On 14 October, voters will be asked to vote yes or no to recognising Indigenous people in the constitution1 by establishing a voice to parliament.
What is the voice to parliament?
The voice to parliament was proposed by First Nations people based on a lengthy and widespread consultation process about the best way to achieve constitutional recognition of Indigenous people in Australia.
The Voice would be an independent advisory body. The members of the voice would be made up of and chosen by First Nations people from communities around Australia.
Under the constitution, the 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.
It could provide advice on issues like health, children, education and housing in the hope that such advice would lead to better outcomes for Indigenous people and better value for money. The government would be under no obligation to act on the advice.
Why are we voting on this, and why change the constitution?
A vote is required because the constitution can only be changed by the Australian people, via a successful referendum.
While parliament could create a body similar to the voice via legislation without changing the constitution, Indigenous people have called for the voice to be included in the constitution. This is so 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 of Australia with a 65,000-year connection to this country.
Importantly, parliament will still be ultimately responsible for how the voice works, and will be able to change the structure of the voice through legislation. The referendum vote is only to establish that a voice should exist, and then politicians will determine how it actually runs.
What is the question we will be voting on?
“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
Accompanying the question is a form of words called the alteration, proposed to go into the constitution. It describes the voice, its powers and limitations. You can read it here.
Here are the top arguments from each side on why people should vote yes or no:
What the yes camp says
Voting yes means recognising Indigenous people in our constitution and paying respect to 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.
The voice will help make practical progress in health, education, employment and housing, so Indigenous people have the same outcomes as other Australians.
Voting yes is supporting an aspiration put forward by Indigenous people over decades with a proposal backed by more than 80% of Indigenous people.
Putting the voice in the constitution gives it stability and independence, now and into the future.
What the no camp says
The voice is divisive
The voice is legally risky
There isn’t enough detail
It won’t help Indigenous people
The voice will be permanent
The Guardian’s analysis
The no campaign’s arguments have been factchecked by the Guardian and other organisations, and many claims have been found to be misleading, incorrect, lacking important context or otherwise have no evidence for the claim made.
The no campaign has been campaigning based on the “fear”, “uncertainty” or “doubt” of voters rather than facts, and has run scare campaigns based on things that the voice will have no power over, like changing the date of Australia Day.
The yes campaign in comparison has more arguments backed up with examples and evidence. Even when the basis for a claim is harder to establish, such as how the voice will make a real change in closing the gap in health, education, employment, and housing, it is clear that the status quo is not working and the No campaign has not presented a credible alternative to the Voice.
Given that many experts say that the voice is not legally risky, may save taxpayer money, and can have its structure and day-to-day functions adjusted by parliament if there are any issues, it is clear that supporting the voice is a low-risk proposal with a big potential upside – it may well improve the lives of many Indigenous Australians.
For more information:
Information about voting in referendums
Footnotes
1. The constitution is the document which sets out the political and legal structure of Australia as a country. It is essentially a set of rules for governing a country.
2. The voice is one of three proposals from the Uluru statement from the heart. A lengthy and widespread process of consultation with Indigenous people, by Indigenous people, on the best way to recognise Indigenous people in the constitution resulted in the statement calling for “the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution”.
3. Better Outcomes and Value for Money with a Seat at the Table report
4. The functioning of the voice can still be changed by parliament passing legislation, but it could not be entirely abolished unless another referendum is held.
5. ABC and RMIT fact check of yes and no arguments; ABC and RMIT fact checks; The SMH / Age no pamphlet factcheck and yes pamphlet fact check
