Voice to Parliament Resources
The First Nations Voice to Parliament referendum marks a pivotal moment in our nation’s history and will be carried by what non-indigenous people say and do.
This page contains links to events and useful factual information, resources and tools for individuals, groups, communities and businesses who want to support the YES vote for recognition and a better future for First Nations people.
CIP’s Voice events
Rural Women
Speaking Out, Mon 18 Sept @7pm
Featuring:
Dr Helen Haines, Fed MP for Indi, Vic
Susi Tegan, National Rural Health Alliance
Natalie Sommerville, Aust Women in Ag
Liz Brennan, RRR Women's Network WA
Alana Johnson AM, Vic Women’s Trust
Past event recordings & resources
Frequently Ask Questions
-
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has published the Yes and No pamphlets for the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Each essay has been written by parliamentarians who voted for or against the referendum earlier this year. But there is no independent fact checking!
Several organisations and media outlets have prepared fact checks:
UNSW - How do the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ cases stack up? Constitutional law experts take a look
The Guardian - Fact Check of the Yes Pamphlet
-
The Statement is an invitation to all Australians, issued by First Nations peoples, to walk together to build a better future.
One of the key features is to ask Australians to support meaningful constitutional recognition through providing a First Nations Voice.
Read the Uluru Statement of the Heart HERE and the design principles of the Voice HERE.
-
A First Nations Voice to Parliament is a proposed advisory body to the Federal Parliament and the Executive Government on matters that overwhelmingly relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, such as native title and Indigenous housing and health.
The Voice is an opportunity to make policies with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people rather than for them.
First Nations people who are closest to the issues on the ground are the subject matter experts and need a seat at the table. This will lead to dramatically improved outcomes and better allocation of public resources.
The Voice will not give First Nations people extra rights, but it will allow them to be heard and consulted.
See Zoe Daniel’s short videos on The Voice Explained
-
The Voice needs to be enshrined in the Australian Constitution so that future governments cannot simply overturn or remove it. The Constitution will ensure that there will always be a Voice. Past Indigenous bodies, set up through legislation, were abolished when political priorities changed.
Each of the five previous mechanisms, set up by parliamentary processes, have been abolished by successive governments. This chopping and changing according to election cycles has contributed to the lack of progress towards Closing the Gap.
Enshrining the Voice in the Constitution ensures it cannot be abolished without significant public scrutiny.
-
The referendum will ask Australians if they agree with the principle that First Nations people should be able to advise Parliament and Government when decisions are being made about their lives. The exact shape of the Voice, the advisory body, will be determined by the Parliament following a successful referendum. This allows for the shape to be changed by Parliaments over time according to the conditions of the day. The Constitution outlines the principles: the Parliament decides the actual shape and details.
An example of this: the Constitution confers on the Government the legal right to tax residents and citizens. However, the detail on taxation legislation, what the Government can tax and the rates of tax are not included in the Constitution - that is up to the Government of the day and the Parliament to decide.
Similarly, the Constitution allows the Federal Government to raise a Defence Force. But there is no detail in the Constitution on its shape, size and makeup - that is for the Parliament to decide.
Nevertheless, there has been considerable work put into the proposed detail of the Voice to Parliament, agreed by the First Nations Referendum Working Group, which acknowledges the Voice is always subject to the elected representatives of the country.
You can read the full set of Design Principles HERE.
-
Most policies are generally developed and designed at the executive and department level. It is essential that the Voice be able to advise at that stage, when policies are being designed, and not just later to Parliament.
However, there is no obligation for the Executive to act on the advice it receives from the Voice.
Zali spoke to this point recently - watch HERE.
-
There are diverse views in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities like there are in all communities.
The Voice was designed by First Nations peoples and is the result of years of extensive consultation with over 1,200 people from Indigenous communities across Australia. It is powerfully articulated in the Uluru Statement of the Heart, which was written and endorsed by 250 Indigenous delegates in 2017.
Polling undertaken in April 2023 shows resounding support for the Voice amongst First Nations peoples, with 83% in favour of a Voice enshrined in the Australian constitution. The poll, conducted by YouGov, shows that the overwhelming majority of First Nations Peoples would vote YES in the referendum. It shows Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander people see the potential of the Voice to deliver improved outcomes on the ground through better decision-making.
Further, Indigenous organisations across the country have indicated their support for the Voice, including the Northern Territory Land Councils, the Kimberley Land Council and peak service organisations such as the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association.
-
Members of Parliament are elected to represent their electorates or, in the case of Senators, their state. That responsibility is no different for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander parliamentarians.
Most of them are also members of a political party and expected to adhere to that party’s policies.
The Voice would have a different function. Its role would be to provide independent advice from First Nations people about the policies and laws that affect the lives of Indigenous people.
-
The Constitution already gives the Federal Government power to make special laws in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Section 51 xxvi of the Constitution is the so called “race power.” Although it doesn’t mention them by name, the only people this power has ever been used in relation to is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Native Title, Aboriginal Heritage and the Northern Territory Intervention were all pieces of legislation that relied on this section of the Constitution.
So, it makes sense, that if these kinds of laws are going to be made, the people whose lives are affected by them should have a Voice to give advice to Government on the impact of this legislation.
There are a number of reasons why special laws and constitutional recognition are warranted for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
As the First Peoples of Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have lived here for 65,000 years. Yet, the Constitution, the birth certificate of the nation, doesn’t mention them and no Indigenous people were involved in its drafting.
Aboriginal people practice the oldest living cultures in the world and these cultures including the art, languages, music and heritage that sustain them are unique to Australia and part of our common inheritance as citizens of this country. It’s important that their Voice is heard in relation to legislation that impacts this culture and heritage.
By almost every measure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are Australia’s most disadvantaged citizens. This disadvantage is directly linked to the process of colonisation and what came after. That’s why most Australians support efforts to Close the Gap and achieve reconciliation. We know that when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a say in developing and implementing programs designed to Close the Gap, outcomes improve dramatically. Constitutional recognition through a Voice can help do this.
-
We know that when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a say in the policies and programs that affect them, outcomes dramatically improve. Here are two examples:
Covid Response
Fiona Stanley, a distinguished epidemiologist and Australian of the Year in 2003, outlined how having responsibility for their own outcomes saved many Indigenous lives during the 2020 Covid pandemic.
“We expected very high infection, hospitalisations and death rates in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities from Covid. All colonised, Indigenous populations internationally are at very high risk from pandemics like this. They are more likely to have chronic disease, live in overcrowded housing and have limited understanding of virus infections. In fact, Aboriginal populations had 6 times fewer cases than non-Indigenous groups, across the whole nation! A complete reversal of the gap! In 2020 and 2021, there were low rates of hospitalisation, no deaths, no cases in remote communities and no cases after the Black Lives Matter marches. This extraordinary and unexpected outcome was due to the Aboriginal leadership taking control of all activities for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, as well as housing, social and medical support.
Aboriginal services received all the resources they needed to implement this success. They had a voice which was acted upon. The 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic was disastrous in Aboriginal populations nationally; Aboriginal people did not have a seat at the table; in 2020 they did.”
Urban Indigenous Health (IUIH)
Aboriginal community-controlled health services across Australia are another success story. For example, in South East Queensland, the Institute of Urban Indigenous Health (IUIH) has improved its ‘closing the gap measures’ 2.3 times faster than usual care. IUIH has also halved preterm birth rates for the communities it serves from 14% to 6%, almost closing the gap altogether in this measure. The success of community-controlled health programs shows what is possible when Aboriginal people have a voice in relation to programs that affect them.
A Voice to Parliament and Government will ensure that communities are consulted, and policies and programs are designed better from the outset to make major contributions to closing the gap.
-
The High Court is the referee for the Constitution and all laws can be challenged in the High Court, the Voice would be no different. Many laws are tested in the High Court. It’s part of a healthy democracy and nothing to be afraid of.
Most leading constitutional experts believe there is very little chance that the proposed change to the Constitution would lead to excessive litigation.
For example, Professor Anne Twomey from the University of Sydney has rejected the argument that there would be an obligation to wait on advice from the Voice. Former Chief Justice of the High Court, the Hon. Robert French AC has written that the Executive would have “no constitutional legal obligation to accept or be bound by” the Voice’s advice, with “little or no scope for constitutional litigation”. The Commonwealth’s top legal adviser, Solicitor-General, Stephen Donaghue KC has provided a written opinion that the Federal Cabinet and public service will not be forced to consult with the Voice before making policy. He noted that the Voice would “enhance” Australia’s system of government and “not fetter or impede” Parliament.
-
More informed policy-making saves money by ensuring spending is targeted to areas of most need and achieving improved outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The money it would cost to administer the Voice would be a fraction of what could be saved by more evidence-based policy-making.
-
10 questions about the Voice to Parliament - answered by the experts by The Conversation
Voice to Parliament: Debunking 10 myths and misconceptions by Monash University
Does the No case stack up? by Michael Barker, Editor, Fremantle Shipping News
Thomas Mayo on why Peter Dutton is wrong on the Voice - a podcast by Jane Lee, Guardian
-
Yes23 campaign - conversation guide and volunteer sign up
Together Yes - a kitchen conversations movement in support of a YES vote
The Voice to Parliament Handbook - by Thomas Mayo and Kerry O’Brien
Writing.org - writing in support of a Voice
Multicultural and accessible Voice resources - as shared in CIP’s Voice event
Pass the Message Stick and their conversation toolkit
Sources: Our sincere thanks to Zali Steggall, Goldstein for Yes, Dr Sophie Scamps, Allegra Spender and Kate Chaney for FAQs, links and resources
Video resources
Community Independents supporting the Voice
Community Independent MPs have been hosting community events in their electorates to provide information and give constituents the opportunity to hear from indigenous leaders and ask questions about the referendum.
Links to videos from a selection of these events is provided below.
