Wait, shouldn't a voice come before a republic?

I don't think a republic will be on the agenda until there is a referendum on the Uluru Statement's voice to Parliament.

The Australian Republic Movement (ARM)is treating the campaign for a republic as if it is in a vacuum, far away from any constitutional reform on First Nations issues.

The only mention of First Nations people in the ARM's policy document is about the potential for a symbolic preamble of recognition but that significant consultation would have to take place.

First Nations people have made it pretty clear what constitutional reform they want and it’s a voice to parliament, not a mention in a preamble.

When you compare the ARM's policy to the movement for a voice to parliament, the political will is currently more aligned with the latter.

Labor has said they'll prioritise a referendum on the voice in their first term, the Liberals are led by a monarchist.

If the ARM is choosing this time, when there is a growing movement behind a voice, to push their substantially limited constitutional reform there is a risk of crowding the field and muddying the conversation.

Removing the monarchy from our government and having a voice to parliament are both tied to moving away from our colonial story and moving toward a more inclusive and better future, why the ARM is deciding to push a model of a republic that is without significant reform for First Nations people is a question only they can answer.

The denial of First Nations sovereignty was the underpinning characteristic of colonisation & empire.

Can we really cut ties with the monarchy if the constitution still denies a First Nations voice?

While these issues go unaddressed, is keeping the monarchy at least more honest?