'Political football' accusations in voice debate

Prominent "yes" campaigners have countered with reasons for voting in favour of a First Nations voice including self-determination, certainty, hope and decency.

On Thursday Mr Dutton and Northern Territory senator Jacinta Price visited Alice Springs and put forward arguments for voting against the voice.

"You have kids here tonight who are going to be sexually abused or families where domestic violence has now become an occurrence all the time and we are told nothing can be done about it," Mr Dutton said.

"I find it deplorable."

Mr Dutton opposes putting a voice in the constitution and advocates instead a focus on local, community-led efforts, saying a "Canberra voice" won't improve outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

Ms Price, the former deputy mayor of Alice Springs, said more bureaucracy would not help and she wanted to see more police officers on the ground.

"We can't just be a territory that is heavy with bureaucracy, heavy with public service," Senator Price said.

"Community members are just crying out for support."

Catherine Liddle, an Arrernte woman, is the chief executive of SNAICC, the organisation that represents Indigenous children in out of home care.

What she finds deplorable is that a politician would use vulnerable children to try and score a political point.

"Sexual abuse is a really serious crime, which has a devastating impact on children, families and communities - this is not a political football," Ms Liddle said.

"If Mr Dutton, any politician or any community member has evidence about sexual abuse of children then the mandatory process is to make a report to the authorities.

"The claims of 'rampant' abuse fly in the face of evidence. Data from Territory Families show there has been no escalation in investigations of sexual abuse or exploitation."

Ms Liddle again invited Mr Dutton and Senator Price to meet with SNAICC for a "considered, evidence-based discussion of the issue of child sexual abuse and the over representation of Aboriginal children in the child protection system".

"Despite an invitation last year, they have never approached SNAICC for more information or to hear about community-led solutions," she said.

"Mr Dutton was a member of the Abbott cabinet that cut more than $500 million in funding to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services, and another nearly $80 million to Aboriginal and Child Family Centres that supported our vulnerable children and families."

Ms Liddle said Aboriginal children were over-represented in the child protection system and this was an increasing trend.

"The reality is our children are removed from family at increasing and unacceptable rates, not because they are not loved but because of poverty, systemic racism and a lack of cultural-appropriate support to vulnerable families."

Proponents of a First Nations voice say its key tenet is self-determination.

And they believe self-determination will go a long way to help solve the problems raised by Mr Dutton and Ms Liddle.

Ms Liddle said Aboriginal communities and families have the solutions.

"We have more than 60,000 years experience in successfully raising children to be strong and thriving. Listen to our voices and our expertise," she said.

In Canberra, the joint select committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice referendum held a public hearing on Friday, as part of its inquiry.

It heard from Indigenous voices and other people with expertise.

Torres Strait Islander man Thomas Mayor, a referendum working group member, explained how the Uluru Statement from the Heart had been composed at the constitutional summit in 2017, following regional First Nations dialogues.

"The Uluru delegates synthesised the priorities from the dialogues and tried to bring it together in one common statement," he said.

"The consensus reached in the heart of the nation in 2017 was a political feat that should be celebrated in this country forever.

"I think it really gives deep legitimacy to the proposal for substantive constitutional recognition."

Mr Mayor has written a book about the voice with retired journalist Kerry O'Brien.

"To hear people say we should just keep doing what we've done but just do it better does not cut it," Mr O'Brien said.

"It does not wash.

"It is a path to further failure.

"The whole idea of the voice - as simple and as unambitious as it is in one sense and as unthreatening as it is to anybody who's prepared to sit down and really think about it - is that it actually gives the chance for an advisory body to the parliament and to the executive to have a chance to mature and grow and evolve, just as the parliament of Australia did."

Constitutional law professor George Williams addressed the notion that a voice would give rise to a logjam of litigation in the High Court.

"There is no realistic possibility whatsoever that this will give rise to a deluge of litigation," he said.

Alyawarre woman Pat Anderson wants people to know that the proposal is a voice from First Nations people to Canberra.

"This is where all the decisions are made," she said.

"And often we have been, over the generations, actually excluded.

"Our mob understand the map of Australia and they understand that the federal parliament sits in Canberra.

"What they asked for was a voice to Canberra."

Aunty Pat said that no matter what politicians are saying on the campaign trails, in the end the referendum comes down to the people of Australia.

"That's another reason why they gifted the Uluru Statement to the Australian people because they knew that it's the Australian public that decide what our values are, what sort of a country we are and what our values are and who are we today," she said.

"That's what's the ask on the table but they had absolute faith that Australians were decent people, hence the gift of hope and of even love, despite what's happened in this country."

Australian Associated Press