Voice - Legal Education website
  • Home
  • Legal Context
    • Understanding the Australian Constitution >
      • What is a Constitution?
      • The Australian Constitution
      • Changing the Constitution
      • History of Referendums
    • Courts and the Constitution
    • Legal Language
  • The Voice
    • Overview of the Voice >
      • The Referendum Question & Proposed Constitutional Amendment
      • Design Principles
      • Law Council of Australia - FAQs
    • Legal Impact of the Voice >
      • Legal Analysis by the Experts
      • Solicitor-General's Opinion
    • History of the Voice >
      • The Dialogues
      • The Uluru Statement
  • Case for Yes
    • Understanding the Yes Case
    • The Yes Pamphlet
    • Resources and Opinions on Yes >
      • Anderson - Addressing some Concerns about the Voice
      • Collins - Why the Voice Deserves Our Support
      • McIntyre - Be the Voice
  • Case for No
    • Understanding the No Case
    • The No Pamphlet
    • Resources and Opinions on No >
      • The 'Progressive No' Case
  • Resources
    • Video Resources
    • Audio Resources
    • Expert Explainers >
      • EE1: Twomey - The Yes/No Pamphlet
      • EE2: Perche - How a Referendum Works
      • EE3: Brennan & Appleby - The Uluru Statement History
      • EE4: Holland- Representative bodies in historical context
      • EE5: McDonald- Federalism and a First Nations Voice
      • EE6: Koch & Olijynk - The SA Voice
      • EE7: Jones - Lessons from Past Referendum
      • EE8 - Walker - The Impact of Foreign Money on the Referendum
    • Recommended Links
    • Digital Record
  • About
    • About the Project
    • Legal Literacy
    • About the Project Team
    • Supported by UniSA
    • Contact

the regional dialogues were a vital & extensive process of consultation with First Nations People:
The first steps that led to Uluru & the VOice

The Regional Dialogues

The Uluru Statement from the Heart – and subsequently the push for the Voice - emerged from a series of regional dialogues held across the country, culminating in a National Constitutional Convention at Uluru in 2017.
 
To understand the Voice, it is critical to understand that it is the product of a process of consultation and discussion between an extraordinarily diverse group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The Dialogues were a significant step in a national attempt to give voice to our First Nations people, to give them a space to discuss and reflect on their own priorities
 
The Voice Referendum is the culmination of nearly a decade’s work of consultation and discussion with and between Australia’s First Nations people. 
For an overview of the Uluru Statement and the Dialouges, and their impact in influencing the design of the Voice constitutional proposal, see this Expert Explainer from two leading legal experts invovled in the Referendum Council process

+ EE3: Brennan & Appleby - The Uluru Statement

Background – 2015 and the Referendum Council 

​The proximate origin of the Dialogues - ultimately the Uluru Statement from the Heart – was the bipartisan appointment of the Referendum Council in December 2015. The Council was designed to identify the best steps in moving Australia towards the constitutional recognition. As the Council website notes: 

​Our job was to advise the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on progress and next steps towards a successful referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution.

We built upon the extensive work of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians and the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
Referendum Council, The Council
​

​The council was made up of Indigenous and non-Indigenous community leaders and included:
  • Patrick Dodson (Co-chair, until March 2016)
  • Pat Anderson (Co-chair on resignation of Pat Dodson)
  • Mark Leibler (Co-chair)
  • Megan Davis
  • Andrew Demetriou
  • Natasha Stott Despoja
  • Murray Gleeson
  • Mick Gooda (until February 2017)
  • Stan Grant (until March 2017)
  • Tanya Hosch
  • Kristina Keneally
  • Jane McAloon
  • Noel Pearson
  • Michael Rose
  • Amanda Vanstone
  • Dalassa Yorkston
  • Galarrwuy Yunupingu (until his death on 3 April 2023)
  • Denise Bowden (As proxy for Yunupingu)
The council invited all Australians to share their views on constitutional change regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. To that end, the Council released a "Discussion Paper on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples" in October 2016 to guide discussion. This broad consultation sought the views of all Australians on fundamental questions, such as: Do you support constitutional change? And, if you do, What form do you think change should take?
 
Over the same period, the council held a series of Indigenous consultations to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the chance to say what meaningful recognition is to them. Indigenous people designed and led these consultations.

The Purpose of the Dialogues 

​The Dialogues were the principal act of consultation and discussion of the Referendum Council with Australia’s First Nations people.
 
The purpose of the Dialogues was to consult and educate, resulting in the most proportionally significant consultation process of First Nations peoples Australia has ever seen. As the Referendum Council notes:

The purpose was to reach broad agreement on whether and, if so, how, to ‘recognise’ Indigenous Australians in the Australian Constitution. The Dialogues also provided an opportunity for participants to discuss the main options for recognition, understand what they mean, combine or modify existing options and rank options in order of priority
Referendum Council, Dialogues

​Who Participated 

Over a six-month period the Council travelled to 12 different locations around Australia and met with over 1,200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives. This was a truly nationally, and nationally significant, consultation:

The Dialogues engaged 1200 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates – an average of 100 delegates from each Dialogue – out of a population of approximately 600,000 people nationally.

Care was taken to ensure that a wide range of First Nations groups and interests were represented at the Dialogues. As the Referendum Council notes:

​‘Attendance to the Dialogues was by invitation only. This ensured each Dialogue was deliberative and reached consensus on the relevant issues. Meetings were capped at 100 participants: 60% of places were reserved for First Nations/traditional owner groups, 20% for community organisations and 20% for key individuals. The Council worked in partnership with a host organisation at each location, to ensure the local community was appropriately represented in the process.’
Referendum Council, Dialogues

What the DIALOGUES Involved

The Dialogues were structured which provided delegates the opportunity to respond to the reform proposals outlined in the Referendum Discussion Paper of 2016. 

​The 
Dialogues discussions occurred over a six month period from December 2016 to May 2017. 
​The First Nations Regional Dialogues were convened in the following locations:
  1. Hobart, hosted by Tasmanian Aboriginal Corporation (9–11 December 2016)
  2. Broome, hosted by the Kimberley Land Council (10–12 February 2017)
  3. Dubbo, hosted by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (17–19 February 2017)
  4. Darwin, hosted by the Northern Land Council (22–24 February 2017)
  5. Perth, hosted by the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (3–5 March 2017)
  6. Sydney, hosted by the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council (10–12 March 2017)
  7. Melbourne, hosted by the Federation of Victorian Traditional Owners Corporation (17–19 March 2017)
  8. Cairns, hosted by the North Queensland Land Council (24–27 March 2017)
  9. Ross River, hosted by the Central Land Council (31 March – 2 April 2017)
  10. Adelaide, hosted by the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc (7–9 April 2017)
  11. Brisbane, (21–23 April 2017)
  12. Thursday Island, hosted by Torres Shire Council and a number of Torres Strait regional organisations (5–7 May 2017).​
Picture
An information session hosted by the United Ngunnawal Elders Council was held in Canberra on 10 May 2017.

The National Constitutional Convention was then held at Uluru (23–26 May 2017).

The Dialogues' OUtcomes - RECOMMENDATIONS

The objective was not to directly produce recommendations, but rather to promote an informed and productive national focal event for First Nation’s people, the National Constitutional Convention, which was held at Uluru (23–26 May 2017).
 
That National Constitutional Convention ultimately resulted in a consensus document on constitutional recognition, the Uluru Statement from the Heart.



+ The Uluru Statement from the Heart
The Voice referendum directly flows from the advice and recommendation of the National Constitutional Convention and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. And at the foundation of this was the Dialogues – a key step in giving Voice to Australia’s First Nations peoples

The dialogues' outcomes - our story 

The Uluru Statement organisation has produced an excellent interactive webpage 'Our Story' - it is reproduced below.

Please click on the small red cross at the top of the image below to begin the experience: 
The authors of this site are very grateful for the work of the Referendum Council, Professor Megan Davis and others for assisting us in writing this section of the website.

Further Resources 

Professor Megan Davis 2022 Kenneth Myer Lecture (2022) 

The annual Kenneth Myer Lecture invites an eminent Australian to make a significant statement on a broad subject of interest to them, and is hosted by the National Library of Australia

Other Sources

  • Referendum Council, Discussion Paper on Constitutional Recognition  of Aboriginal and  Torres Strait Islander Peoples (2016) 

  • Referendum Council, Final Report of the Referendum Council (2017)
 
  • Megan Davis Correspondence: Moment of Truth (2018) 69 Quarterly Essay 
Picture

The Voice Legal Literacy Project

Supported by 
Picture
View the UniSA Privacy Statement
Authorised by Joe McIntyre, Voice Legal Literacy Project, UniSA: Justice & Society, University of South Australia, 224 Hindley Street, Adelaide, SA
  • Home
  • Legal Context
    • Understanding the Australian Constitution >
      • What is a Constitution?
      • The Australian Constitution
      • Changing the Constitution
      • History of Referendums
    • Courts and the Constitution
    • Legal Language
  • The Voice
    • Overview of the Voice >
      • The Referendum Question & Proposed Constitutional Amendment
      • Design Principles
      • Law Council of Australia - FAQs
    • Legal Impact of the Voice >
      • Legal Analysis by the Experts
      • Solicitor-General's Opinion
    • History of the Voice >
      • The Dialogues
      • The Uluru Statement
  • Case for Yes
    • Understanding the Yes Case
    • The Yes Pamphlet
    • Resources and Opinions on Yes >
      • Anderson - Addressing some Concerns about the Voice
      • Collins - Why the Voice Deserves Our Support
      • McIntyre - Be the Voice
  • Case for No
    • Understanding the No Case
    • The No Pamphlet
    • Resources and Opinions on No >
      • The 'Progressive No' Case
  • Resources
    • Video Resources
    • Audio Resources
    • Expert Explainers >
      • EE1: Twomey - The Yes/No Pamphlet
      • EE2: Perche - How a Referendum Works
      • EE3: Brennan & Appleby - The Uluru Statement History
      • EE4: Holland- Representative bodies in historical context
      • EE5: McDonald- Federalism and a First Nations Voice
      • EE6: Koch & Olijynk - The SA Voice
      • EE7: Jones - Lessons from Past Referendum
      • EE8 - Walker - The Impact of Foreign Money on the Referendum
    • Recommended Links
    • Digital Record
  • About
    • About the Project
    • Legal Literacy
    • About the Project Team
    • Supported by UniSA
    • Contact