bureaucracy.
Really, The Voice would be much more than a single committee.
Instead, it would be a hierarchical network bringing together all those who identify as indigenous, and who choose to collaborate in deciding what is most important for their futures, including in addressing the present-day consequences of injustices of the past.
The Voice would operate through advisory groups feeding information on issues up to the peak advisory body.
And that would mean firstly that indigenous communities would need to work co-operatively among themselves, so no one or sub-group were excluded.
These would determine what is most important in the information and recommendations they deliver upwards and, crucially, their intended role in actioning sought government decisions in response to the received advice.
Then the peak committee would examine what it receives and set final priorities for what it says to government.
This would be the opposite of what some have sought to portray as a Canberra Voice.
The AMA has now declared its support for The Voice.
Members recognise the need to bring together information on health issues among the indigenous population, overcoming the present fragmentation or lack of health data.
Just as important would be the opportunity for the peak Voice advisory committee to identify where there is a need for more information and propose well-targeted research to address those gaps in health information, but also in social welfare, education, housing etc.
The better the information underpinning government decisions, the more bangs for the buck.
We should vote Yes for reasons of compassion, but also that federal funding is used most effectively and efficiently.
Email, Sep 25
Sonnie Hopkins, Tascott