Indigenous Voice to Parliament

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, also known as the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, the First Nations Voice or simply the Voice, was a proposed Australian federal advisory body to comprise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, to represent the views of Indigenous communities.[1]

For the relevant referendum on 14 October, see 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum.

Polling booth in Brisbane on the day of the referendum
This article is part of a series on the
Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Voice
Proposed Australian federal Indigenous advisory body to represent Indigenous communities.
Background
2023 referendum
See also

A referendum to establish the Voice was held on 14 October 2023.[2] It was unsuccessful, with a majority of voters both nationwide and in all states voting against the proposal.[2] Had it succeeded, the Australian Constitution would have recognised Indigenous Australians in the document by prescribing the Voice, which would have made representations to the Parliament of Australia and executive government on matters relating to Indigenous Australians.[3] The government would then have designed the specific form of the Voice, which would then have been implemented via legislation passed by Parliament.[4]

Under the government-endorsed design principles of the First Nations Referendum Working Group (aka Referendum Working Group, or RWG),[5] the membership of the Voice would have been selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across the country, with an enforced gender balance at the national level.[6][7][8] It remains legally possible however for the Voice (or alternative proposals) to be introduced by legislation rather than by amendment to the Constitution.[9] However, the current government has previously stated they will not seek to do this in the event of a No vote.[10]

The proposal for the Voice was formally endorsed by Indigenous leaders with the Uluru Statement from the Heart, delivered at the First Nations National Constitutional Convention in 2017. The statement formally petitioned the people of Australia[11] to support a voice to parliament in order to address First Nations disadvantage through giving those communities a greater influence on laws and policies that affect them. The concept was rejected at the time by the Liberal-National Turnbull government.[12]

In October 2019, the Liberal-National Morrison government discussed an "Indigenous voice to government" which would be legislated but not enshrined in the Constitution. A co-design process organised by Ken Wyatt was completed in July 2021 proposing for local and regional voices and a National Voice.[13] While the Morrison government committed to implementing the recommendations of the report, no legislation was passed between the release of the report in July 2021 and the election in May 2022.[14]

Following the 2022 election which saw the Albanese Labor government elected, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese pledged that a referendum on a constitutionally enshrined Voice would be held within his term of office.[15] In March 2023, the prime minister released the design principles of the Voice and confirmed that a referendum would occur in 2023.[16][17] The process was overseen by Linda Burney, who succeeded Wyatt as Minister for Indigenous Australians.[15] Both parties in the Peter Dutton-led Liberal-National Federal Opposition announced their opposition to a national Voice, whether legislatively or constitutionally implemented.[18][19][20]

Background
See also: Voting rights of Indigenous Australians

Indigenous Australians have long called for better representation, with William Cooper seeking in 1933 to petition King George V for the inclusion of a member of Parliament to represent Indigenous people.[21] However, modern discussion of recognition of Indigenous Australians in the constitution did not begin until 1992, with the Keating Government's response to the Mabo decision.[22] Along with the passage of the Native Title Act, the government proposed that, as a part of a broader social and justice reform package, negotiations should be entered into with Indigenous leaders to develop a mutually acceptable form of constitutional recognition.[22] This did not eventuate however, and formal consultation with Indigenous leaders on a new proposal did not begin again until 2012 under the Gillard government.[22] This resulted in the creation of an expert panel, which recommended, amongst other things, the insertion of a prohibition on racial discrimination.[23] The report was not acted on by the government and was criticised by the opposition.

This led to a stalemate, which was not broken until the bipartisan creation of the Referendum Council in 2015.

Indigenous Australians in the Constitution
See also: Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians

Two changes to the Constitution to add or remove references to Indigenous Australians have previously been voted on in referendums. These are the 1967 Indigenous referendum and the 1999 preamble referendum.

Prior to 1967, the federal government did not have the power to create laws specifically for Indigenous Australians, with section 51(xxvi) giving the Parliament the power to make laws with respect to "the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State".[24] This exclusion, along with another provision that prevented the counting of Indigenous Australians in the population for constitutional purposes, was deleted following the 1967 referendum in which over 90% of Australians voted yes to the changes.[24][25]

The 1998 Australian Constitutional Convention, called to discuss whether or not Australia should become a republic, almost unanimously supported the proposal that a preamble containing a recognition of Indigenous Australians as the original inhabitants and custodians of Australia be inserted into the constitution. This, along with the convention's endorsement of an Australian Republic, was voted on in the 1999 referendum, with both questions being defeated. The first draft of the preamble voted on was written by Prime Minister John Howard, along with poet Les Murray, and was heavily criticised after being released. Indigenous leaders specifically objected to their failure to be consulted and the reference only to the prior occupancy of Indigenous peoples and not their continuing custodianship. A continuing lack of consultation in the creation of the final draft led to Indigenous leaders calling for the preamble question to be dropped. Debate on the preamble question was limited, with much of the focus on the other republic question and the question was eventually defeated, with only 39.34% of Australians voting yes.[26]

Beginning with John Howard in 2007, governments have continually stated their commitment to hold a referendum on constitutional recognition; however, no previous proposal was taken to a vote.[27] In 2017 following the Uluru Statement, debate consolidated around a voice to parliament, as the best form of recognition likely to be both acceptable to Indigenous Australians and passed in a referendum.[28][29]

Previous national Indigenous advisory bodies

Since 1973, there have been five national Indigenous bodies advising Australian governments.[30] Four were elected and one (the National Indigenous Council) was appointed by the federal government.[31][32] Other State and Territory Indigenous Voices have also been established in some jurisdictions since 2008.

1973–1976: NACC

The National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC) was created in February 1973 by the Whitlam government's Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Gordon Bryant, with the help of Charles Perkins.[33] Its principal function was to advise the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) and the Minister on issues of concern to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Its members were elected by Indigenous people, who had a turnout of 78% of the 36,338 people on its electoral roll, in November 1973.[33][34] While it maintained a good relationship with Bryant, it had strong detractors in the DAA.[33][35] The NACC saw itself as a legislative body, while the government expected them to be purely advisory, and this, along with other conflicts over the name, funding levels and control led to the end of the organisation.[32] The Fraser government commissioned the 1976 Hiatt Committee review of the body,[36] which concluded that it had not functioned as a consultative committee nor been effective in providing advice to government or making its activities known to most Aboriginal people.[30][32]

1977–1985: NAC

The NACC was reconstituted in 1977 as the National Aboriginal Congress (NAC).[37] Changes included a move to indirect voting of members through regional representatives, a lower budget and a more explicit advisory role.[32] The Hawke government commissioned the Coombs Review into the NAC in 1983,[38] which found that the body was not held in high regard by the Aboriginal community.[32] After being starved of funds, some financial irregularities were found (attributed to inexperienced staff).[32][33] The NAC was abolished by the Hawke government in 1985.[39] In 1988, the Barunga Statement called for a new elected body to be created.[40]

1990–2005: ATSIC

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was established by the Hawke government on 5 March 1990 as an elected body which had responsibility for administering Indigenous programs and service delivery. It was successful in some areas as being a combined deliverer of services; however, low voter turnout for ATSIC elections, allegations of corruption and a lack of government support led to the demise of the organisation.[32] A 2003 review recommended various reforms, including more control of the organisation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at a regional level.[41] ATSIC was abolished by the Howard government, with Amanda Vanstone as Aboriginal Affairs Minister, on 24 March 2005,[42] with the support of the Labor party under Mark Latham.[41]

2004–2008: NIC

In November 2004 the Howard government established the National Indigenous Council (NIC), following a proposal earlier in the year.[42] A government inquiry into the demise of ATSIC recommended in March 2005 "that the NIC be a temporary body, to exist only until a proper national, elected representative body is in place".[43] The same inquiry found that, although the members were respected, there was absolutely no support for the institution; only the government regarded it as legitimate.[31] In early 2008, the NIC was disbanded.[44]

2009–2019: National Congress of Australia's First Peoples

In December 2008, the Rudd government asked the Australian Human Rights Commission to develop a new elected Indigenous representative body.[44] This was announced as the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples in November 2009,[45] and was established as a body independent of government.[46] Fewer than 10,000 Indigenous people signed up as members to elect congress delegates,[30] and the Abbott government cut off its main funding stream in 2013. It went into voluntary administration in June 2019,[47] before ceasing completely in October 2019.[48] Calls for a new voice came from the Cape York Institute, headed by Noel Pearson, in 2012 and 2015.[49][50]

2013–2019: Indigenous Advisory Council

The government appointed Indigenous Advisory Council was established by Prime Minister Tony Abbott on 25 September 2013.[51] It consisted of 12 members, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who would meet three times each year.[52] It was initially chaired by Warren Mundine. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull restructured the body in early 2017,[53][54][55] reducing its size to six members, and abolishing the role of chair. It was later given a pair of co-chairs. It held its last meeting in early 2019.[56]

Development of a constitutional voice to Parliament

Origin of proposal

The proposal for a Voice to Parliament was initially conceived by Aboriginal advocate Noel Pearson of the Cape York Institute in discussion with Australian Catholic University academics Greg Craven, Damien Freeman, and Julian Leeser. Their discussion arose in response to the 2012 recommendations of the Gillard Government's Expert Panel on Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution, which had been rejected by constitutional conservatives. "[The Voice] name came later, but the function of an advisory committee was developed with Professor Craven and other constitutional conservatives, including Professor Anne Twomey from the University of Sydney and that was done in 2014", Pearson recalled in 2023.[57]

Noel Pearson's 2014 Quarterly Essay, "A Rightful Place: Race, Recognition and a More Complete Commonwealth", raised the idea of an Indigenous advisory body enshrined in the Constitution,[58][59] and this proposal was further expanded on by Greg Craven.[60] This proposal was submitted by the Cape York Institute to the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in January 2015.[61][62][63]

The proposal was made in part to bridge the gap between Indigenous advocates and constitutional conservatives in the debate around recognition.[64] Indigenous advocates demanded more than just symbolic recognition in any change and had coalesced around a constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination. This reflected the view that, according to Megan Davis, Indigenous people do not seek inclusion in the Constitution to be recognised, that campaign being "a state-conceived project salvaged from the ashes of the failed 1999 referendum and arguably already achieved in 1967" but instead in order to "ameliorate the unintended (or intended) consequences of the drafting of the 1967 amendment" such as the continuing ability for the government to racially discriminate as seen in the Northern Territory Intervention and the Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy.[65] A racial discrimination clause was unacceptable to constitutional conservatives however, who feared that such a clause would be widely interpreted by so called "activist judges" and unacceptably limit parliamentary sovereignty.

Arguing that conservative support was required for any referendum to succeed, the proposal envisioned a duty for the Parliament to consult with Indigenous communities, but with no duty to follow this advice, thereby retaining parliamentary sovereignty. This duty would be beneficial as the High Court had in Maloney v The Queen found that no duty to consult currently existed in the exercise of "special measures" under the meaning of the ICERD and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth),[66] despite the evolution of international jurisprudence suggesting otherwise.[67] Additionally, it was argued that through the proposal being proactive, Indigenous people would be involved as "participants in Australia's democratic and parliamentary processes, rather than as litigants".[63] While receiving broad academic support, some noted that if the design of the body is wholly left to Parliament, it may not have sufficient political power to negotiate with government[68] and that the body may not be able to provide advice early enough to be effective.[69][70]

Bipartisan Referendum Council and committees

On 7 December 2015 a 16-member Referendum Council was appointed by Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and the ALP's Bill Shorten.[71] In October 2016, the Council released the Discussion Paper on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, which outlined the various proposals to date, including that of an Indigenous voice.[72] The council then engaged in a consultation process with Indigenous Australians, eventually meeting with over 1,200 people. This led to the First Nations National Constitutional Convention on 26 May 2017, whose delegates collectively composed the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This statement included the request, "We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution."[73]

On 13 June 2017, the Referendum Council released their final report. This included the following recommendation:[74]

That a referendum be held to provide in the Australian Constitution for a representative body that gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations a Voice to the Commonwealth Parliament. One of the specific functions of such a body, to be set out in legislation outside the Constitution, should include the function of monitoring the use of the heads of power in section 51(xxvi) and section 122. The body will recognise the status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia.

In response to this, the federal government established the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in March 2018.[75] It was tasked with reviewing the findings of the Uluru Statement delegates, Referendum Council, and the two earlier constitutional recommendation bodies. Its final report, published in November 2018, included four recommendations, the first of which was to "initiate a process of co-design with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples".[76] It stated that the delegates at the 2017 Convention "understood that the primary purpose of The Voice was to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices were heard whenever the Commonwealth Parliament exercised its powers to make laws under section 51(xxvi) and section 122 of the Constitution".[77]

Co-design of the Voice
Ken Wyatt, Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the Morrison government

On 30 October 2019, Ken Wyatt, Minister for Indigenous Australians in the Morrison government, announced the commencement of a "co-design process" aimed at providing an Indigenous voice to government. A Senior Advisory Group (SAG) was co-chaired by Professor Tom Calma, chancellor of the University of Canberra, and Marcia Langton, associate provost at the University of Melbourne, and comprising 20 leaders and experts from across the country.[78] The body was described as a "voice to government", rather than a "voice to parliament".

Prime Minister Scott Morrison rejected the proposal in the Uluru Statement for a voice to parliament to be put into the Australian Constitution; instead, in his government's model, the voice would be enshrined in legislation. The government also said it would run a referendum during its present term about recognising Indigenous people in the Constitution "should a consensus be reached and should it be likely to succeed".[79]

2021 Senior Advisory Group reports

An interim report by the Senior Advisory Group led by Langton and Calma was delivered to the government in November 2020,[80] and officially published on 9 January 2021. It included proposals that the government would be obliged to consult the Voice prior to passing new legislation relating to race, native title or racial discrimination, where it would affect Indigenous Australians. However, the Voice would not be able to veto the enactment of such laws, or force changes to government policies. The Voice would comprise either 16 or 18 members, who would either be elected directly or come from the regional and local voice bodies.[81] On the same day, Wyatt announced a second stage of co-design meetings lasting four months, involving more consultation with Indigenous people.[82] Calma reported in March 2021 that about 25 to 35 regional groups would be created, with a mechanism for individuals to pass ideas up the chain from local to regional.[83]

In July 2021 the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process panel released its final report.[84][85] It proposed a series of Local and Regional voices, able to provide advice to all levels of government, and a National Voice, made up of a smaller number of members, able to provide advice to both Parliament and Government.[13] The members of the National Voice would be chosen by the Local and Regional Voice for each area. The parliament would be 'obliged' to consult the national voice on a limited number of matters that overwhelmingly affect Indigenous Australians and 'expec[ted]' to consult the National Voice on other matters that 'significantly affect' Indigenous Australians. The report did not cover changing the Constitution (as this was outside its terms of reference)[86] and these bodies would be created via legislation rather than through a constitutional amendment.[14] While the government announced that the report would be considered in Parliament as soon as possible, no legislation was passed by the election of May 2022.[14]

Development under Labor government
Linda Burney, Minister for Indigenous Australians in the Albanese government

In the May 2022 Australian federal election a Labor government was elected with Anthony Albanese as Prime Minister of Australia. In his victory speech, Albanese said that a referendum to decide the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be held within his term of office, with Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney overseeing the process.[15]

At the Garma Festival of Traditional Cultures in July, Albanese spoke in more detail of the government's plans for a Voice to Parliament. He proposed the following three lines to the Constitution as a "starting point" in disscussions about the amendment:[87][88][89]

  1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
  2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
  3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

He also proposed that the actioning referendum ask the question:"Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?"[87]

On 23 March 2023, the Australian Government released a proposed question and amendment for consideration by the Australian Parliament, following advice from the Referendum Working Group.[3]

The proposed question was:

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?[17]

The proposed amendment was:[17]

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

  1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
  2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
  3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Structure and powers of the Voice

On 23 March 2023 the Australian Cabinet endorsed a set of design principles that would be used in the design of the Voice in the event the referendum is successful, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stating that these principles will "underpin the shape and function of the Voice".[90][91] Additionally he stated that if the referendum is successful, another process would be established to work on the final design, with a subsequent government produced information pamphlet stating that this process would involve Indigenous Australian communities, the Parliament and the broader community, with any legislation going through normal parliamentary scrutiny procedures.[91][6]

The design principles were that:[90][92]

The Voice will give independent advice to the Parliament and Government

  • The Voice would make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
  • The Voice would be able to make representations proactively.
  • The Voice would be able to respond to requests for representations from the Parliament and the Executive Government.
  • The Voice would have its own resources to allow it to research, develop and make representations.
  • The Parliament and Executive Government should seek representations in writing from the Voice early in the development of proposed laws and policies.

The Voice will be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people based on the wishes of local communities

  • Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.
  • Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities.
  • To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process.

The Voice will be representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, gender balanced and include youth

  • Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three-part test.[lower-alpha 1]
  • Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands.
  • The Voice would have specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population.
  • The Voice will have balanced gender representation at the national level.

The Voice will be empowering, community-led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed

  • Members of the Voice would be expected to connect with – and reflect the wishes of – their communities.
  • The Voice would consult with grassroots communities and regional entities to ensure its representations are informed by their experience, including the experience of those who have been historically excluded from participation.

The Voice will be accountable and transparent

  • The Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability.
  • Voice members would fall within the scope of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
  • Voice members would be able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct.

The Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures

  • The Voice would respect the work of existing organisations.

The Voice will not have a program delivery function

  • The Voice would be able to make representations about improving programs and services, but it would not manage money or deliver services.

The Voice will not have a veto power

Legislation and referendum
Main article: 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum

In the referendum, voters were presented with the following question for them to approve or disapprove. If the referendum was successful, the following proposed amendment would have been inserted into the constitution.

Question

The question that was put to the Australian people at the 2023 referendum was:[91]

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?

Proposed amendment

The proposed amendment to be inserted into the Constitution was:[91]

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

  1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
  2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
  3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Referendum preparation
See also: 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum

The first meetings of the Referendum Working Group (RWG) and the Referendum Engagement Group (REG) were held in Canberra on 29 September 2022. The RWG, co-chaired by minister Linda Burney and special envoy Patrick Dodson, included a broad cross-section of representatives from First Nations communities across Australia. Their remit was to provide advice to the government on how best to ensure a successful referendum, focused on the key questions that need to be considered, including:[5]

  • The timing to conduct a successful referendum
  • Refining the proposed constitutional amendment and question
  • The information on the Voice necessary for a successful referendum

The RWG included Ken Wyatt, Tom Calma, Marcia Langton, Megan Davis, Jackie Huggins, Noel Pearson, Pat Turner, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner June Oscar, and a number of other respected leaders and community members. The REG included those on the RWG as well as other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives from across the country, including land councils, local governments and community-controlled organisations. Mick Gooda, Kado Muir, and Hannah McGlade were included in this larger group. They provided advice on building community understanding, awareness and support for the referendum.[5]

On 28 December 2022 at the Woodford Folk Festival, the prime minister said that the referendum would be held within a year,[93][94] with the date eventually set for 14 October 2023.[95] An official pamphlet, containing details of the proposed change to the constitution and two essays written by the yes and no campaigns, was posted to every household before the vote and was also available on the Australian Electoral Commission website.[96]

Former High Court Judge Ian Callinan

Legal opinion in Australia was divided over the suitability of the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment.[97][98][99][100][101]

Concerns

One sticking point among experts was the inclusion of the phrase "executive government". In Australia, "executive government" comprises ministers as well as the departments they oversee.[102] It is a broad term, which covers a wide range of people from the governor-general to the cabinet and public servants.[97] Opponents argued that it makes it possible that the whole of the federal government, including its agencies, would be under an obligation to consult the Voice, and that the wording could allow judges to make rulings about its nature. However Anne Twomey, argued that there is no such obligation in the proposal, and that past High Court rulings have found that the term extends to ministers and government departments, but not statutory bodies, which are distinct legal entities.[102] Noel Pearson also stressed the importance of talking to the public service as well as politicians in effecting change.[103]

On 3 April 2023, shadow attorney-general Julian Leeser outlined his concerns about the "executive government" clause in an address at the National Press Club, namely that the clause's meaning is unclear and may be interpreted by the High Court in a way unexpected and unable to be modified later by legislation. He also expressed concerns with the preambular statement "In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:" as its judicial interpretation is unclear.[104][105] However, despite these concerns, Leeser stated he would vote yes and continued to campaign for a successful referendum, after resigning from shadow cabinet.[106]

Some constitutional law academics and judges voiced concerns about the introductory words to the proposed new Section 129. Retired superior court judges, including David Jackson, Nicholas Hasluck, and Terry Cole, suggested that the changes could "introduce inequality of citizenship into our Constitution" and bring about unintended changes. Former High Court judge Ian Callinan had said that the changes were legally unsafe.[107]

In May 2023 constitutional law professors Nicholas Aroney and Peter Gerangelos highlighted what they believed were a number of issues with the proposed constitutional amendment in a submission to the Joint Select Committee,[108] suggesting that the Voice may be seen by the High Court as having a similar constitutional status as the Parliament, executive and the High Court.[107] In October 2023 a paper by Aroney and lawyer Peter Congdon highlighted that the proposed alteration to the Constitution had the potential to significantly expand the powers of the Commonwealth over the states,[109] citing the examples of raising the age of criminal responsibility to reduce rates of Indigenous incarceration, or legislating land management issues affecting farmers and Indigenous people.[110] They wrote that neither side had mentioned this issue.[111]

Vice-president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia Chris Merritt suggested that the proposal would "clearly restrict the sovereign power of the Commonwealth in a way that nobody has even considered".[112]

Support for the current wording

The Constitutional Expert Group appointed by the government to provide advice about constitutional law relating to the Voice (comprising Greg Craven, Megan Davis, Kenneth Hayne, Noel Pearson, Cheryl Saunders, Anne Twomey, George Willliams, and Asmi Wood[113]) were unanimous in their opinion that the Voice would not have veto powers over legislation. Other constitutional experts backed the proposal as a "safe and sensible" legal option. Former High Court judge Kenneth Hayne wrote that the Voice would not obstruct the government's function. George Williams, law professor at the University of New South Wales agreed, calling the proposal a modest one. The Law Council of Australia supported the model, calling it a "modest step".[114]

The Solicitor-General of Australia Stephen Donaghue advised that the Voice would "not fetter or impede the exercise of existing powers of Parliament... and is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution, but an enhancement of that system".[115] He also advised that the Voice would help in "overcoming barriers that have historically impeded effective participation by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in political discussions and decisions that affect them" and would also "rectify a distortion in the existing system".[116]

In early October 2023, 71 constitutional and public law teachers and professors published an open letter to the Australian public,[117] stating that:[118]

Certainly it is impossible to predict exactly what the High Court might say in the future; this is the case for all constitutional and legal provisions. But we know that the vast majority of expert legal opinion agrees that this amendment is not constitutionally risky.

Former Chief Justice of Australia, Robert French, criticised the No campaign's legal arguments and other campaign tactics in a speech at the National Press Club, refuting the argument that it would have an effect on executive decision-making.[119][120] He also said that the Voice would be unable to "[engage] effectively in terms of representation with the processes of government unless you have the executive government in there", and that this was not a mistake.[121][122]

Stances and opinions

Political parties
Main articles: 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum § Positions, and Endorsements in the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum

The Anthony Albanese led Labor government supported the Voice,[123] arguing in the official Yes referendum pamphlet that the Voice will recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution in the way they requested, improve government decision making through listening to advice on matters that affect Indigenous Australian lives, and make practical progress in closing the gap.[124]

Both the Liberal[125] and National parties, however, opposed the voice, arguing in the official No referendum pamphlet that the Voice is legally risky, divisive and far too broad in its scope.[126] Peter Dutton has instead argued for a more symbolic inclusion change in the Constitution as a form of recognition, with local and regional voices to be legislated (without a national Voice).[127] However, the leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, has indicated that his party does not support this legislated regional and local voices model either, creating doubts as to whether this policy could be enacted if the Coalition gained government.[128] Following the defeat of the proposal, Dutton stated that his party's prior committment to symbolic constitutional recognition would be reviewed and that "it's clear the Australian public is probably over the referendum process for some time".[129]

Public opinion
This section is an excerpt from Opinion polling for the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum.[edit]
External poll aggregations
image icon Nick Evershed and Josh Nicholas for The Guardian
image icon Kevin Bonham, electoral analyst[130]
image icon Simon Jackman, University of Sydney professor[130]
Graphical summary – binary choice

See also

Footnotes
  1. See Proof of Aboriginality on the AIATSIS website.

References
  1. "Voice Principles". Australian Government. Retrieved 26 May 2023. Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
  2. Worthington, Brett (14 October 2023). "Australians reject Indigenous recognition via Voice to Parliament, referendum set for defeat". ABC News.
  3. "Next Step Towards Voice Referendum: Constitutional Alteration Bill". Prime Minister of Australia. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
  4. Silva, Angelica (16 May 2023) [15 May 2023]. "What is the Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Here's how it would work and who's for and against it". ABC News. The actual structure [of the Voice] would depend on legislation after a "yes vote" in the referendum.
  5. "First meetings of Referendum Working Group & Referendum Engagement Group". Prime Minister of Australia. 29 September 2022. Retrieved 13 October 2022. Text has been copied from this source, which is available under a Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
  6. Australian Government (June 2023). "Design Principles of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice" (PDF). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 August 2023. Retrieved 20 August 2023.
  7. Allam, Lorena (23 March 2023). "What is the Indigenous voice to parliament, how would it work, and what happens next?". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 April 2023.
  8. Butler, Dan (3 February 2023). "The government is being asked for detail on the Voice. Here's what we know". NITV. Retrieved 17 April 2023.
  9. Silva, Angelica (16 May 2023) [15 May 2023]. "What is the Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Here's how it would work and who's for and against it". ABC News. ...according to constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey. "The parliament could still legislate, if it wanted to do so, to establish an Indigenous advisory body... "
  10. Canales, Sarah Basford (8 October 2023). "Labor won't try to legislate Indigenous voice if referendum fails, Anthony Albanese says". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
  11. Davis, Megan; Williams, George (2021). Everything You Need to Know About the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Australia: NewSouth Publishing. p. 145. ISBN 9781742237404.
  12. Wahlquist, Calla (26 October 2017). "Indigenous voice proposal 'not desirable', says Turnbull". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 29 October 2017.
  13. Senior Advisory Group (16 September 2022). "Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report". Voice.
  14. Grattan, Michelle (17 December 2021). "There'll be a lot more talk before we hear the Indigenous Voice". The Conversation.
  15. Brennan, Bridget (22 May 2022). "Debate over Indigenous Voice to Parliament may define Anthony Albanese's government". ABC News. Retrieved 23 May 2022.
  16. "Voice principles released". Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
  17. "Press Conference – Parliament House". Prime Minister of Australia. Retrieved 24 March 2023.  This article incorporates text from this source, which is available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
  18. Hitch, Georgia (5 April 2023). "Liberal Party confirms it will oppose the Indigenous Voice to Parliament". ABC News.
  19. Worthington, Brett (28 November 2022). "Nationals to oppose Indigenous Voice to Parliament". ABC News.
  20. "Former MP Ken Wyatt quits Liberals after party decides not to back Voice". ABC News (Australia). 6 April 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
  21. Attwood, Bain Munro (2 March 2023). "90 years ago, Yorta Yorta leader William Cooper petitioned the king for Aboriginal representation in parliament". The Conversation. Retrieved 21 August 2023.
  22. Synot, Eddie; Appleby, Gabrielle (28 March 2023). "The Voice: what is it, where did it come from, and what can it achieve?". The Conversation. Retrieved 21 August 2023.
  23. Expert Panel (January 2012). "Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution" (PDF).
  24. National Museum of Australia (13 April 2018). "Defining Moments: Indigenous referendum". National Museum of Australia. Archived from the original on 9 June 2023.
  25. Taylor, Russell. "Indigenous Constitutional Recognition: The 1967 Referendum and Today". Parliament of Australia. Retrieved 9 February 2019.
  26. Williams, George; Mckenna, Mark; Simpson, Amelia (1 January 2001). "With hope in God, the Prime Minister and the poet: lessons from the 1999 Referendum on the Preamble" (PDF). University of New South Wales Law Journal. 24 (2): 401–419.
  27. Chrysanthos, Natassia (27 May 2019). "What is the Uluru Statement from the Heart?". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 5 July 2019. Retrieved 19 July 2020.
  28. Balogh, Stefanie (13 November 2013). "Tony Abbott dreams of an indigenous PM". The Australian. Archived from the original on 13 November 2013.
  29. Worsley, Ben (6 July 2015). "Indigenous referendum: Australians invited to join community conferences on recognition vote". ABC News (Australia). Archived from the original on 8 August 2015. Retrieved 9 February 2019.
  30. Mundine, Warren (1 February 2023). "Voice will fail like four previous attempts at national Aboriginal body". Sky News Australia. Retrieved 11 February 2023.
  31. Parliament of Australia. Select Committee on the Administration of Indigenous Affairs (March 2005). "Chapter 4: Representation". After ATSIC: Life in the mainstream?. Commonwealth of Australia. ISBN 0-642-71501-7.
  32. De Villiers, Bertus (30 August 2019). "An ancient people struggling to find a modern voice – Experiences of Australia's Indigenous people with advisory bodies". International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. 26 (4): 600–619. doi:10.1163/15718115-02604004. ISSN 1385-4879. S2CID 150403697.
  33. Weaver, Sally M. (1983). "Australian Aboriginal Policy: Aboriginal Pressure Groups or Government Advisory Bodies?". Oceania. 54 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1002/j.1834-4461.1983.tb02014.x. ISSN 0029-8077. JSTOR 40330714.
  34. Quentin, Beresford (2007). Rob Riley : An Aboriginal leader's quest for justice. Aboriginal Studies Press. ISBN 978-0-85575-502-7. OCLC 220246007.
  35. "Building a sustainable National Indigenous Representative Body – Issues for consideration". Issues Paper 2008. Australian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved 21 February 2023.
  36. Australia; Hiatt, L. R., eds. (1976). The role of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. ISBN 978-0-642-02649-1.
  37. "History of National Representative Bodies | National Congress of Australia's First Peoples". 14 April 2019. Archived from the original on 14 April 2019. Retrieved 30 September 2022.
  38. Coombs, Herbert Cole (1984). The role of the National Aboriginal Conference: report to the Hon. Clyde Holding, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. ISBN 978-0-644-03387-9.
  39. Levin, Michael D. (31 December 1993). "9. Ethnicity and Aboriginality: Conclusions". Ethnicity and Aboriginality. University of Toronto Press. pp. 168–180. doi:10.3138/9781442623187-012. ISBN 9781442623187. Retrieved 5 January 2022.
  40. "Barunga Statement presented to Prime Minister Bob Hawke in 1988 | australia.gov.au". 31 July 2016. Archived from the original on 31 July 2016. Retrieved 10 June 2023.
  41. Fitzsimmons, Caitlin (21 January 2023). "Voice to Parliament: A look back at Australia's trial of political failure". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 16 April 2023.
  42. "The end of ATSIC and the future administration of Indigenous affairs". Parliament of Australia. 9 August 2004. Archived from the original on 18 November 2022. Retrieved 9 February 2023. PDF
  43. Parliament of Australia. Select Committee on the Administration of Indigenous Affairs (March 2005). "Chapter 4: Representation". After ATSIC: Life in the mainstream?. Commonwealth of Australia. ISBN 0-642-71501-7.
  44. "Our Future in Our Hands". Australian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved 30 September 2022.
  45. "2009 Media Release: New National Congress of Australia's First Peoples announced". Australian Human Rights Commission. 22 November 2009. Archived from the original on 30 November 2020. Retrieved 30 September 2022.
  46. "Readings 15: National Congress of Australia's First Peoples: Working with Indigenous Australians". Working with Indigenous Australians. Retrieved 30 September 2022.
  47. Coggan, Maggie (29 July 2019). "Australia's largest Indigenous organisation forced to shut up shop". Pro Bono Australia. Archived from the original on 1 November 2020.
  48. Cassandra, Morgan (17 October 2019). "Closure of Aboriginal organisation means loss of First People's voice: former co-chairman". The Canberra Times. Archived from the original on 9 February 2023. Retrieved 9 February 2019.
  49. National Indigenous Australians Agency. "The Process". Aboriginal and Torre Strait Islander Voice. Archived from the original on 16 June 2020. Retrieved 10 September 2023.
  50. Pearson, Noel (September 2014). "A Rightful Place: Race, recognition and a more complete commonwealth". Quarterly Essay (55).
  51. "Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council". Directory. Australian Government. 25 May 2017. Retrieved 6 February 2021.
  52. "First Meeting of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council". Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (Press release). Tony Abbott [Media release]. Australian Government. 5 December 2013. Retrieved 6 February 2021.
  53. Karvelas, Patricia (1 February 2017). "Malcolm Turnbull dissolves Indigenous Advisory Council, but 'commitment remains'". ABC News. Retrieved 6 February 2021.
  54. "Terms of Reference: Indigenous Advisory Council". National Indigenous Australians Agency. Australian Government. 26 July 2016. Retrieved 6 February 2021.
  55. "Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council". National Indigenous Australians Agency. Australian Government. 8 February 2017. Retrieved 6 February 2021.
  56. Haughton, James (16 June 2023). "Former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian Government representative and advisory bodies: a quick guide". Research Paper Series, 2022–23. Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliament of Australia. Retrieved 14 October 2023.
  57. The Voice dissected by Noel Pearson and Ben Fordham, 2GB Sydney, 8 Sep 2023
  58. Pearson, Noel (2014). Feik, Chris (ed.). A Rightful Place: Race, Recognition and a More Complete Commonwealth. Quarterly Essay. Australia: Black Inc. p. 67. ISBN 9781863956819.
  59. Gregory, Katherine (11 September 2014). "Noel Pearson proposes changing constitution to create Indigenous representative body". ABC News. Retrieved 9 June 2023.
  60. Karvelas, Patricia (18 September 2014). "Pearson, Craven unite on reforms". The Australian.
  61. Cape York Institute (October 2014). Submission No. 38 to the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (Report). Archived from the original on 27 January 2023.
  62. Cape York Institute (August 2014). Submission No. 38.1 to the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples:Supplemental 1 (Report). Archived from the original on 7 April 2023.
  63. Cape York Institute (January 2015). Submission No. 38.2 to the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples:Supplemental 2 (Report). Archived from the original on 10 September 2023.
  64. Martin, Sarah (13 April 2015). "Pearson's Shift on Recognise Campaign". The Australian. Retrieved 9 June 2023.
  65. Davis, Megan (November 2014). "A rightful place: Correspondence: Megan Davis". Quarterly Essay. Schwartz Publishing (56): 77–8. ISBN 978-1863957014. ISSN 1832-0953 – via Informit.
  66. Maloney v The Queen [2013] HCA 28 at paragraph 91, (2013) 252 CLR 168
  67. Gear, Rachel. "Commentary: Alcohol Restrictions and Indigenous Australians: The Social and Policy Implications of Maloney v The Queen". James Cook University Law Review. 21: 49–52. ISSN 1321-1072 – via Informit.
  68. Appleby, Gabrielle (July 2015). "An Indigenous advisory body : some questions of design". Indigenous Law Bulletin. 8 (19): 3. ISSN 1328-5475 – via Informit.
  69. Saunders, Cheryl (July 2015). "Indigenous constitutional recognition : the concept of consultation". Indigenous Law Bulletin. 8 (19). ISSN 1328-5475 – via Informit.
  70. Davis, Megan (2016). Young, Simon; Nielsen, Jennifer; Patrick, Jeremy (eds.). Constitutional recognition of First Peoples in Australia: theories and comparative perspectives. Annandale, N.S.W: The Federation Press. pp. 76–9. ISBN 978-1-76002-078-1.
  71. "Commissioner Gooda appointed to Referendum Council". Australian Human Rights Commission. 7 December 2015. Archived from the original on 30 November 2022. Retrieved 30 November 2022.
  72. Discussion Paper on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (PDF). Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. 2017. p. 11. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 February 2017. Retrieved 9 February 2023.
  73. "Uluru Statement from the Heart". Referendum Council. Archived from the original on 6 March 2019. Retrieved 14 July 2018.
  74. Final Report of the Referendum Council (PDF). Commonwealth of Australia. 2017. p. 15. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 March 2018.
  75. "Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples". Parliament of Australia. Archived from the original on 12 May 2019. Retrieved 29 November 2022.
  76. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (November 2018). Final report. Commonwealth of Australia. ISBN 978-1-74366-926-6. Retrieved 18 July 2020. PDF
  77. "2. Designing a First Nations Voice". Parliament of Australia. Archived from the original on 14 December 2022. Retrieved 9 February 2023.
  78. "A voice for Indigenous Australians". Ministers Media Centre. 30 October 2019. Archived from the original on 7 March 2020. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
  79. Grattan, Michelle (29 October 2019). "Proposed Indigenous 'voice' will be to government rather than to parliament". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 30 October 2019. Retrieved 18 July 2020.
  80. Doran, Matthew (15 November 2020). "Minister Ken Wyatt wants Indigenous voice to government to pass parliament before next election". ABC News. Retrieved 13 December 2020.
  81. "Indigenous voice to parliament to have no veto power under interim plans". The Guardian. 9 January 2021. Retrieved 10 January 2021.
  82. "Indigenous Voice to parliament will get no veto power under interim proposal". SBS News. 9 January 2021. Retrieved 10 January 2021.
  83. Lysaght, Gary-Jon (24 March 2021). "Indigenous Voice to Parliament to include regional voices to address local issues". ABC News. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
  84. Langton, Marcia; Calma, Tom (July 2021). Indigenous Voice Co-design Process – Final Report to the Australian Government (PDF). National Indigenous Australians Agency. ISBN 978-1-925364-72-9.
  85. Tim Rowse (10 March 2022). "Review of the The Indigenous Voice Co-design Process: Final Report to the Australian Government". Australian Policy and History Network, Deakin University.
  86. Langton & Calma 2021, p. 7.
  87. "Address to Garma Festival". Prime Minister of Australia. Retrieved 30 November 2022.
  88. Ella Archibald-Binge (29 July 2022). "Prime Minister to announce Australia's first referendum in 20 years at Garma Festival. Here's what you might be asked". Australia: ABC News.
  89. "Anthony Albanese reveals 'simple and clear' wording of referendum question on Indigenous voice". The Guardian Australia. 29 July 2022.
  90. "Voice principles released". Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Australian Government. 24 March 2023. Archived from the original on 24 March 2023.
  91. Albanese, Anthony. "Press Conference – Parliament House: Transcript". Prime Minister of Australia. Retrieved 24 March 2023.  This article incorporates text from this source, which is available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
  92. First Nations Referendum Working Group (3 April 2023). "Design Principles of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice". Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. National Indigenous Australians Agency. Archived from the original on 4 September 2023. This article incorporates text from this source, which is available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
  93. "Woodford Folk Festival". Prime Minister of Australia. Retrieved 7 January 2023.
  94. "'Momentum is growing': Anthony Albanese promises to deliver Voice referendum by December 2023". ABC News. 28 December 2022. Retrieved 7 January 2023.
  95. Worthington, Brett (30 August 2023). "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament referendum set for October 14". ABC News. Archived from the original on 15 September 2023.
  96. Australian Electoral Commission. "Your official referendum booklet". Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 10 September 2023.
  97. Pelly, Michael; McIlroy, Tom (3 March 2023). "Indigenous Voice to Parliament splits Australian High Court judges". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 12 April 2023.
  98. Credlin, Peta (13 March 2023). "Barristers battle over Voice proposal amid racism claims [Opinion]". Sky News. Retrieved 12 April 2023.
  99. Butler, Josh (24 March 2023). "Indigenous voice a 'safe and sensible' legal option that will not impede parliament, experts say". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 April 2023.
  100. Visentin, Lisa (28 February 2023). "Indigenous Voice to Parliament: Mark Dreyfus dismisses High Court concerns". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 12 April 2023.
  101. Legal experts worry the words 'executive government' could lead to Voice referendum court battles; abc.net.au, 24 March, 2023
  102. Worthington, Brett (16 April 2023). "Legal experts weigh in on the Voice's two most controversial words: 'executive government'". ABC News. Retrieved 17 April 2023.
  103. Pearson, Noel (10 September 2023). "Cape York Leader Noel Pearson". Insiders (video). Interviewed by David Speers. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. at 11 minutes. The words Executive Government were in there and by the way, let me just explain the importance of the Executive Government bit. It's like, yes, you want to be able to talk to Jim Hacker on Yes Minister, but if you're not talking to Humphrey, Sir Humphrey, you're going to get nowhere. You've got to talk to the bureaucrats. They're the ones who affect our lives. And so having a voice to the bureaucrats, to the Executive Government is extremely important.
  104. Lesser, Julian (3 April 2023). "Address to the National Press Club". Julian Lesser.
  105. Liberal Party to discuss Voice to Parliament position at party room meeting this week; abc.net.au, 3 April 2023
  106. Karp, Paul (11 April 2023). "Julian Leeser resigns from shadow cabinet over Liberals' voice stance". The Guardian Australia.
  107. Clegg, Louise (5 May 2023). "The Voice is an undercooked thought experiment". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  108. Aroney, Nicholas; Gerangelos, Peter. "Submission to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and torres Strait islander Voice Referendum". Australian Parliament House. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  109. Aroney, Nicholas; Congdon, Peter (2 October 2023). "The Voice Referendum and the Federal Division of Powers: A New Head of Commonwealth Legislative Power to Implement the Voice's Representations?". SSRN. SSRN 4589764. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  110. Albrechtsen, Janet (7 October 2023). "Indigenous voice to parliament: The legal analysis the Yes camp won't want you to read". The Australian. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  111. Albrechtson, Janet; Taylor, Paige; Down, Rhiannon (7 October 2023). "Indigenous voice to parliament: Laws pose threat to powers of the states". The Australian. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  112. Hannaford, Patrick (2 May 2023). "A submission about implications of the Voice to Parliament by two 'well-respected' legal experts has been labelled 'terrifying'". Sky News Australia. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  113. "Constitutional Expert Group". The Voice. Australian Government. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  114. Thomas, Sonam (16 April 2023). "The Voice and the High Court challenge: analysis of a misrepresented legal debate". RMIT University. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  115. Hobbs, Harry (18 July 2023). "Solicitor-general confirms Voice model is legally sound, will not 'fetter or impede' parliament". The Conversation. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  116. Butler, Josh (21 April 2023). "PM says solicitor general's advice on Indigenous voice refutes 'absolute nonsense' from Dutton and Joyce". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 24 April 2023.
  117. Chwasta, Madi (6 October 2023). "More than 70 university law professors say Voice 'not constitutionally risky' in letter to Australian public". ABC News. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  118. "A letter from public law teachers about The Voice" – via DocumentCloud.
  119. Karp, Paul (5 October 2023). "Former chief justice slams no campaign's core argument against voice as 'resentful'". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  120. "Retired Australian top judge and lawyers rebut opponents of Indigenous Voice". Associated Press. 6 October 2023. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  121. Ransley, Ellen (6 October 2023). "Aussies 'better than' No campaign slogan". news.com.au. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  122. Pelly, Michael (5 October 2023). "Voice to parliament: Robert French, former chief justice, lashes No campaign". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  123. Tingle, Laura (5 August 2023). "The Voice was supposed to unify Australians. Where has the optimism gone?". ABC.net.au. ABC News. Retrieved 6 August 2023.
  124. Members of Parliament 2023, p. 6.
  125. Grattan, Michelle (22 May 2023). "Dutton condemns Voice as symptom of 'identity politics', as Burney says it will bring 'better outcomes'". The Conversation. Retrieved 6 August 2023.
  126. Members of Parliament 2023, p. 7.
  127. Williams, Carly; Speers (6 August 2023). "'Not focused on hypotheticals': PM not considering other forms of Indigenous recognition if Voice fails". ABC News. Retrieved 6 August 2023.
  128. "Nationals leader rejects call for legislated Voice model despite Liberal backing". SBS News. Retrieved 30 August 2023.
  129. McHugh, Finn (16 October 2023). "Days after Voice vote, Peter Dutton waters down Indigenous recognition commitment". SBS News.
  130. Martino, Matt (2 August 2023). "Anthony Albanese says surveys show between 80 and 90 per cent of Indigenous Australians support the Voice. Is that correct?". ABC News. Retrieved 2 August 2023.

Sources

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.