Australians will vote in a referendum, ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to enshrining in Australia’s Constitution an ‘Indigenous Voice’, to function alongside Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary.

A different idea is for Australia to become a republic independent of the British Monarchy. It has been delayed by failure to agree how to appoint a government leader, possibly a president.

The two reforms coincide in seeking new national leadership for Australia. In theory, the same leader could serve both the Indigenous Voice and the interests of other Australians. The role could merge to represent all Australians equally.

In my book ‘The Grass Is Always Browner’ (Zeus 2011) Australia 250 years in the future, is governed by a democratically elected Prime Minister, Abajoe, whose family are a respected dynasty of Aboriginal Australians. His government manages the nation’s problems, including famine, floods, immigration, religion, threat of foreign invasion and civil insurrection.  Abajoe is able to arbitrate disputes and intervene from national heritage and traditional rights positions. His elected duty is to hold in custody the land and resources of Australia for all Australians.

If the Voice speaks for all Australians, not just Indigenous ones, perhaps it could be welcomed for leadership of a Republic, denying partisan interests intractably opposing national unity. An objection to the Voice I have heard is that it would serve Indigenous Australians unequally. Can this be overcome by enlarging its domain? For example, could the Voice inherit the sovereign interests of the British monarchy?

The book ‘The Grass Is Always Browner’ is on Amazon.

For reviews see martinknox.com