On 14 October, more than 17.5 million Australians will vote to decide whether to recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution by creating a body to advise parliament, known as the voice.
Australia has been talking about recognising First Nations in the constitution for more than a decade. It is the only comparable nation that has not already reached some form of settlement with its Indigenous peoples.
With days to go before polling, how did Australia get here?
What is the voice to parliament?
The voice would be an independent advisory body. Members would be chosen by First Nations communities around Australia to represent them.
The voice would provide advice to governments on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, such as health, education and housing, in the hope that such advice will lead to better outcomes.
Under the constitution, the federal government already has the power to make laws for Indigenous people. The voice would be a way for them to be consulted on those laws.
The government would be under no obligation to act on the advice.
Where did the proposal come from?
The voice is the first in a series of reforms that advocates say would help settle Australia’s “unfinished business” with its First Nations. It would be followed by treaty-making and truth-telling.
These three elements are key to the 2017 Uluru statement from the heart, which was born from a series of national dialogues involving thousands of Aboriginal people, culminating in a constitutional convention at Uluru.
The statement was almost immediately rejected by the conservative government at the time. Successive conservative leaders said they would consider legislating for regional voices, but did not support a constitutional amendment and would not hold a referendum. Labor was elected in 2022 promising to implement all three elements, starting with the voice.
Why put it in the constitution?
Indigenous people have called for the voice to be included in the constitution so that it can’t be removed by the government of the day, which has been the fate of every previous Indigenous advisory body.
It is also the way Indigenous people have said they want to be recognised in the constitution as the first nations with a 65,000 year connection to the continent – not simply through symbolic words.
Parliament would have the power to change the structure of the voice through legislation. The referendum would only establish that a voice should exist. Politicians would determine how it actually runs.
How does a constitutional referendum work?
Australia’s constitution can be changed only by a successful referendum.
That requires a positive vote from a majority of the electorate as a whole, but also in a majority of the six states. Votes in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory count towards the overall total only.
As in other Australian elections, voting is compulsory.
What the yes camp says
Recognition of Indigenous people in the constitution respects 65,000 years of culture and tradition.
Listening to advice from Indigenous people about matters that affect their lives means governments will make better decisions and save money.
Putting the voice in the constitution gives it stability and independence.
It will promote practical progress in health, education, employment and housing, so Indigenous people have the same outcomes as other Australians.
The proposal is backed by more than 80% of Indigenous people.
What the no camp says
Conservative opponents say the voice is divisive, legally risky, lacks detail, will not help Indigenous people and is dangerously permanent.
The far left so-called “progressive no” camp, including some Indigenous people, wants a treaty instead of the voice, as well as a guarantee that any constitutional change will not erode sovereignty.
The no campaign has been accused of campaigning based on “fear”, “uncertainty” or “doubt” rather than facts.
In the middle there are many Indigenous and non-Indigenous people who don’t have a strong understanding of how the constitution operates, and to whom the idea of a voice to parliament is new and untested.
What are its chances of success?
Only eight out of 44 referendums since federation in 1901 have been successful, and they all had bipartisan support.
The Labor prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has said he hoped the vote would be a “moment of unity” for the nation, but instead the campaign has been bitterly divisive. The conservative opposition under the Liberal party leader, Peter Dutton, has led the no campaign, making the chance of success less likely.
This is Australia’s first referendum since 1999, when voters rejected the proposal to become a republic under a particular model. It is therefore the first in the social media age, and the campaign has been dogged by rolling claims of online lies, misinformation and disinformation. There has been a reported rise in Indigenous people experiencing abuse, racism or trauma.
The no campaign has become a lightning rod for conspiracy theorists and extremists, including a pro-Putin activist, neo-Nazi groups and those who believe the voice is a UN-based plot to take away individual property rights.
Polls over several months have shown a steady decline in support for the proposition. Support for the proposition was comfortably above 60% in the first polls a year ago, but as the campaign developed it has plummeted to the low 40s, and well below that in some polls in certain states, particularly Queensland and Western Australia.
Indigenous people make up only about 3% of the population. In a country where discrimination and disadvantage are endemic in daily life, there are fears defeat could deeply damage the social wellbeing and mental health of a vulnerable population, and set the struggle for Indigenous rights back decades.
