What is the Voice to Parliament?
The Voice provides permanent representation and recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution.
- The Voice will be a new body that represents Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from across Australia to provide their input into the decisions, policies and laws that are made by the government and parliament.
The Voice will be constitutionally enshrined. This means successive governments can’t overturn it or abolish it without going back to the Australian people for their approval through a subsequent referendum
tHE bASIC iDEA
The basic idea of the Voice is very simply:
- sometimes we need special responses to make space to hear from people who have historically been excluded from decisions being made about them
The Voice is designed to do precisely this - to create a new platform that enables Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders to be included in deicison making.
Giving VOice to Indigenous People
The idea of giving a distinct voice to indigenous people in matters that affect them is not new. Similar types of institutions and relationships have been established all across the world, including in Sweden, Norway and Finland with the Sami people, with the Māori in Aotearoa, and in North and South America.
- The Australian Voice proposal, is not a direct mirror of these - rather it has been developed in consultation with First Nations peoples as a response to our local circumstances, and in particular, the lack of formal agreement – such as a treaty – or formal recognition of the rightful place of First Nations in Australia.
What the voice is
|
WHAT THE VOICE IS NOT
|
OVerview of the Voice
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice is intended to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can have a significant say in the development of law and policy that affects them.
There is compelling evidence that the direct involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the design and implementation of laws and policies produces much better outcomes. The Voice will lead to more informed and responsive public policy which can improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. |
|
We know from the evidence that what improves people’s lives is when they get a say. And that’s what this is about |
Professor Marcia Langton (2023))
For a more detailed discussion of the legal impact of the Voice, as well as its impact upon our system of government, see:
CONSTITUTIONAL Change for Everyone's Benefit
The proposal is for the Voice to be embedded in the Constitution. This approach will provide the Voice with security and stability.
The Parliament has established three national Indigenous representative bodies in the past. When political fortunes have changes, or circumstances have altered the political calculus, Parliament has not hesitated in disestablishing those bodies. This proposal seeks to protect against such existential insecurity.
The Parliament has established three national Indigenous representative bodies in the past. When political fortunes have changes, or circumstances have altered the political calculus, Parliament has not hesitated in disestablishing those bodies. This proposal seeks to protect against such existential insecurity.
For an brief history of these historical national Indigenous representative bodies, see:
However, while the proposal seeks to make a change to the constitution, that change is relatively modest and limited. It does not alter the fundamentals of Parliamentary or Executive decision-making. It does not grant special legal or constitutional rights to individuals.
As the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Murray Gleeson, has observed:
As the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Murray Gleeson, has observed:
|
A proposal that the Constitution should provide for Parliament to design, establish, and determine from time to time the make-up and operations of a body to represent Indigenous people, with a specific function of advising about the exercise of that power, hardly seems revolutionary |
Murray Gleeson, Recognition in Keeping with the Constitution: A Worthwhile Project ( 2019)
From a legal and constitutional perspective, there is very little concern that the Voice will disrupt or fundamentally alter our constitutional norms. Another former Chief Justice of the High Court, Robert French, has described the Voice as:
|
high return against low risk [because it will] provide a practical opportunity for First Peoples to give informed and coherent and reliable advice to the Parliament and the Executive to assist them in law and policy making in one of the most difficult areas of contemporary government’ |
Robert French and Geoffrey Lindell, ‘The Voice—High Return, Low Risk’ (2023)
Moreover, putting the Voice in the Constitution is designed to be an Act of Recognition and Respect. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have more than 60,000 years of connection to this continent. Putting the Voice in the Constitution intended to mean that the Australian people formally recognise that history and status.
But It is Up to VOters to Determine if they SUpport the Voice
The above summary of the role and ambition of the Voice is not designed to influence voters to either support or oppose the Voice. Ultimately, every single voter will have to determine for themselves whether the Voice is in Australia's best interest.
Voters may disagree that the Voice mechanism is the best means of meeting these objectives, that these objectives are better served in other ways, or indeed that these are not objectives we should be pursuing as a nation. These are all issues upon which people might disgree.
But before people chose whether to support the Voice or not, it is incumbent upon as - as citizens - to understand what is actually being proposed. This may not be the same thing as either the Yes or the No campaign present.
In a referendum such as this there are different issues to be understood:
Voters may disagree that the Voice mechanism is the best means of meeting these objectives, that these objectives are better served in other ways, or indeed that these are not objectives we should be pursuing as a nation. These are all issues upon which people might disgree.
But before people chose whether to support the Voice or not, it is incumbent upon as - as citizens - to understand what is actually being proposed. This may not be the same thing as either the Yes or the No campaign present.
In a referendum such as this there are different issues to be understood:
- The Actual Change Being Proposed: This includes the core design, and the objectives this change is intended to meet.
- The YES Case: This sets out the case for change - this includes explaining why those objectives are worth pursuing and why this design is effective at meeting those objectives
- The NO Case: This sets out the reasons not to support that change - whether because those are not the objectives we should be pursuing, because this design will not meet those objectives, or because there are competing values or costs that outweigh any benefit
This page, and indeed this entire site, is dedicated to this first task. This is not value neutral. If one party or the other wishes to mislead or deceive the public by pretending that what is being proposed is in fact different to the actual proposal, then this portray will be at odd with this ambition. But this does the voter no credit.
How they vote, based on that information, is up to them.
- We respect the electorate by giving them clear, accessible and evidenced-based information about what is actually being proposed.
How they vote, based on that information, is up to them.
Further Resources
- This article in the Conversation by Professor Gabrielle Appleby and Eddie Synot ‘The Voice: what is it, where did it come from, and what can it achieve?’ details the long history of the Voice and clearly sets out the key elements of the proposed constitutional change.
- The First Nations Portfolio of the Australian National University has assembled a document that answers many of the questions asked about the Voice to Parliament. As the document itself states, it "has been prepared by the First Nations Portfolio (FNP) at The Australian National University (ANU). It provides responses to common concerns currently being raised about the Voice. It is intended to help people better understand some of the complex issues and confusing commentary that has surrounded the Voice proposal so they can make an informed decision when they vote at the referendum later this year."