FAQs

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

All Australians have an interest in the quality and effectiveness of public policy.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders and Professor Adrienne Stone

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

That is a matter on which only Indigenous Australians would be able to advise.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

The Voice would and could do neither of these things.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

The structure of the Australian Public Service is a matter for determination by governments from time to time.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

The Voice only has authority to make representations. It has no power to affect agriculture or anything else.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

The Voice only makes ‘representations’. All decision-making, on tax and everything else, would remain with the Parliament and government.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

The Voice only has authority to make representations. It has no regulatory authority at all.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

‘Matters relating to’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the second sentence of the amendment most obviously include one or two things:

1. Laws or policies in which First Nations peoples are singled out: for example, revision of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act.
2. 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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

Yes, within the framework provide by the Constitution.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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’.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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':

1. Firstly, matters that would clearly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, such as a change to the Native Title Act.
2. 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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

The proposed constitutional change would have no effect on the manner of appointment of High Court judges.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

No; the tripartite definition does not involve a religious test within the meaning of section 116.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

A simple answer: No.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

No.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

Not as far as we are aware.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

For the referendum to pass, two sets of majorities are required:

1. A national majority (for which voters in the territories are counted)
2. Majorities in at least four states (for which the territories are not counted)

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

As many as the Parliament decides in the implementing legislation.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples will select who represents them on the Voice – this follows the published Voice principles.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

The responsible way to cover the referendum debate involves six obligations.

1. Distinguish news coverage from commentary.
2. When reporting news, be impartial and give both sides a fair hearing.
3. Don't publish misinformation or disinformation. If you must, make it clear that it is wrong and include the correct facts.
4. Refrain from hate speech, and if it comes from a public figure, get an expert opinion to refute it.
5. When giving your opinion, make sure it is based on true facts.
6. Actively publish accurate information about the proposed Voice.

— Dr Denis Muller

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

The government’s legislative agenda always requires deliberation – that is the purpose of a Parliament. The Voice is intended to assist that process.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— UniMelb Voice to Parliament Team

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

Read statements of support from University Council, Executive, and the Academic Board here.

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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).

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders

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.

— Professor Cheryl Saunders