The Constitution gives the Parliament the power to set the voting age. Do it. The Greens, the Teals and independents would see it sail through the Parliament. Give the Electoral Commission extra resources to get the youngsters on the roll before the vote.

After all, the young people (who are more likely to vote Yes) are inheriting the mess; shouldn’t they get a say in fixing it up? Older people who are more likely to vote No have less of a stake in the future and so a counter-weight is warranted.

Be astute. Be bold. Don’t shy away from having a truth and treaty process later. Be honest and up front. It is better to go down fighting an honest fight, than winning, like the No case, fighting a dishonest one.

Besides, putting the reduced voting age through the Parliament would get the Federal Opposition into an enormous tizz. The ensuing frothing at the mouth and sense of outrage would distract them from dreaming up even more absurdities to support the No case.

In June, Green and Independent MPs gave their support to the “Make it 16” campaign launch at Parliament House. The Coalition and Labor stayed away. Labor should now change its mind.

Most 16-to-18-year-olds are much more savvy on political and societal issues than many elderly. Indeed, there is a sounder case for removing the vote from elderly people who fail some basic tests (a bit like drivers’ licences) than for denying it to younger people. 

At 16, Australians can and/or must marry, pay tax, work full-time, learn to drive, give consent for medical procedures, serve in the military, pay fines, and be charged as an adult. Why not vote? And make it compulsory like everyone else.

Meanwhile, get stuck into the fundamental inconsistency in Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s position. He says he wants constitutional recognition for Indigenous people, but does not say how that can be achieved with overall support of the Indigenous people. So far, five years of extensive consultation has come up with only the Voice, nothing else.

The sort of “hello, we whitefellas ‘recognise’ you but we’re not doing anything more” was rejected in the 1999 referendum.

Demand Dutton puts up his model for recognition and see what Indigenous people say about it. Without their agreement, it is not recognition.

Dutton says he wants a voice for indigenous people, but says it can only be legislated. So, what precisely is the difference between legislating now under the existing race power in the Constitution and legislating under a new Voice power – other than the obvious one that legislating under the race power is historically tainted?

Both versions of a voice can be enacted, changed, and calibrated by the Parliament, so why not have the one Indigenous people want?

And that is the nub of it. The Coalition’s No campaign rests on the position of no Indigenous input other than that of a tiny minority of self-aggrandisers or delusional demanders of something more now.