There are legitimate reasons to vote no if you so choose, but those put forward by the anti-Voice camp aren't it.
We are three weeks out from voting for recognition of Indigenous people in the constitution and the establishment of a First Nations voice to parliament.
I will be voting yes – the debacle around the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act was enough to make my mind up.
There are also fair reasons to vote no.
Maybe you believe an enduring voice can be achieved through legislation or feel there are better options to make a difference.
But most reasons headlining the no camp’s debate range from misleading to downright bunkum.
Government won’t tell us the detail
If you can’t find the detail through your traditional mediums, plug ‘voice to parliament’ into Google.
The exact wording of the question has been public all year. The Uluru statement has been public since 2017.
There is no detail yet on how people will be selected, how many members it will have, its funding or how it represents to government because that detail does not yet exist, nor should it.
How the voice works will be decided by legislation and there is no point legislating for something which does not yet exist.
You can change bad policy but you can’t change the constitution
This argument ignores the fact the only thing constitutional enshrinement protects is the voice’s existence and purpose.
Everything else will be decided by parliament.
Those politicians speaking against it will be able to shape almost every aspect of the voice.
If they don’t like it, they can put forward amendments to change it.
This is important to ensure the voice can evolve as priorities change and can be tweaked where problems arise.
You can’t trust Labor
This is correct but not for the reason the Opposition wants you to believe.
It is true you can’t trust Labor.
You also can’t trust the Liberals, Nationals or any other party on Indigenous affairs.
Decades of failed policy from every party at every level proves this.
Placing the voice in the constitution partially sandbags it from party politics.
Heritage Act concerns
WA Liberal leader Libby Mettam flipping her vote over the bungled Heritage Act is perhaps the most perplexing reason put out to vote no.
WA’s land councils were rallying against the Act while Labor, the Liberals and Nationals voted it in.
With no unified voice their concerns were brushed off as individual and thus they struggled to get cut through in mainstream media.
An Indigenous voice making representations to the WA parliament may not have changed the outcome but it would not so easily have been cast aside.
Voice will divide us on basis of race
I get the theory behind this – it is an amendment which will give one group of people constitutional access to the ear of government, which no-one else has.
This alone does not cause division though; that is entirely up to the individual and is already entrenched in our society.
A piece of paper does not cause division, how we choose to interpret it does.
Indigenous people are already well represented
They are in fact over-represented, with 4.8 per cent of federal parliamentarians identifying as Indigenous against a national population of 3.3 per cent.
Those members are voted in to represent all constituents though, not just Indigenous people.
And such is the state of party politics these days, they are more likely to vote along party lines regardless of whether it is in the best interests of their constituents or Indigenous people.
Secret agenda for treaty, truth-telling and compensation
Indigenous people everywhere except WA and Queensland are already being compensated through stolen generations reparations schemes.
There is, however, some truth to the treaty aspect.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s first words after the 2022 federal election were to commit to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full.
The two important words there are in full.
The statement calls for voice, treaty, truth.
So, treaty is likely to be a central theme for the voice if established, though Mr Albanese has ruled it out in this term.
It is worth noting Victoria’s First People’s Assembly, a state-based voice, is leading treaty negotiations with the Victorian government.
Should we fear a treaty?
No, but that is a debate for another day.
