After all, they've billed it as a partial rewrite of the Ten Commandments or the Magna Carta so where else would you go but to the source of this great debate.

Up until the past week I was leaning towards the No camp, but I have changed my mind.

In 1967 most Australians felt good about approving a few lines in Section 51, clause xxv1 of the Constitution, granting Aboriginal people a mention in the Census, while empowering Federal Parliament to make "special laws" about them.

That's it.

The argument against voting Yes next Saturday includes a worry that it would be racially divisive, it would give the Voice too much power over Commonwealth roles such as foreign affairs and defence and would entrench the Voice so that only another referendum could remove it.

Okay.

The Australian Constitution is an unimpeachable authority for a Constitutional Monarchy.

The Monarch is enshrined as our head of state.

READ MORE: 'You need to lift your game', Exeter man told

The Monarch's representative in Australia, the Governor General, has the exclusive powers to approve government legislation.

Same with the Governors in the six states.

The Monarch even has powers to disallow any laws passed by our Parliament, within one year of a law receiving Royal Assent, or approval.

The Constitution is largely a codifying of the powers of the British Monarchy.

This is not some form of colonial nostalgia or imperial theatre.

It's a living, breathing control of our way of governing.

In short, the Mother Country still owns the colony.

READ MORE: Former premiers express support for Rockliff

Only a successful referendum on a republic could change that.

So who wins?

A Constitutional Monarchy entrenched in our culture and political process, or a few lines of encouragement for the poor buggers who were here first?

The Mother Country has it all stitched up.

The Monarch approves the vice regal representatives in the two tiers of state and federal governments.

The Monarch approves all federal and state legislation though the vice regal structure.

Through the Commonwealth and state vice regal representatives the Monarchy may appoint state and federal ministries, and also reserves the right to sack them.

READ MORE: Tassie's top footy league saves its best for last

So, tell me where, in the Voice to Parliament structure, will the Voice proponents have anywhere near the level of those extraordinary powers?

Don't tell me the Voice is a trojan horse.

The only thing wrong with the Voice is that it's perhaps 122 years too late.

I don't think a Yes vote next Saturday is going to up-end our way of life.

I do think the protagonists for the Yes case bungled their campaign by misreading the debate over detail.

People didn't want a library full of fine print to have to wade through, they just wanted some basic explanations.

As well, the Yes campaign stuffed their approach by attaching racism overtones to anybody who said no, or who even simply queried the process.

They got nasty, which only made the wider sceptical population view the debate with greater cynicism.

Yes, I have many questions about how it will operate, and I do worry about the over-reach, where the Voice can permeate all manner of political norms and decision making.

READ MORE: Fast-growing town pushing for its own makers' market

But the legislative mechanisms to be put in place if the referendum is approved can take care of the detail.

So, there you go.

Vote Yes next Saturday, because our First Nations brothers and sisters deserve a little more than a few patronising lines in the Constitution.

They belong to the oldest tribes on earth.

I regard them as my family and ancestors in spirit because they are Australian and so am I.

Nothing should come between us.

Before this soap opera dies a natural death I will relate an event of a few years back which may assist you with understanding what just happened.

I was working part-time in Guy Barnett's office.

One day I had to rush some papers downstairs to his parliamentary ministerial office, with the bells heralding Question Time already ringing.

As I came round the corner to the glass doors of the ministerial suite Elise Archer hurried by on her way to the chamber.

I think our eyes may have met for half a blink of an eye, and we passed by and kept hurrying.

I have never met her although I spoke to her husband Dale on the phone once or twice when he was State Liberal Party director.

Anyway, after Question Time my Minister approached me and quietly related how Archer had complained to him that as I passed her I gave her a contemptuous look, or something like that.

I was gobsmacked.

How she could have unpacked this nano-second encounter as some kind of contempt or rebuke was beyond me.

I did the right thing and texted her with an apology if any offence was taken.

I got a one word "thanks", as a reply.