There are three equally serious risks the government is taking by seeking a very general, some might say "give us a blank cheque" constitutional change. The first and most obvious is that the debate will be both divisive and messy. In Indigenous affairs nobody I know wants more division. I should probably add there is one exception of which I am well aware, namely an Indigenous woman who says "bring it on" with an angry enthusiasm. No doubt there are more. Generally, people want Australians, whatever their ancestry or ethnicity to move forward together.

The second is that should the referendum, against the odds, be successful there will still be division and dispute over both the broad concept and the specifics. We'll still be arguing. Indigenous Australians loading hope into the Voice might feel let down, even betrayed if what's put in place doesn't meet what they have envisaged. Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians alike are entitled to know what they'll get.

If - as some think - that is all settled then spell it out both in the constitution and in clean, plain English to the voters. You might have the euphoria of a symbolic win but the bitter taste of further division.

The third risk is that the referendum is lost and that Indigenous Australians see that as a rejection of their particular needs rather than a rejection of the nature of the proposal. Already there are people offering different reasons as to why they will vote no. Some because they are offended by the idea of a separate voice into parliament for Indigenous Australians. Of those I know none, not one, wants anything than better outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Their vote will not be anti-Indigenous advancement but it may be seen that way. Others like the idea of the Voice but will not vote for anything loaded with uncertainty let alone a blank cheque. If the sum total of these no votes rejects the proposal there will not be another chance to get it right within a few decades at very least.

Let's hope the debate can be conducted on a higher plane than normal. If people who are opposed, for whatever reason are branded, cheaply, as racist there will be a rancour and sourness that sets into Indigenous debate for years to come.

The first traditional Indigenous Australian I met was a man from Ivanhoe in the western region of New South Wales. He went by the name of Jimmy Christmas. He came into the local cafe where some of my family were getting a snack and was chatting to my brother-in-law. He was chuckling in a remarkably friendly way at the fact that "yella fella black fellas" had more say than he did. This highlights the problem of diversity and complexity facing policy makers in Indigenous affairs. It doesn't matter if they are in parliament, in the public service or in a voice we might create. The problems faced by a person living a traditional lifestyle in what we call remote areas are very different from those faced by Indigenous Australians who also have another cultural lineage or lineages and perhaps live in regional towns. Their problems are different again from those in the cities who might be teachers, lawyers or doctors. Even though Jimmy Christmas would be long gone it has to be said that the term "yella fella black fella" came over not in any way as one of derision but rather one of distinction, of pride in his absolute blackness.

READ MORE:

There's another important aspect that the ensuing debate will highlight, namely what it means to represent a seat in the lower or upper house. With eight senators and three House of Representative members in the current parliament Indigenous Australia is well represented. The representation percentage-wise is a multiple of what it is in the community. Of course these people represent their state or seat. They ought not be seen as and are not purely there to represent Indigenous views. It's as ridiculous as saying that women are there primarily to represent the views of women. Nonetheless Indigenous and female members bring with them an insight into that cohort of our population that others do not. Those insights should inform both their colleagues and the parliamentary debate.

Unfortunately we have some people saying these members are only there to represent their seat. That either misunderstands or obfuscates the role of a member in a representative democracy. Members cannot be there to do precisely as the people who voted for them want. Those people will themselves disagree in any one parliament on a range of issues. The member you vote for federally is charged with speaking and voting in the parliament in Australia's long-term interest. They must undoubtedly bring to the parliament the views, problems and concerns of their electorates. But they are chosen as being the best person standing to make the final decision on the whole range of issues that come before the parliament. You vote for them as sensible and capable, not as clones of yourself.

Separately advising a government carries different responsibilities from advising the parliament. The former puts you in the box seat to advise on what issues the government needs to address and to work with them to do that. The latter offers impartial advice to both government and opposition. It's not clear to me which the government intends.

It's early days in this debate. We can all hope some light is shed.