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

Resources and Opinions for the Yes Case

The following pages pull together opinion pieces, published articles and other resources that may help people better understand the Yes case

Opinion Pieces

Judicial Perspectives on the Case for Yes

The following articles are written by numerous former judges, and explain their reasons for supporting the Yes case:

Picture
Picture
The Voice – A Step Forward for Australian Nationhood
The Hon Robert French AC and Professor Geoffrey Lindell AM (Adelaide)
This article, written by a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, and one of Australia's most eminent constitutional scholars, makes the case for supporting the Voice proposal. They argue that the Voice is "a proposal whose normative force and potential practical benefit outweigh, by a considerable margin, the asserted risks associated with the amendment."
Robert French and Geoffrey Lindell, "The Voice – A Step Forward for Australian Nationhood" (2023) 97(6) Australian Law Journal 1
A Step Forward for Australia.pdf
File Size: 227 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

We are grateful for Tomson Reuters for making this article available to the public on an open access basis

  • Robert French, ​The Voice — A Step Forward for Australian Nationhood (2023) AusPubLaw Blog, 20 February 2023 [Note that this is a shortened version of the article above]
  • Murray Gleeson Why I support a Voice to Parliament (2019) Inside Story July 2019]
  • Mary Gaudron and other eminent former Judges  An Invitation That Should be Accepted – Leading Judges Support the Voice in Open Letter  (2023) Australia Institute 1 August 2023

Commissioned Pieces

The VLLP has commissioned a number of writer, experts and parties to write pieces specifically for this site. These commissions either have been on the basis of authors reaching out to the VLLP, or the project reaching out to authors who have made public contributions. Authors for both Yes and No have been approached.

Picture
Lainie Anderson: ADDRESSING SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE VOICE
A short Q&A style analysis of some of the most commonly expressed concerns about the Voice
+ Anderson: Addressing some COncerns about the Voice

Picture
Dr Matt Collins: ​WHY THE VOICE DESERVES OUR SUPPORT
A short opinion piece from the previous President of the Australian Bar Association on why the Voice should be supported
+ Collins: Why the Voice Deserves our Support

Picture
Pat McIntyre: ​BE THE VOICE
A lyrical exposition of why we should be voting yes by leading Native Title lawyer, poet, playwright and a former Chair of Reconciliation NT
+ McIntyre: Be the Voice

LINKS AND OTHER RESOURCES

  • Professor Ben Saul, The Voice is not revolutionary or threatening. Only its opponents say it is (2023) Sydney Morning Herald, 10 April 2023

Picture
Lawyers for Yes has been created by Professor Melissa Castan and Associate Professor Kate Galloway  to link together, and provide resources for, lawyers across Australia interested in listening and responding actively to the calls of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for justice, through Voice, together with Treaty and Truth-Telling

​Lawyers for Yes is a social media platform to provide informed resources and advocacy for lawyers providing community and information on the 2023 referendum on the Voice To Parliament.
​

Picture
​Jesuit Social Services, is a social change organisation established by the Australian Jesuits in 1977. It conducts research, advocacy and delivers an array of programs in areas of social justice. The Jesuit Social Services has endorsed the Voice, and collated a wide range of resources at the following page:
  • ​Voice to Parliament Resources
​Jesuit Social Services, in partnership with National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Catholic Council, has produced a document designed to guide a conversation about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament:
  • Voice to Parliament Conversation Guide
Kitchen Table Conversation Guide.pdf
File Size: 4228 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

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