When Australians are asked to decide on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, co-author of the Uluru Statement from the Heart Megan Davis says they should vote "yes".
In a wide-ranging interview this week, Professor Davis told 7.30's Laura Tingle that constitutional recognition would drive real change for Indigenous Australians by giving them a say in policymaking, and while political bipartisanship was important, the Voice would not be "doomed to failure" without it.
Professor Davis says Australians understand that Indigenous people should be involved in shaping the policies and making the laws that affect their lives and communities.
"It's not a wishy-washy thing, it's just very pragmatic," she says.
"Australians can see that the gap's not changing, Australians can see that we're not turning things around very quickly, and that's because we're just not involved. We're just not at the table. That's one reason why they should vote yes.
"It's a very simple equation. If we're there and we have input, you'll get better quality laws, policies and outcomes".
She believes direct input through the Voice to Parliament will make a tangible difference to closing the gap in areas where there is still significant disadvantage — areas like child protection, rates of incarceration, youth detention and justice.
'The right to be heard'
At the Uluru Dialogues in 2017, Indigenous Australians unanimously rejected symbolism in the form of a preamble to the constitution, or a statement of recognition. In their place they settled on the Voice, "the right to be heard".
Professor Davis emphasises the importance of practical outcomes, but also recognises the Voice's symbolic dimension.
"I think the Voice is both symbolic and concrete … It's a recognition of First Nations voices as being important to the nation. It's recognition that the descendants of the ancient peoples who arrived here 60,000 to 70,000 years ago are still here, have survived and [are] speaking with their voice".
She says a major deficiency of the current political framework is that "nobody's mandated to listen, there's a lot of noise and it's happened in a lot of policy areas".
The Voice, enshrined in the constitution, would change that, she says.
More than just advisory
Despite claims of a lack of detail, Professor Davis says there are three pre-referendum reports that contain "a lot of information" about what the Voice to Parliament might look like.
Her expectation is that parliament will draw on the reports' common elements and principles when it is considering the design.
One of those key principles is early involvement in policy development and lawmaking.
"That principle is really important," she says.
"We know that being there at the beginning will mean that the outcome is much more directed to what we think is needed, rather than us just coming late to a Senate or parliamentary committee, where the government of the day has pretty much worked out the numbers, and it's pretty much worked out what they want to do".
The Voice will be an advisory body, but she believes it will have authority.
"People talk about the word advisory in a kind of sneering tone, as if it's not going to have an impact," she says.
"Of course it's going to have an impact. I mean, this will be a Voice or an entity that's been set up by a majority of Australians voting yes at a referendum.
"It'd be a government that would be very brave to just entirely ignore the views of the Voice."
She cites the 2007 Northern Territory intervention as policy that not only violated human rights, but could have produced better outcomes if government had spoken to First Nations people before acting.
"That's a really good example of the way in which governments just decide on a particular path and just steamroll over communities," she says.
"All they do is setback community advancement by decades."
Nationals against the Voice
Last month, Nationals leader David Littleproud announced the party would not support the Voice to Parliament.
Professor Davis says the decision was disappointing, but was a good example of why the Voice is needed.
"They made that decision on the basis of no detail," she says.
"They hadn't read anything, they hadn't responded to any substantive, concrete detail.
"That's actually what happens in Indigenous affairs."
The opposition is yet to declare its position.
Professor Davis acknowledges Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and some of his colleagues have been "huge supporters", but says a lack of bipartisanship will not deter the yes campaign. It will "forge on ahead" regardless.
"This conversation has to be between Australians and First Nations people, without politicians trying to drag it into that left, right, tribal politics that means no progress in so many areas of law and policy," she says.
"Our people can't survive no progress. We can't continue down this path with no change.
"It's a very important and powerful connection, this Voice referendum, between us and the rest of the nation".
