Now, I don’t think there would be any political issue Senator Lidia Thorpe and I would agree on. If the Greens are quasi-Marxists in the Australian political spectrum, she would be akin to a Trotskyite – possibly almost an anarchist – as she is to the left of the Greens.

However, in resigning from the Greens, Senator Thorpe has done the logical thing, and can now in all conscience pursue her own ideals free from that party’s interference, especially on the question of the Voice.

I will express no definitive view on the Voice. Suffice to say we really don’t know enough about it, and the PM can’t just say: “Trust me, I’m a politician and we will work out the details later.” The proposal is to amend the Constitution, and once we do that, there is no going back, even if some real practical problems arise (such as an unexpected High Court interpretation of what it all means that no one intended). If we are to have it, we need to get it right. We need to know what we are voting for.

I would suggest to Albo that he take a leaf out of former ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope’s book.

Jon announced that he was going to press ahead with ALP policy and introduce an ACT Human Rights Act. (Unnecessarily, in my view.)

However, he had a draft bill for people to look at, and his eminent committee of academics held six public meetings throughout Canberra. Everyone was welcome to attend and have their say.

A total of 120 did, some of them twice or more. The smallest meeting had four people, and the largest more than 30. Still, the process was clear and democratic, even if no one was really interested.

I would suggest to the PM he should follow his old Labor colleague Jon Stanhope’s example, and hold a series of public meetings around the country to nut out an appropriate model and form of words to put to a referendum. People would be crazy to take it on trust with no detail. The actual form of words in the amendment to the Constitution needs to be agreed on before putting it to the people.

The basic arguments against the principle of a voice are twofold: 1. It will make no difference to Indigenous issues – e.g., look at Alice Springs; 2. A voice for only one section of the community is inherently racist in itself.

I would also suggest the PM be open to all suggestions as to what should go in the amendment to the Constitution. I personally would like something in the preamble. (This makes it hard for the High Court to stuff it up.) Fundamentally, the voice is about recognition of Indigenous Australians. I would like something along the lines of “Preamble – Australia is a democratic country founded on a rich Indigenous culture and history going back over 60,000 years, British institutions, and a rich multicultural society” – or words to that effect. That gives recognition to Indigenous and indeed all Australians, and sums us up as a nation perfectly.

Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Canberra Daily.

Canberra Daily is keen to hear from you about a story idea in the Canberra and surrounding region. Click here to submit a news tip.