One week ago, the Prime Minister attended an Uluru Statement from the Heart summit in Marrickville, New South Wales.

The speech from Mr Albanese was a continued reinforcement of the Labor Party, and now the Government's, position to ensure that the Voice is enshrined in our constitution.

The PM spoke at length about how there was "not a day to lose" and how we must, as a nation, have a referendum in the next financial year or there is a risk momentum around the Voice will be lost.

The summit attended by Mr Albanese is a hallmark of the local Inner West Council's program of training up 1000 individuals to become civic thought-leaders on the positives of the Voice.

The concept might become a model adopted across the country, to better educate and inform citizens on the nuances of what is being proposed.

I have written and said time and again that I have appreciated the leadership of the Prime Minister in this respect.

Australians typically love a pollie who speaks from the heart, and when it comes to this particular matter, Mr Albanese has the courage of commitment to his beliefs.

There is however, so much more work to do before we get to that inevitable referendum, with many unanswered questions.

Firstly and perhaps most importantly: what comes next?

If the Voice is granted, there still is not a lot of clarity around the structure, the process and the substantive role that those within a Voice to Parliament would play.

This is a vacuum that, in absence of very clear composition, will inevitably give rise to a lot fear within the community.

Fear, I might add, that was initially stoked by none other than the now-champion of the Voice, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, when he rushed to the doors of parliament to claim this was a Third Chamber, a concept which has since stuck.

Secondly: can we be certain of an impact?

This week I was talking to Derby Radio, discussing the Voice and Treaty and the point was made: how will this tangibly change things for the better for the Mob in remote Western Australia?

It's fine right now to have these town-hall meetings where you actually have town-halls to host them in, but it's a lot harder to have this discussion when you can't even provide running water or power to a community.

Will the Voice have a real and substantial impact on the very basic issues and human rights that are still being unmet in so many parts of our country? Or will it just be another exercise in having a yarn?

Thirdly and my biggest personal concern: doesn't this just delay us getting to Treaty?

The staging outlined at Uluru was "Voice, Treaty, Truth" which I appreciate.

The cause being furthered here underlines adherence to noble act of ensuring a greater respect, representation and role of our First Nations people in our country.

The trouble for me, and for a number of people in the Indigenous community, is that since the 1970s the Mob has been fighting for a Treaty.

It was considered to be a hallmark of meaningful reconciliation.

Over time that dream slipped further and further away, and for some the goal may have seemed out of reach.

Insert the Voice, as a relatively newer concept, and it's become a midpoint and delay to Treaty.

In our society, sadly, there is rarely a consistent conversation about Aboriginal Australia and there is every chance that fatigue develops in the mindset of many Aussies that once we get the Voice, a Treaty is not required.

There are still many parts of the Voice that are unresolved. To reinforce the quote from our PM though, we're running out of time and I ask the question on the minds of many: are we not be better off focusing on a Treaty instead?

• Zak Kirkup is of Yamatji heritage and is the former leader of the Liberal Party in Western Australia