YOUR SAY: Reasons why Tasmania can be expected to vote Yes

The sample sizes were small, but still the results beg the question - why could Tasmania be favouring the voice while other states languish? I have ten reasons.

Bridget Archer, Jeremy Rockliff, Roger Jaensch and Peter Gutwein are strong supporters of the Voice. Modern liberalism promotes Indigenous self-management and equity across society. Compare this to the classical liberalism of the No case that is stuck in the 18th century. It insists on equal treatment in all ways and is disrespectful of Indigenous rights. Classical liberalism is absolutely unjust in the face of vastly different starting points, and in practice creates even greater inequity and, dare I say it, division - to the detriment of all.

Quaker Missionaries arrived in Van Diemen's Land in 1832 and visited the Aboriginal settlement on Flinders Island. They found the arrangements for supplies shamefully deficient. In truth, those conditions bear similarities to conditions today for Aboriginal people living in the twenty town camps of Alice Springs.

The Quakers have supported Indigenous rights since the 1600s (in Pennsylvania) and naturally The Friends School supports the Voice, as do other schools and faith groups.

The Uniting Church has a proud history of supporting Indigenous rights (the progressive Ernabella Mission on APY Lands was started by the Presbyterians) and recently Scotch Oakburn College student Trishla Singh gave an impassioned Foundation Oratory Speech in favour of the Voice. Unsurprisingly, in our values-based society, this support has extended widely to business and sporting groups.

We are the smallest state but the founders of the Constitution gave us the same number of senate seats as the bigger states.

The Constitution also guarantees five lower house electorates. Each of those electorates has 20 - 30,000 fewer voters than those on the mainland.

As a minority group we are well catered for in this way. A Constitutional Voice will protect the rights of Indigenous peoples who clearly are also a minority group - and a uniquely disadvantaged one at that.

Boosted by wonderful recent books like Tongelongetter by Henry Reynolds and Nicholas Clements and Trugannini by Cassandra Pybus. Compare this to the mainland where the culture wars have rekindled. Opponents of the Voice there belittle the impact of frontier conflict and mock the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Senator Jacinta Nampijinta Price is shadow minister for Indigenous Affairs. Who on our island would make such a claim as hers - that colonisation has no continuing negative impacts on Indigenous Australians?

Unlike the mainland, there is no apparent support among Tasmania's Aboriginal leaders for the No case as expressed by Senator Price and Warren Mundine. The progressive No case as expressed by Nala and Michael Mansell is legitimate.

But the changes they propose, either through constitutional change or legislation, will need preparation and time, probably decades. The Voice will have early benefits and will not delay federal treaty and other agreement-making. We need to act now.

Aboriginal leaders such as Patsy Cameron and Rodney Dillon. They are mindful of crystal clear evidence for the substantial benefits of a Voice. For example, the Harvard University Indigenous Project shows that USA Native nations & if they are free to make their own decisions.

Will Tasmania vote Yes on October 14th? I believe so. I hope that three others states do too, along with a total vote majority.

Craig Brown is a retired GP who lived and worked in remote Aboriginal communities, in particular the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands in the 1980s.