FAQs
You Ask, Our Experts Answer
The questions you send us may be posted to our FAQs page and used in our future projects.
Keep your submission anonymous by not sharing anything that could be used to identify you.
Explore all FAQs
Navigate question topics using the left-hand menu.
Identity, Race, and Ethnicity
-
Can other marginalised minority groups also have a Voice to Parliament?
The purpose of the proposal for the Voice is to provide meaningful constitutional recognition for the First Peoples of Australia. The same rationale for constitutional recognition does not apply to others.
-
How can I respond to the claim that the Voice referendum causes racial tension by giving First Peoples constitutional rights that other Australians don't have?
The referendum aims to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution as the First Peoples of Australia, not by race.
The Voice is a way of recognition for the First Peoples that is both symbolic and practical. In practice, it helps the Parliament and government to be better informed about the First Peoples, whose customs and practices evolved here over an extraordinarily long time before the colonies were established.
-
Should the Australian Parliament treat all Australians equally, regardless of race?
The proposal for constitutional change is intended to provide constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia, not by reference to ‘race’.
Race has been mentioned (in various ways) in the Constitution since it first came into effect. If anything, the proposed new section 129 would lessen the reliance on the existing ‘race’ power.
-
What conveys a special right to First Peoples to make representations to the Government?
The rationale for constitutional recognition, which now has been discussed for over a decade, has always been attributable to the status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the ‘First Peoples’. In functional terms, the hope and expectation is that the Voice would enhance substantive equality.
-
What criteria is used to determine a person's aboriginality?
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage is personal to the individual. You don't need to prove that you are an Indigenous Australian.
However, Government agencies and community organisations will, in some cases, request proof of aboriginality when applying for Indigenous-specific services or programs.
In this cases, three ‘working criteria’ as confirmation of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage are requested. These are:
- being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent
- identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person
- being accepted as such by the community in which you live, or formerly lived.
For more information, visit AIATSIS’ page on proof of aboriginality.
Impact and Outcomes
-
Do you think we should pay Indigenous Australians reparations?
That is not an issue in the referendum proposal, which would only recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by creating a Voice (or advisory body) to make ‘representations’ to the government and Parliament. Action on such representations is a matter for the government and Parliament, to be decided in the usual way.
-
Does the Voice include land rights?
The Voice would only make ‘representations’ on matters ‘relating to’ Indigenous People. These might relate to land rights (for example, amendments to the Native Title Act), but nothing would happen unless the government and Parliament decided to act and had constitutional power to do so.
-
How can the Voice help Indigenous people with things like jobs?
The Voice would only make representations (give advice), either on its own initiative or in response to a request from the government or Parliament. If there were an issue about jobs that affected Indigenous people in a distinctive way, the Voice might make a recommendation, but it would be up to the government and Parliament to decide whether and how to act on it.
-
How do you know if Voice to Parliament is a success or a failure? Is it possible to list the success indicators ahead of time?
One principal indicator of success would be an effective working relationship between the Voice, government, and Parliament, based on useful representations coming from the Voice that are taken seriously and incorporated into policy decisions by the government and Parliament.
-
How does this referendum benefit individuals who are not Indigenous?
All Australians have an interest in the quality and effectiveness of public policy.
-
How is this channel going to deliver positive impact to Indigenous Australians? Wouldn't the more influential avenue be to create more equity and opportunity for Indigenous Australians to be a politician?
Elected representatives usually are linked to and constrained by political party membership. The Voice will make representations by reference to the views of First Peoples.
-
How will the Voice affect parliamentary decisions compared to the several elected Indigenous Federal Government Senators and members?
All the Indigenous members of the Commonwealth Parliament were elected as members of a political party and bound by party decisions. By contrast, representations of the Voice are intended to reflect the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in whatever way is appropriate for the issue at hand.
-
Is the aim for a Treaty by many First Nations' peoples, along with their demand for decolonisation leading to the dismantling of Australia's political structures and potentially impacting the country's wealth and prosperity?
There are a lot of different and strong voices on both sides of the current debate. Every Australian has the right to their own opinion, but it's important to keep things in perspective.
The current debate ought to focus on whether or not Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be recognised in the Constitution through establishing a Voice capable of making representations to the government and Parliament.
No matter what happens with this proposal, Australia's political structures remain intact. As with any Constitutional provision, this proposal tries to find a middle ground between more extreme points of view so that the majority are comfortable with it.
-
Many of those not supporting the Voice who are themselves Indigenous argue that the Voice would ‘cede sovereignty’. I suspect sovereignty is only ceded – in part – after a Treaty is made and such a step is agreed to – is that right?
Sovereignty can only be ceded by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples themselves. There is nothing in the proposal for recognition through a Voice that would involve a cession of sovereignty. Nor would a treaty necessarily cede sovereignty, unless it is expressed to do so. For a useful discussion of these issues, and rejection of the argument about ceding sovereignty, see this article by Indigenous lawyer Dr Hannah McGlade.
-
Section 101 of the Constitution says that there shall be an Inter-State Commission, but there isn’t one anymore. If yes wins, how can we be sure that the Voice wouldn’t suffer the same fate as the ISC?
The Voice is a very different body to the ISC, playing a role that is likely to be enduring, as the vehicle for recognition. It would have many supporters, in both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Even the ISC enjoyed some political and legal protection from its status in the Constitution. Constitutional status is important for the Voice, for the same reasons.
-
The widely championed importance of a ‘Voice' suggests that the many existing Indigenous representative bodies have not been effective in advancing the cause of Indigenous Australians. So why and how would a Voice be more effective?
The Voice has a different significance and a different role. It would be the vehicle through which meaningful constitutional recognition was achieved, and a Voice for all communities on all matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
-
What are the ways to ensure the Voice to Parliament doesn't become a lobby group favouring one segment of First Nations peoples, particularly the east coast nations, over those living in dire conditions in the north and west?
Options can be found in (A) who is chosen to be a part of the Voice and (B) how it works in practice.
The Langton/Calma report and now the Voice Principles show that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples know that the Voice needs to be able to respond to the very different needs and wants of Indigenous peoples across the country. The Voice will be held accountable for its performance by the communities it serves. If needed, the Parliament has the means to modify the legislation that informs the structure for the Voice.
-
What effect do you think the Voice to Parliament will have on Australia's decision to sign foreign agreements like the Nagoya Protocol?
The Voice would have authority to make representations about Australia's commitment to international agreements only insofar as they relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Where that is the case, the Voice might make a "representation" to the Government about it. It would be up to the Government to decide what weight, if any, to give to the representation.
-
What is an example of culturally appropriate housing for Indigenous Australians?
That is a matter on which only Indigenous Australians would be able to advise.
-
What safeguards are in place to ensure the introduction of the Voice doesn’t result in Indigenous people losing their land rights claims and government assistance?
The Voice would and could do neither of these things.
-
What will change if yes vote is passed?
A new section, section 129, would be added to the Constitution. It would recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia through the creation of a Voice to Parliament, with power to the Parliament to make laws to set the Voice up.
-
Will Indigenous people have more rights than non-Indigenous people?
The constitutional amendment would recognise the Indigenous people as the First Peoples of Australia. The Constitution already authorises the Parliament to make ‘special laws’ for Indigenous people. The amendment would provide for the creation of a Voice (or advisory body) that would give Indigenous people the chance to express their view about the laws that should be made.
-
Will the Aboriginal Departments be consolidated to ensure the $34 billion allocated for education, health, housing, and employment of First Nations people is effectively used, rather than being wasted on bureaucracy?
The structure of the Australian Public Service is a matter for determination by governments from time to time.
-
Will the Voice cause destruction to the agricultural industry in Australia by removing farms from non-Indigenous owners, like what happened in South Africa and Zimbabwe?
The Voice only has authority to make representations. It has no power to affect agriculture or anything else.
-
Will the Voice have a positive or negative impact on First Nations peoples? Is there a better option?
The proposal for a Voice emerged from a process that had lasted for many years, exploring what form constitutional recognition might most usefully take in Australia. The Voice was preferred over a number of alternatives.
The advantage of this approach to recognition is that it is both symbolic and practical, with the potential to make a real difference to the lives of First Nations Peoples; it will certainly not disadvantage them. How beneficial it proves to be will depend on how well it is implemented in practice.
-
Will the Voice have power to make decisions about tax or any other area of policy?
The Voice only makes ‘representations’. All decision-making, on tax and everything else, would remain with the Parliament and government.
-
Will the Voice seek to restrict non-Indigenous citizens' access to certain areas or reclaim land they deem essential to their needs?
The Voice only has authority to make representations. It has no regulatory authority at all.
-
Will the Voice's representations have an impact on not only Indigenous peoples, but all Australians?
‘Matters relating to’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the second sentence of the amendment most obviously include one or two things:
- Laws or policies in which First Nations peoples are singled out: for example, revision of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act.
- Laws or policies that apply to Australians generally but that affect First Nations peoples in a distinctive way. A hypothetical example might be a proposed amendment to the Family Law Act that is potentially inconsistent with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custom and practice.
Neither of these present the problem raised in the question.
In discussions about what the proposed amendment means, it has sometimes been said that it allows the Voice to make ‘representations’ on anything that affects First Nations peoples, even if they are affected in the same way as the rest of the population. I don't think that is what the section is trying to say. The words "relating to" require a stronger connection than that. Australian courts are also very used to requiring a connection between a law and a power.
In any case, though, even the widest possible interpretation wouldn't cause the kind of problem that the question asks about. The Voice only makes ‘representations,’ which don't require the government to act. The Voice itself will have to decide how to prioritise the issues it takes on. Inevitably, the government and Parliament will pay more attention to concerns that are important and unique to First Nations peoples. And the government and Parliament still have full power and responsibility to make all decisions, for which they will be accountable to the Australian people in the usual way.
In the end, the Voice is a way to help the government and Parliament make better decisions by making them better informed.
-
Will there be division in the Voice?
There is potential for division within any group of people. The real issue is how effectively they can be resolved through discussion, mutual respect and, where appropriate, compromise.
Law
-
A former High Court Justice has said that the Voice will lead to a flood of lawsuits and that it is not the way to go. Is this true? If so, how can we make sure the Voice isn't as open to appeals as the Migration Act or other highly contested laws?
The proposed new section 129 has been carefully drafted to minimise the likelihood of litigation. The Voice would only make representations, which would not themselves create rights and interests of the kind litigated under the Migration Act or other legal proceedings.
-
Aren't Indigenous people already subjects of the King since they were included as citizens? Also, if yes is successful, will Aboriginal People still have a way to regain some of their own lands?
Australia’s changed relationship with the UK means that we tend to use the status of Australian citizen rather than ‘subject’. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples are citizens (and formerly subjects). The Voice would only make ‘representations’; it would be up to the government and Parliament to decide what to do about them.
-
Can Government enact legislation to provide the Voice with certain privileges and protections as opposed to ‘rights’?
The answer to this depends on what privileges and protections you have in mind. The power to enact legislation is expressed to be subject to the rest of the Constitution, including those parts of section 129 that would be entrenched.
-
Can the Government disband the Voice?
The Parliament could amend the legislation setting the Voice up but would be bound by the provisions of the Constitution, including the new section 129 itself.
-
Can the intention of constitutional reform be subverted by future governments? In particular the Constitutional wording does not say that Indigenous people will be included in the Voice, it just states that the Government of the day will decide the member
All constitutional provisions rely on the good faith of government and Parliament (and, so, the strength of Australian democracy) to some degree. The proposed constitutional change would provide some protection for key aspects of the Voice, in sub-sections (1) and (2) and in the purposive opening words, with which legislation would need to comply.
-
Can the operation of the Voice change if the legislation related to it changes after the passage of the Referendum?
Yes, within the framework provide by the Constitution.
-
Can you address the concept of citizenship equality and the issue of unlimited scope?
Equal citizenship is important. But real equality also makes allowance for relevant difference. The proposed constitutional change would recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia; a relevant difference for the purposes of both constitutional recognition and provision of a Voice.
The proposed new constitutional provision is carefully written to define that the Voice's role is to make ‘representations’ to government and Parliament on ‘matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’.
-
Can you define 'issues relating to First Peoples'?
The actual wording of the proposed constitutional change is "matters related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples." It helps to think of this as covering two kinds of 'matters':
- Firstly, matters that would clearly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, such as a change to the Native Title Act.
- Secondly, the wording would include proposed laws or policies that apply to everyone but have (or should have) a distinctive effect on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in some way – Policies to stop the over-representation of young Indigenous peoples in prisons are one example.
-
Can you outline the checks and balances that will apply to the Voice? How will it be representative of and accountable to diverse Indigenous communities?
Under the Constitution, the Voice would only have power to make ‘representations’. It is up to either the government or the Parliament to act on any representations made. These are significant checks and balances.
-
Could Indigenous people influence the appointment of High Court judges under a yes vote?
The proposed constitutional change would have no effect on the manner of appointment of High Court judges.
-
Could the Voice lead to excessive litigation in the law making process?
There is no reason to expect that the proposed new section would lead to significant litigation in any governmental processes. Australian courts do not accept challenges to the law making process and there is nothing in the proposal that would alter this position.
-
Does legislation under the proposed section 129(iii) have to define Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander differently to the current Tripartite test, owing to conflict with section 116 of the constitution?
No; the tripartite definition does not involve a religious test within the meaning of section 116.
-
Does the Voice break Article 2 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights?
The proposed constitutional change is consistent with international law, including the Declaration. The Voice is only an advisory body and does not detract from equality in relation to any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Declaration.
-
Does the Voice embed race in the constitution?
Since 1901, the Commonwealth has been able to create laws based on 'race'.
The Voice acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as the first inhabitants of Australia. The criterion is indigeneity, not race. In fact, the suggested change to the constitution might lessen the use of the 'race' concept. The Voice would be set up under the new provision, which recognises First Peoples, instead of under the 'races' power.
-
Does the Voice to Parliament have legislative power?
A simple answer: No.
- Does the Voice to Parliament prima facie violate sections 9 and 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act if successful?
-
Has the No campaign been refused tax deductibility?
Not as far as we are aware.
-
How many states and people must vote yes for the Voice to pass?
For the referendum to pass, two sets of majorities are required:
- A national majority (for which voters in the territories are counted)
- Majorities in at least four states (for which the territories are not counted)
-
If the Voice to Parliament is set up, would any change to its role require changes to the Constitution and, therefore, another referendum?
The Parliament's law-making power is quite broad and would enable some evolution in the role and operation of the Voice without constitutional change. Major alteration of the role of the Voice (for example, to authorize it to make binding decisions, rather than only representations) would require constitutional change, approved by the people.
-
Is it true that voting yes to the Voice to Parliament would be irresponsible due to the lack of information about how it's going to work?
The Australian Constitution is written in a clear, concise, and brief manner. Many parts of the Constitution are put into effect by more detailed legislation, which has the advantage of being easy to change over time.
The proposed new section 129 fits very well with this style. It would give constitutional protection to key parts of the Voice that don't need to change over time. It leaves the rest to what is likely to be a long piece of legislation that can be discussed in detail in Parliament if the referendum passes.
-
Isn't the main point of the Voice to help "close the gap"? If so, aren't we making things worse for Indigenous people by not legislating the Voice now?
The main reason for the change is to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as the First Peoples of Australia.
The Voice, proposed by the Uluru Convention, is a way to do this that has both symbolic and practical value. It's hoped that it will help to reduce inequalities ("closing the gap"). It may always be useful for explaining how Indigenous law and culture relate to policy proposals.
The benefit of this proposal is that the main aspects of the Voice are defined in the Constitution, but there's a lot of room for change in its structure and function in the legislation that Parliament makes over time.
-
Isn't there a chance that the Voice will have some of the unintended effects that legal experts have been worried about?
The proposed new section 129 has been very carefully drafted, with the need to avoid ‘unintended consequences’ in mind. The text and structure of the provision and the consistency of the discussions of it in the Parliament make any ‘unintended consequences’ extremely unlikely.
The Parliament would also have a broad power to adjust the functions of the Voice and its interaction with government and Parliament in the new section 129(iii). A Constitution Convention would not be a useful forum for further refining the wording of an already developed proposal like this.
The proposed section already limits the scope for representations to ‘matters relating to’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, which captures well the scope of the authority to make representations that is intended.
-
Isn't this whole referendum racist in and of itself, as one group is getting special treatment?
The opening words of the proposed constitutional amendment make it clear that the intention is to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia. If anything, it would lessen dependence on the existing ‘race’ power in section 51 of the Constitution.
-
Isn’t a Voice to Parliament just a constitutionally enshrined lobby group?
The Voice would be an advisory body, offering advice in the form of ‘representations’, often in response to a request from the government or Parliament. Its advice would be formal and public. Government and Parliament would acknowledge when they were acting in response to a representation. The Voice would differ from a lobby group in all these ways.
-
The Uluru Statement from the Heart declares that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty ‘co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown’. What does this mean practically?
In practical terms, it means that the Uluru Statement does not seek to challenge the authority of Australian governments. At the same time, however, it reinforces the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples never ceded their sovereignty and so retain it. This debate is complicated by the ambiguity of the idea of ‘sovereignty’ in these and other contexts – it may mean different things to different people, in ways that evolve over time.
-
This should not be up for discussion. Why do we have to vote on the rights of First Peoples?
A vote is required for this proposal because it involves constitutional change. The Constitution is our highest law; all other laws need to be consistent with it.
-
What constitutional guarantee ensures that the Voice will only advise on matters concerning Indigenous peoples, and how are matters handled if they concern both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people?
The extent of the authority to make ‘representations’ is set out in the proposed section 129(ii). It applies to matters ‘relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’. It is up to the Parliament and Government to decide what to do with any representation.
-
What will be the exact wording of the constitutional amendment?
The exact wording of the proposed amendment is here: https://www.niaa.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/referendum-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-voice
-
Why are non-Indigenous people voting? Shouldn't it be Indigenous people only who vote?
The Constitution can only be changed by a procedure that involves an opportunity for all Australians to vote on whether to approve the change or not.
-
Why can't the "details" be worked out before we vote? Are we voting for a principle with no boundaries of scope or power?
Section 129 does quite a good job in setting up the key 'parameters' for the Voice in section 129(ii). The section does deal with principle, but the principle also has some boundaries. Drafting and debating the proposed change to the Constitution has been time-consuming enough over the past year or so without drafting and debating the implementing legislation at the same time.
In any event, legislation can readily be changed, so agreement on its current form would not necessarily be lasting. Once the Parliament moves to consider the implementing legislation, it is almost inevitable that one or more parliamentary committees will be established to consider it. Members of the public can have a further say then, either through their own members or directly, in submissions to a committee.
-
Why can’t the 11 Indigenous parliamentarians represent the First Nations citizens now and make change?
Parliamentarians are party members and their stance in the Parliament usually reflects this. The Voice would be responsible for making representations that reflect the views of Indigenous peoples, without considering party allegiances.
-
Why should skin colour determine your representation in parliament?
It doesn’t and it wouldn’t.
The proposed constitutional change would recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on the basis that they were the First Peoples of the land we now call Australia.
-
Why should the Constitution be changed to improve Indigenous conditions?
The Voice was first proposed as a way to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution that was both symbolic and practical. In other words, Constitutional recognition was the original reason for it, and the Voice was chosen as a way to get there.
Putting it in the Constitution should also give it a level of status and protection that helps it work as well as possible.
-
Why was the executive government put in the Referendum question without any debate or explanation?
The idea of including the executive government in the proposed change to the constitution has been there since the first draft was shared publicly last year. There's been a lot of discussion about this.
The reason is simple: if the goal of the Voice is to better create public policies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, it needs to be able to make representations to both groups who create and carry out these policies: the Parliament and the Executive Government.
In the same way, both groups should be able to ask for input from the Voice when they think it's helpful.
-
Will all laws regarding the Voice have to go through the upper and lower Houses of Parliament?
Yes, they will. In very exceptional cases of deadlock between the Houses, they might sit together to consider a law, but that has only happened once since the Constitution came into effect.
-
Will the Voice violate the fundamental principle of liberal democracies where all citizens have equal rights and obligations?
No. All liberal democracies accept the need to make allowance for relevant difference in public policy. The important difference here is that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are Australia's First Peoples. They have their own laws and customs, and they face distinct challenges. The proposed referendum would give them a Voice to improve the quality of Australian government in relation to them.
-
Would the Australian public have access to the representations that the Voice makes to Government and Parliament?
Both the purposes of the Voice and the commitment to transparency in the Principles suggest that representations will be publicly available, once they are made, unless there are reasons to delay publication in particular cases.
Lessons and Comparisons
-
How does the model proposed for Australia compare with what has happened in New Zealand and Finland?
Both New Zealand and Finland have long-standing arrangements recognising their First Peoples. Australia has been relatively slow to reach this point, partly as a result of the earlier doctrine of terra nullius.
-
How has the Government learnt from past policies impacting Indigenous people that haven't worked?
One conclusion that seems to have been drawn from past experience is that policy is likely to be more successful if it is based on the views of the people affected by it.
-
What are the key research questions for PhD students concerning the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and the Executive?
The answer to this depends on the discipline in which a PhD student is working. If the Voice becomes a reality, there may be many interesting research questions, such as the challenges of implementation, the effectiveness of the Voice over time in terms of public policy outcomes, and the responsiveness of the Executive and Parliament. There may also be projects comparing the Australian response to recognition with constitutional and other arrangements elsewhere.
Models, Membership, and Representation
-
Did the Indigenous Constitutional Convention 2017 constitute a genuine representative body with the authority to make representations on behalf of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples?
The Uluru Convention and the dialogues that preceded it sought to provide an opportunity for deliberation on the form of constitutional recognition that would be meaningful to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in a way that effectively involved as wide a range of people as possible.
-
How are we going to choose Indigenous representatives for the Voice when there are so many First Nations groups in Australia?
The government have published design principles for the Voice that make it clear that representatives will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and that it will be broadly inclusive. How this will be done in a way that is consistent with the Principles will be decided by the collaboration of Indigenous peoples if and when legislation is written to set up the Voice.
The manner of selection of First Nations peoples for the Voice will be an important issue when the legislation is drafted. All sorts of variations are possible to try to deal with the diversity of First Nations communities across Australia. The way in which the Voice draws on the views and needs of communities will also be important in settling its composition and operation.
-
How many elected Voice representatives does the constitutional amendment clause I refer to?
As many as the Parliament decides in the implementing legislation.
-
How will numerous nation groups present unified ‘representations’?
As the Principles state, the Voice itself will have a wide range of representatives from all around the nation. It will also develop methods of consulting with local and regional communities.
Whether or not people's opinions need to be the same depends on the issue. Some things may only affect a certain group of people or a certain local or regional area. When it comes to things that affect many communities, the Voice, the government, and Parliament may need to accept that policies need to change depending on the situation on the ground.
-
How will the proposed voice make sure that those who don't have a voice are heard, and will it stop the self-appointed community representatives from inflicting lateral violence on our families and communities?
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples will select who represents them on the Voice – this follows the published Voice principles.
-
If the referendum is successful and the advisory body to the Parliament is established, besides being enshrined in the Constitution, what is the difference between that advisory body and any other advisory body that makes representations to Parliament?
The Voice would perform a very important function as the means through which First Peoples were recognised in the Constitution and given a say in decisions affecting them. The role is unique in this respect.
-
What form will the Voice adopt?
The form of the Voice will depend on the legislation to be debated in and passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, acting within the limits of the Constitution.
-
What if people in WA disagree with the opinions of those in Northern Queensland?
Any disagreements between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples will be taken into account by the Voice in making representations. Ultimately, they will be taken into account by the Parliament and Government in deciding whether to act on a representation.
-
What were the regional dialogues?
The regional dialogues were a series of meetings of Indigenous people that were held around Australia before the Uluru Convention. Their purpose was to discuss what form of constitutional recognition would be ‘meaningful’ to them.
-
What will make the Voice different to all the other agencies, groups and organisations that already advise government?
The Voice would represent Indigenous people; it would be able to consider the full range of issues affecting Indigenous people; and it would have the status and dignity of having a base in the Constitution.
-
Where will the infrastructure needed to house the Voice representatives be located and what will it require?
This is a matter for the Parliament and government to decide. Whatever decision is taken, it can change over time, as with any other policy decision.
-
Who chooses who is in the Voice and how?
If the referendum passes, the manner in which the Voice is chosen will be included in legislation to be passed by the Parliament within the framework provided by the Constitution. The legislation can be changed from time to time.
-
Why is a treaty being presented as an alternative to the Voice?
Treaties are not necessarily an alternative to the Voice. After the Voice, the Uluru Statement calls for treaty (or agreements) and telling the truth, which will be overseen by a 'Makarrata Commission.' These agreements, also known as treaties, aim to resolve important matters for a shared future, and they are based on a mutual understanding.
Some of the people who want a treaty now think that the idea of a Voice doesn't go far enough because the Voice could only make "representations" to the government and Parliament.
-
Why is there no structure to the Voice at the moment?
There is structure to the Voice. The proposed section 129(2) prescribes what it would do (make representations), who it would deal with (the government and Parliament), and the matters it would deal with (those relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples). Other aspects of the Voice are likely to change from time to time and are left to Parliament.
-
Will there be any remuneration, allowances, and concessions paid to the Voice representatives?
This is a matter for the Parliament and government to decide. Whatever decision is taken, it can change over time, as with other decisions on policy and administration.
Misinformation and Disinformation
-
How can the media responsibly represent the conversation about the referendum?
The responsible way to cover the referendum debate involves six obligations.
- Distinguish news coverage from commentary.
- When reporting news, be impartial and give both sides a fair hearing.
- Don't publish misinformation or disinformation. If you must, make it clear that it is wrong and include the correct facts.
- Refrain from hate speech, and if it comes from a public figure, get an expert opinion to refute it.
- When giving your opinion, make sure it is based on true facts.
- Actively publish accurate information about the proposed Voice.
Relationship with Government and Executive
-
Could or should the Voice be able to make "representations" to state governments and parliaments, since most actual delivery of services takes place at the state level?
There are already developments in many states and territories that would enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in those jurisdictions to influence state and local policies and service delivery. If an intergovernmental issue arises, involving both the Commonwealth and the states and territories, the Voice could make a 'representation' to the Prime Minister, who could take it to National Cabinet if it was considered useful to do so.
-
Do you think the high court will imply an obligation for representations to be considered by Parliament/the Executive?
I do not think that the High Court would imply such an obligation into the proposed constitutional change. The text and structure are clear, and the drafting history would further confirm their literal meaning.
-
How can direct access to public servants reinforce or increase the power of the Voice to Parliament?
One purpose of the Voice is to improve public policy as it affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. There are many occasions when public servants are developing public policy proposals for which a representation from the Voice would be helpful at an early stage.
There are also occasions when public service or other executive bodies would be assisted by a representation from the Voice to improve service delivery to Indigenous communities.
-
How well do the experts think that the voice of Indigenous Australians will be represented, given we have several hundred Indigenous languages across countless communities?
This is not a matter for experts but for the government and Parliament in consultation with Indigenous peoples themselves. The Principles that have been published suggest how this would be done, both through the membership of the national Voice from time to time and through its operation at multiple levels.
-
Is there a possibility that an obligation of parliament or the executive to consult with the Voice could potentially delay proper administration?
There is no legal obligation to consult with the Voice.
One purpose of the Voice, however, is to improve the quality of government decision-making in relation to Indigenous peoples. Therefore, government institutions should be encouraged to seek a representation from the Voice where it would be helpful to do so.
-
Is there any evidence to support the claim that a Voice to Parliament could stop or slow down progress?
The Voice only has the power to make "representations." How these are handled is a matter for the executive and Parliament. Nothing in the proposed amendment, either directly or indirectly, says that the government has to accept them.
In the proposed change to the constitution, the Parliament would also have a substantial amount of authority to manage the relationship between the Voice and government institutions. If a lawsuit were filed, it could be dealt with quickly by a court. There is no chance that government will come to a standstill.
If it is working properly, the Voice will have an effect on public decision-making, but the aim is to improve decisions and enhance "progress," not to impede it.
-
What happens if the government of the day does not act in full or part to advice from the Voice?
If the government does not act on a representation from the Voice, nothing will happen in terms of law and policy. In political terms, the public may hold the government to account, if enough people think that action should have been taken.
-
What would be considered sufficient time for the Voice to consider an issue? How much notice must parliament or the executive give to the Voice?
There is no requirement for the Parliament or Government to give any notice to the Voice. If the Voice decides to make a representation, the length of time it takes will depend on the nature of the issue.
-
Who will decide whether or not an issue is important? The Voice or the government and its advisors?
The Voice would have authority to make representations about matters 'relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.' It will be up to the Voice to decide in the first instance what matters meeting that description deserve priority.
Once a representation is made, it will be up to the Government or Parliament to decide what weight it should be given in the policy-making process. Relevance will play a role in that as well.
-
Will the government's legislative agenda be delayed while waiting for the Voice to make representations on any issue?
The government’s legislative agenda always requires deliberation – that is the purpose of a Parliament. The Voice is intended to assist that process.
-
Will the Voice have access to Bills in the drafting stage?
If the Voice makes a representation that is relevant to pending legislation, it would be sensible for its views to be sought as early as possible. Whether it would have access to Bills, however, would be a matter for the government and Parliament.
Our engagement and resources
-
Can we share your Indigenous Voice to Parliament resources on our own website and social media?
Absolutely! All of our Voice to Parliament resources are available for non-commercial use.
They are provided to help you, the Australian public, in understanding this significant matter.
For more information, check out our University website terms of use page.
-
Why is the University taking a position on the Voice?
The University of Melbourne has long supported formal recognition of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders as the First Peoples of Australia. The referendum on the Voice is an opportunity for the University’s leadership to demonstrate its support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by supporting the ‘yes’ position in the referendum, as requested in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
The University has been committed to, and has actively supported, the national reconciliation agenda over many years. Among our many commitments to support Indigenous leadership and knowledge is the establishment of the Indigenous Knowledges Institute and the Atlantic Fellows for Social Equity (AFSE) program.
Read statements of support from University Council, Executive, and the Academic Board here.
What happens if...
-
Could Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders be recognised in the Australian Constitution without establishing Voice to Parliament? And if so, why would the government bundle the two things together?
There are other ways in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples could be mentioned in the Constitution in a way that might be claimed as ‘recognition’. A range of at least 5 of these was discussed in Parliamentary and other committees over many years, before the Uluru Convention. None of them was regarded as satisfactory. The Voice emerged from a process in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were asked what form of constitutional recognition would be meaningful to them.
-
What exactly does a YES vote provide?
A yes vote would approve the proposal to change the Constitution that has already been passed by the Parliament. It would add a new section 129 at the end of the Constitution.
-
What happens if the Voice is passed?
If the proposed constitutional change is approved at a referendum, it will go to the Governor-General for assent (which will be a formality) and the Constitution will be formally changed. The next step will be for Parliament to design and pass legislation to set up the Voice, exercising its power under the new Section 129(iii).
-
What if the Voice committee is voted in and it isn’t successful?
If the proposal for constitutional change is accepted it will provide for a body called the Voice, to make representations to the government and Parliament. Achieving constitutional recognition through the creation of a Voice would itself be a form of success, in advancing mutual understanding. If the Voice is not working as well as hoped, however, there will be plenty of scope to adjust its composition, structure and procedures through legislation.
-
What will happen if the model proposed fails to perform? Can it change over time?
The effectiveness of a proposal like the Voice does not depend solely on the model, but also on how it works in practice. If the proposal is accepted at a referendum and legislation is passed to set the Voice up, the immediate task will be to ensure that it works as effectively as possible. It would be premature to start considering changing the model until this settling period has passed.
-
What will happen if the Voice is not passed? Is it status quo?
If the referendum fails, the Constitution will not be changed and Australia will not have achieved the goal of constitutional recognition, which has been sought for so long. It is impossible to predict exactly what would happen, but ‘status quo’ is unlikely, in either political or policy terms.
There would definitely be a study of why people didn't vote yes and/or how many people didn't vote yes. Also, If the vote is no, it will have serious effects on whether and how the Australian Constitution can be changed for other reasons, which also calls for serious thought.
-
What would happen if the Voice is not given an opportunity to make a representation?
Most operations of government depend on the executive government acting appropriately, rather than on enforcement through courts. The relationship between the Voice and the executive government would be no exception. It needs to develop in a way that encourages the executive to give the Voice notice of initiatives in the pipeline that relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Inevitably, this will not always happen, however. In such cases, the Voice can still make a representation, after the fact, which may have an impact in other ways.
Transparency would assist with public accountability for these arrangements. It would be useful if the legislation setting up the Voice required, for example, its representations to be made public and available to both the Parliament and the voters.
-
Why do some states not support the Voice to Parliament?
The only measure of state support for the referendum that matters will not be known until after the referendum is held, and we know whether a majority of voters in a majority of states voted to approve the proposal or not.