Costello talks Voice ahead of Bendigo appearance with Carter

In the leadup to his visit The Advertiser put some questions to the strong Yes vote advocate about the proposal.

In a nutshell, why will you be voting Yes?

I think it's absolutely about our future. It's not about our past and atoning for sins or guilt or shame; it's about our future. The Voice is so important because it gives responsibility to Indigenous people, and we can then legitimately blame them if they don't step up to that responsibility. I'm quoting leaders Marcia Langton and Noel Pearson in saying that. At the moment they really still are largely pawns of well meaning bureaucrats and departments and are subject to a revolving door of policies and labyrinthal complexity.

Some people think the Voice represents privilege and an unfair amount of resources being directed towards Indigenous issues.

Many whites like me, for 25 years have said, 'Look, when Indigenous get their act together, and tell us what they want, then we'll support them'. Well, guess what? They did. In terms of cost, unlike ATSIC before it, the Voice has no budget. It doesn't distribute money so it doesn't choose programs. It advises, having listened from the ground up on what it thinks governments should do and who governments should be talking to.

Wouldn't we assume it will lead to initiatives that will cost money?

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted at the moment and the No case has absolutely no [plan] to do anything different. They just want to see this voted down and more of the same, which is already leading to massive waste.

Is the Voice really going to achieve much for Indigenous people?

Eighty per cent of them have asked for it - they've met in 15 regional dialogues all around Australia, and then at Uluru they've asked for this. The Uluru Statement is supported by 80 per cent of Indigenous people - and by the way, most of that 20 per cent not supporting it are saying it's too weak because it's only advisory. Tell me what's being achieved at the moment? If the Voice goes down, it's just business as usual. And we know business as usual is not working, we're not closing the gap.

IN OTHER NEWS:

Isn't it the case that there's an Aboriginal political class who will be involved in the Voice who are removed from the majority of people it is meant to represent?

In every area of human life, every governmental issue, there are people who are at the top representing the rest of us, and therefore get called elites. For instance the AMA (Australian Medical Association) representing health professionals, and in my own case I'm at the top of the National Alliance for Gambling Reform, advocating. So to say, somehow, shock horror, this can't happen with Indigenous is frankly quite hypocritical.

If there's a successful Yes vote to change the Constitution, what happens then? We don't know the details of what's proposed.

If there's a successful vote, Parliament has to do the work of choosing how the members of the Voice are elected and how it's constituted. The Constitution is simply a statement of principles, and some of our most fundamental principles - for instance, the roles of Prime Minister and Cabinet - aren't even mentioned in it. At Federation, when they said, "We're going to have a navy" and "We're going to have an army," nobody knew how many ships or how many generals there would be. No-one knew the details of the telecommunications system or the railway. The Constitution was voted in on principles and then Parliament filled in the detail. It's exactly the same with the Voice.

What about treaties? Won't they lead to financial reparations?

Treaties are already happening at state level in every state except New South Wales. They can't be negotiated at a national level [because there are] 200 or 300 different Traditional Owner peoples who have sovereignty on their own lands. That's why we talk of Aboriginal nations. And by the way, Warren Mundine, the leader of the No case, says we absolutely have to have treaties and should change Australia Day.

You're also travelling to South Australia and Tasmania to promote the Yes case and obviously believe strongly in it.

Yes, and I ask people to remember that in 1999, with the Republic referendum we were offered the opportunity to recognise Indigenous people in the preamble to our Constitution and we voted it down. It's very sad to me that this seems to be such a stumbling point. This is not about race. All we're doing is recognising that these are First Peoples, because the Constitution was written at the time of social Darwinism, which said there were rungs on a ladder of human superiority and Aboriginals were the lowest rung, so they weren't even included.

Apparently, there's been some criticism locally about your visit to Bendigo, with questions asked about religious figures getting involved in the Voice. What do you say to that?

Have they ever heard of the Baptist Reverend Martin Luther King? Dealing with these issues goes profoundly to Christian faith.

Register here for Tuesday's event, organised by the Bendigo for Yes group, which will be held from 7pm to 8.30pm at St Paul's Anglican Cathedral, 6 Myers Street, Bendigo.

Digital subscribers now have the convenience of faster news, right at your fingertips with the Bendigo Advertiser app. Click here to download.