There's a story told about the fourth century monk St Jerome, who comes across a limping lion.
While the students he was lecturing bolt from the scene in fright, Jerome patiently sits, looks at the lion's foot and extracts a thorn.
The lion becomes his friend, staying with him until his death.
The winding up of federal parliament this week removes a thorn from the debate on the Indigenous voice.
The 'yes' campaign had always feared the role of politicians in taking what should be a national discussion about a simple concept and turning it into a roiling pit of sniping lions devouring each other.
There is now a four-week break, with parliament not returning until after the October 14 referendum.
It should be said not all politicians are dragging down the debate.
Liberal MP Julian Leeser, who quit the coalition frontbench to campaign for the 'yes' case, told parliament this week it was a chance for Australians to "lift up their eyes and - despite their own challenges - to see the gap that does not close”.
He voiced concerns Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders weren’t getting the chance to share in the nation’s opportunities.
Almost one in two Indigenous Australians live on the poverty line, with the Indigenous employment rate at 49 per cent, compared with 75 per cent among non-Indigenous Australians.
Mr Leeser dealt with one of the key arguments from the 'no' case - that the constitutional change gives Indigenous people, who represent about three per cent of the population, an opportunity not available to 97 per cent of Australians.
“The voice is not about special treatment or privileges, it’s simply about trying to get Indigenous Australians to the same starting line that other Australians are at,” he said.
“It’s about Indigenous children, their lives and their future and trying to create the conditions so they can walk confidently in two worlds.”
Indigenous leader Noel Pearson this week used a radio interview to plead with 'yes' campaigners to be "respectful of the reservations that people have".
He told the story of waiting at an airport baggage carousel.
"A woman comes to me and says, 'You know, I think I'm going to vote no because I have this question', and I took her through it.
"She tells me at the end of the conversation, 'OK, I now understand, you've answered my question about this. You've answered my doubts about this'.
"And once you do that respectfully, you explain that this is a simple advisory body .... so that we get better results in the future."
A debate has raged in parliament and the media this week over comments by referendum working group member Professor Marcia Langton that the 'no' campaign is deliberately using fear and racism to scare voters.
Labor accused Peter Dutton of leading a campaign of misinformation, with Treasurer Jim Chalmers going so far as to say the Liberal leader was "seeking to drip more poison into the well" in order to get a political dividend.
While some extreme things are being said about the voice, and misinformation is widespread - AAP has fact-checked dozens of false claims - there is no public good in confusing and misleading voters.
Professor Mark Kenny, from Australian National University's Australian Studies Institute, said the whole purpose of a referendum is to hand a matter over to the people because it is beyond the scope and powers of parliament to settle.
"Having four clear weeks now should help lower the temperature and reduce the sense of high-octane theatre and division around the question," Prof Kenny told AAP.
"This is crucial for the 'yes' case because the argument itself disproportionately benefits the 'no' side.
"Voters hear political disagreement and say, 'This is not settled, I don’t fully understand the differences but I’m going to vote 'no'”.
Prof Kenny noted when parliament passed the referendum bill the public was told it was now over to the community to decide the matter.
"Nobody in the government said, 'Oh, by the way, but we’ll have a fortnight of sittings once the campaign has already started to re-politicise the matter," he said.
"The government stuffed this scheduling up royally. It was amateurish."
With the 'no' campaign likely to get the lion's share of the national vote, it will take a hyper-effective 'yes' campaign over the next month to overcome the uncertainty among voters.
