As politicians and campaigners begin to announce their positions leading up to this year's Voice referendum, First Nations voices have been heard on both sides of the debate.
Aboriginal people across the country hold a range of positions on the Voice – and they're posing questions about what it would look like and how it would work.
Three prominent Indigenous Australians joined the panel on ABC's The Drum to discuss the challenges and opportunities which could lie ahead.
'A step at a time'
Ian Hamm is a Yorta Yorta man and the chairperson of The First Nations Foundation based in Victoria.
"I'm idealistic," he says, "of course I want a national treaty."
But he's also a pragmatist.
"Over 35 years of doing this, it teaches me and tells me you need to take it as a step at a time," Mr Hamm says.
"You may want to get to the end much quicker, but the practical circumstance is that you have to take it a bit at a time to get everyone to come with you."
"You're not a leader if you go out by yourself and no-one is coming with you – you're just a guy going for a walk by yourself.
"With a country of 26 million people, with diverse views and opinions, stances and starting points, it will take a lot of time to do."
He doesn't think most Australians have engaged with the Voice debate.
Comparing it to the 1967 Referendum, he says the question put to the Australian people then was simple: "Do Aboriginals belong in this country? Yes, or no?"
"Should Aboriginal people be allowed to speak? That is the simple question before us," Mr Hamm says of the upcoming referendum on the Voice.
"If we talk in this simple language with these simple propositions to the Australian people at large, then at least I know, whatever the outcome is, they will have understood what is being put towards them."
There's a risk with the referendum, Mr Hamm warns.
"If the referendum fails, where are we on January 26, 2024?" he asks.
"We're where we are this year, and where we were last year, and we would've not gone anywhere – for me, it's the worst outcome."
If it succeeds, the Voice will be a step in the right direction, he says.
"I may not live to see a national treaty for our country, but I want to live to see the start of it – if nothing else."
Black dissent is not divisive – it's empowering
Amy McQuire is a Darumbal and South Sea Islander woman, a journalist, and the University of Queensland's Poche Scholar.
She says the Voice debate has been starved of oxygen.
"A lot of black dissent to the Voice, a lot of valid black questioning or critique, is framed in a certain way," Ms McQuire explains.
"It's framed as irrational or unjustified.
"But there's been a long history to this process, which has meant that the Uluru Statement from the Heart was largely a compromise in order to get some form of constitutional reform in a referendum.
"And I think there's still a lot of questions from Aboriginal communities around the country about whether there are too many limitations."
She's been reflecting on Alice Springs, and the alcohol restrictions re-introduced last week to curb crime in the town.
Specifically, a comment made by Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney – if a Voice to Parliament had been established earlier, the situation in Alice Springs wouldn't be what it is.
"I just totally disagree with that," Ms McQuire says.
"Fundamentally, Australia is racist, and the constitution is racist.
"The prospect of the inevitable racist rhetoric leading up to the referendum – which we have seen in Alice Springs already – is going to continue.
"If we don't talk about racism, or the potential of what the Voice could do to fight racist violence, when state-sanctioned violence is passed in parliaments – then I just feel it's still limited."
Discussions around the Voice have been limited, she says.
"We want to talk about justice, getting our land back.
"We're not looking at how we're going to sell [the Voice] to the Australian public, we're looking at – is it worthwhile? What will this lead to? What will a failed referendum do?"
"When you look at what blackfellas are currently facing right now, where you've got racism – racist violence endemic in the justice system, the child protection systems, in the health systems, in the education systems – that's why mob out here are currently protesting.
"They don't see how a referendum is going to address any of that."
But she says what it means to be Aboriginal is built on much more than any political debate.
"Our connection and our identity are very much tied to our family and our community and our ancestors and to each other," she explains.
"Even though they tell us we're powerless, we have our own forms of power we enact every single day – I don't think that would ever be washed away by a referendum.
"I think we're stronger as a people than that, to let it divide us like that."
'Our people have got this figured out'
Roy Ah See is a proud descendant of the Wiradjuri Nation, and a member of the Uluru Dialogue Leadership.
Like Ms McQuire, he believes dissent is healthy – not divisive.
"You only have to see a Land Council meeting to see different views and heated debate and discussion," Mr Ah See explains.
"Just because blackfellas don't agree doesn't necessarily mean you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater."
In fact, First Nations people have already demonstrated that they can argue well in the lead-up to the Voice referendum.
"Our people have got this figured out," he says.
"Back in 2017, there was a comprehensive dialogue process that happened right around the country – that's where the Uluru Statement from the Heart came from.
"It was a very informative process, it was an inclusive process.
"We had Native Title groups in the room, traditional owners, people who speak from country, community-controlled organisation leadership groups – and the result was that they wanted a Voice enshrined in the Constitution."
Mr Ah See remembers the abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission in 2005, and believes it was detrimental for First Nations people.
"Aboriginal people in this country haven't had a national voice since the demise of ATSIC," he says.
"It's no wonder you've got the situation in Alice Springs – and by the way, alcohol's not the primary cause, it's a secondary symptom: the primary cause is welfare dependency and poverty.
"If we had that national voice — Aboriginal people have got the solutions, we've always had the solutions.
"Let us get on with it."
