These are the institutional pillars that enabled this nation to shake off its authoritarian beginnings and transform itself into the land of the fair go.

But these pillars will be tested next year in two important matters: the first is the debate over the proposed Indigenous voice to parliament; the second is the question of whether the federal and ACT governments can repair the damage caused by the catastrophic handling of the Brittany Higgins affair.

This unresolved rape accusation has left doubts about the probity of the ACT justice system and the federal compensation payout to Higgins.

The solution to these doubts must be based on principle, not politics.

And the starting point is this country’s long struggle to build a nation based on the idea that we are all equal regardless of race, religion or political affiliation.

The second principle is the golden thread that runs through the common law: we are all presumed innocent of wrongdoing until proven otherwise in a court of law.

These ideas are all that stand between individual liberty and the waves of hysteria that are regularly seeping from the sewer of social media into the weakest parts of the mainstream media and then, inexorably, into the weakest minds in politics.

The real issue with the debate over the voice is not whether Indigenous Australians deserve a fair go.

Of course they do. And if that means listening to them on matters that relate specifically to Indigenous affairs, of course we should listen.

But that is not what the voice is all about.

The coming referendum is the reverse of a fair go: we are being asked to abandon egalitarian principles and revert to a system that would be familiar in feudal England, pre-revolutionary France or some Orwellian nightmare.

We might all be equal, but if this referendum succeeds, some will be more equal than others.

We are being asked to give a defined group, based on their genetic inheritance, more say than others when it comes to all matters of public policy and law – not just Indigenous affairs, and not just at a federal level.

This was made clear on Wednesday when Indigenous constitutional lawyer Megan Davis of the University of NSW was interviewed by the ABC’s Laura Tingle.

According to Tingle, nobody has been more involved in developing the voice over the past five years than Davis.

Tingle asked Davis what issues Indigenous Australians wanted to talk about to parliament through the voice.

Davis’s answer: “At this point, virtually every issue.”

“The Commonwealth – and cascading through the federation to the states and territories – will be compelled to listen. That’s the key thing,” Davis said.

So if Davis is right and the government would be under compulsion, what would be the source of that power to compel?

Could this be one of the implications hidden inside the vague wording of the proposed constitutional change that was unveiled by Anthony Albanese at the Garma festival in July?

And if it is, what exactly would the government be required to do in order to comply with such a constitutional requirement?

It would also be useful to know, preferably before we are asked to vote on the wording from Garma, what restrictions those implications would impose on the government.

If the government is serious about ensuring the community benefits from an educational process about the voice, that process needs to include a legal opinion – preferably by the Commonwealth Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue – on those three issues.

We should not be asked to go to this referendum without Donaghue’s advice exploring the constitutional implications of the wording from Garma, the requirements that would be imposed on the government and any new restrictions on the role of the government.

If Davis is right and the voice would have the power of compulsion, that gives rise to another question: would this be the sort of organisation that deserves to be vested with such power?

On November 30 Albanese held up a report in the House of Representatives that had been produced by Marcia Langton and Tom Calma.

The Prime Minister said of that report: “There are 280 pages of detail about how the voice will operate.”

That report, which has not been disavowed by the Prime Minister, proposes to establish an institution that would not necessarily be democratic. Australians who happen to be Indigenous would have no guaranteed right to vote for the voice.

Until the government provides some detail of its own, those seeking to understand what this referendum is all about will need to rely on experts such as Davis, Calma and Langton.

So here’s what emerges: it looks like the voice will not necessarily be democratic but will have the power to compel the federal government to listen to whatever it says on anything – including matters that go beyond Indigenous affairs and affect all Australians.

Those who seek to change the Constitution bear the onus of proving their case.

That means the government has a responsibility to subject the words from Garma to proper legal analysis by Donaghue and to make his advice public — along with an outline of the legislation that would create the new institution.

Without that, the referendum deserves to be dismissed as a disreputable attempt to change the Constitution by stealth.

Why vote for something that is shrouded in secrecy?