The Voice Facts

Facts About the Voice to Parliament Referendum

5 min. read

This is a short information page about Australia's upcoming referendum on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament.

It is a page for people looking for simply explained facts. It includes references to authoritative sources supporting the facts.

Is the Voice easy to understand?
Yes

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice would be an independent advisory body.

It would give advice to the Australian Parliament and Government on matters that affect the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

It would not be able to make laws or policies, or to force the government to act on its advice. It would not run Indigenous programs, or handle government funding.

It is called a "Voice" because its function will simply be to speak to the government about issues facing Indigenous people.

Is there a problem that the Voice is supposed to help solve?
Yes

Compared to other Australians, quality of life for Indigenous people lags behind - by a lot - in crucial areas such as child mortality, educational outcomes, employment, and life expectancy.

While there are already efforts to 'Close the Gap', the Australian Government's 2022 report on its progress (PDF) shows only 4 of its 18 targets are classified as 'On Track'.*

* NOTE: 7 of the targets have insufficient data to assess their progress.

Is a Voice to parliament likely to make a difference?
Yes

We know that Indigenous involvement in the planning, design and implementation of programs is critical to success.

The Voice is going to enhance Indigenous involvement in federal government law-making and policy-making that affects their lives.

Has this idea come from Indigenous Australians?
Yes

The idea for the Voice comes directly from the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Statement is the final summary of 13 regional meetings and one national convention held by Australia's First Nations people to arrive at a consensus* about what constitutional recognition should look like, as well as a broader reconciliation roadmap.

The referendum is the result of over a decade of work and consultation between Indigenous people, politicians, and legal experts, driven forward with the support of both major political parties.

It has included the Expert Panel on the Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution; the Referendum Council; 13 First Nations Regional Dialogues held in every corner of the country, the National Constitutional Convention, which produced the Uluru Statement; and the Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process.

* NOTE: "consensus" means widely supported, typically by a large majority. It does not mean unanimous agreement. Seven delegates walked out of the national convention in protest. Over 250 signed the final statement.

Do Indigenous Australians want the Voice?
Yes

Polling of Indigenous Australians early in 2023 showed that around 4 in 5 of them support the Voice to Parliament.

Is it important to put it in the constitution?
Yes

Having the constitution say that there must be a Voice for Indigenous people would be different to just having a similar body created through legislation, in a number of important ways.

Constitutional law expert Paul Kildea explains that these include: it is the considerate response to the invitation in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which specifically asks for this form of recognition; the Voice would have protection from being dismantled by a government that doesn't like it (unlike previous bodies which have been); and the Voice would have the independence that results from not being under threat of being dismantled, and the legitimacy that results from an approved referendum.

Is there enough detail about the proposed constitutional change?
Yes

Everything that Australian citizens need to know to vote on the change to the constitution has been made public: the proposed amendment, the question that will be asked in the referendum, and even the full report of the parliamentary enquiry into the change (PDF).

The chapter proposed to be added to the constitution does not contain all the details of how the Voice will operate, but that is deliberate and sensible.

It's normal practice for the constitution to describe the framework and constraints for an area of government, but leave the details to be decided by the Parliament. In fact, putting more details about how the Voice should work into the constitution could hamper Parliament's ability to improve it over time.

Is there detail available on how the Voice might end up being run?
Yes

You can get a good overview of how the Voice is likely to work by reading the First Nations Referendum Working Group's one-page Voice Design Principles.

If you want to delve into even more detail about what the Voice is likely to look like, you can read the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report, a 270-page document that is the result of 18 months of collaboration with almost 10,000 people and organisations.

Importantly, though, you don't need to understand these details to support the Voice in the referendum. We are not voting on the design of the Voice, but simply on whether we should have a long-term federal body to advise the government on issues affecting Indigenous people.

Is it important for the Voice to advise the Executive Government as well as the Parliament?
Yes

The Parliament is responsible for making and changing laws.

The Executive Government - the Ministers, government departments, and the public service - play key roles in both designing upcoming laws, and in creating policies to implement laws that have been designed with flexibility for how they are carried out.

It's for these reasons that it's important that the Voice can give advice to the Executive Government: so that it can be involved in conversations when laws are still being designed, and also when policy details are being fleshed out after legislation has been passed.

Would the Government be protected from the Voice obstructing its functions?
Yes

The government created a Constitutional Expert Group to advise it on the design of the proposed amendment. They have said that they believe the new text cannot give the Voice any right to dictate, demand, or veto legislation.

The Solicitor-General - the government's independent legal counsel - has also reviewed the proposed change (PDF) and said "the Voice's function of making representations will not fetter or impede the exercise of the existing powers of the Parliament". He also said the constitutional change "is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution, but an enhancement of that system."

Do legal experts support the Voice?
Yes
Supporters of the Voice among the legal community include the Solicitor-General, former High Court Chief Justices, the Law Council of Australia, the NSW Bar Association (PDF), the Victorian Bar Association, the Australian Lawyers Alliance, and the Law Societies of ACT, NSW, the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia.
Is there more information available?
Yes

The government has created an official information website at https://voice.gov.au/

You can also find excellent, factual articles explaining many parts of the Voice proposal and referendum on pages by The Conversation and ABC News.

What about the arguments made by the 'No' campaign?

There is a 'No' campaign recommending that voters reject the proposal in the Voice Referendum. Most of the arguments put forward in support of that view are addressed by the facts above.

The main slogan of the 'No' campaign - "Labor's Voice is risky, unknown, and permanent" - contradicts four key facts from above:

If you'd like to read a brief response to each of the main points made in the official 'No' campaign essay submitted to the AEC, click 'Show me more' below.

(Just be warned, you'll be stepping over the "5 minutes reading time" by continuing on.)

Show me more

No Campaign: "The Voice Is Legally Risky"

Nobody wants the Voice to put the government into an ambiguous legal position. That's why, as described above, the government has put significant effort into consulting with constitutional law experts, to gain as much confidence as possible that the new text in the constitution will have the desired effect, and will not put the government in an uncertain or defensive position.

No Campaign: "There Are No Details"

This is obviously an exaggeration. We couldn't have a referendum if there were "no details".

If we consider a less-exaggerated claim that there aren't enough details, then as described above, there is enough detail to vote on the constitutional proposal, and there are a lot of details available about how the Voice is likely to be implemented. It would be unwise to put more detail into the constitution than is necessary.

No Campaign: "It Divides Us"

This claim is sometimes expressed by others as the Voice being "racist". There are several points of context which counter these claims of racism and division.

Firstly, the proposal for the Voice comes from the Uluru Statement From The Heart, a document written as an invitation to go on a journey of reconciliation. The whole purpose of the invitation is to unite, not to divide. Indigenous people have kindly thought about and explained to the rest of Australia, "This is how we can reconcile and unite".

Secondly, there is a point to be made that in essence the Voice is not based on race - e.g. skin colour, physical features, cultural background - but on indigeneity: the fact that the First Nations have inhabited this land for tens of thousands of years.

Finally, there are many existing elements of Australia's government which cater exclusively to Indigenous Australians and are uncontroversial. There is a Minister for Indigenous Australians, as there has been (under various names) for over 50 years . There are many government initiatives which aim to improve the lives of Indigenous people. The 'No' campaign argues that the constitution should not have a body representing only one group of Australians. At the same time, one of their leading campaigners Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is herself the Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians, a role that only represents the very same group.

No Campaign: "It Won't Help Indigenous Australians"

As described above, increasing Indigenous involvement in the design of programs that seek to benefit them is critical to those programs' success, and that is the role intended for the Voice.

No Campaign: "No Issue Is Beyond Its Scope"

The issues on which the Voice would be able to advise the government have deliberately been defined very broadly. It may be inaccurate to say that "no issue" is beyond its scope, as its advice is technically limited to "matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples".

However, the Voice being allowed to provide advice on a very wide range of issues doesn't mean that it will try to offer opinions on a wide range of issues. The Voice will not have unlimited resources, so it will need to prioritise which issues it chooses to provide advice on.

No Campaign: "It Risks Delays And Dysfunction"

As described above, the government has worked closely with legal experts on this proposal, specifically to ensure that the proposed legislation doesn't risk delays and dysfunction.

The proposal seeks to give the Voice the relatively harmless right to "make representations", while the Parliament would be given quite wide power to make laws about the Voice, including its power and procedures.

It's been made very clear by almost everyone involved in designing the Voice that it has no power to veto or make any demands about legislation or policies. The Solicitor-General has said the Voice "will not fetter or impede" the Parliament.

No Campaign: "It Opens The Door For Activists"

This claim rests on a number of questionable assumptions: first, that all activists (definition: a person who works to achieve political or social change) are to be feared and their goals resisted; secondly, that the Voice is lacking in detail, so we can't know how it would work, a myth addressed above; and thirdly, that the Voice will afford activists significant powers to make changes that other Australians won't like, or to reduce the effectiveness of government by tying it up in delaying litigation, another myth addressed above.

A summary of the detail beneath this claim in the 'No' case essay could be: "If there is a Voice, we will be forced to listen to how Indigenous people think the country can be improved". Requiring the parliament and government to listen to Indigenous voices is indeed the purpose of the Voice. Few people would genuinely think that listening to people is a threatening idea.

No Campaign: "It Will Be Costly And Bureaucratic"

This claim directly contradicts the 'No' campaign's other claim that "There Is No Detail". It is disingenuous to claim both that we don't know how it will work, and that it will be bureaucratic.

As described above, current efforts to Close the Gap are not meeting their targets, and a well-designed Voice is likely to improve Indigenous programs (also described above). There's a reasonable argument to be made that the Voice is likely to reduce the cost of achieving the Close the Gap goals, and as a result the cost of receiving its advice may be repaid many times over in a reduction of costs in the delivery of Indigenous programs.

No Campaign: "This Voice Will Be Permanent"

Having the existence of the Voice guaranteed for the long term is an intentional part of its design, and has a number of advantages, as described above.

While some people may perceive there being risk in having the Voice "locked in", those designing the constitutional change have worked to mitigate any risks, in part by assigning the Parliament broad power to evolve legislation around how the Voice should function.

It's also not entirely correct to say the Voice will be permanent. Just as the voting population can choose to put the Voice into the constitution, they may also choose in the future to remove it, if it seems no longer necessary. The constitution contains mechanisms for changing the constitution because it's expected that the nation's needs will change over time. (Did you know: Residents of Australian territories were excluded from voting in referendums until 1977. That was also "permanent", until it wasn't.)

No Campaign: "There Are Better Ways Forward"

The 'No' campaign doesn't have a unified position, and doesn't present any single "better way forward". It is a coalition of people who would prefer a wide array of very different things, from no constitutional recognition and no Voice at all, through to token recognition in the constitution and maybe a legislated Voice (or maybe not), through to a constitutional Voice being highly desired but wanting a treaty with First Nations to happen first.

More importantly, though, this claim that there are better ways forward dismisses the decade of collaborative consultation done by Indigenous leaders and their communities, the government, and legal experts, described above. After all that time, and the work invested in ensuring the voices of grassroots communities were included, the 'No' campaign essay has attempted to characterise the process as "rushed and heavy-handed".

The Indigenous community of Australia has considered long and hard how we might lay a path of reconciliation together between First Nations people and those of us who are here as a result of colonisation. The final product of their work is the kind invitation in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The position of the 'No' campaign is to reject that invitation, and in doing so to reject most of the decade of work that has led up to it. Indigenous people and their allies have worked very hard to get us to this point, where we are presented with this invitation to reconciliation. If it is rejected, as the 'No' campaign recommends, the most likely outcome is that we'll be left with no way forward.