Frequently Asked Questions

Why does the Voice have to be in the Constitution?

Currently the Australian Constitution allows the Federal Parliament to make laws and legislation about First Nations peoples.

A First Nations advisory committee to parliament can already happen, however as seen in similar examples previously, a change of Government can disband the committee and take away First Nations voices. 

Including the Voice of First Nations peoples in the Constitution ensures representation and guards against the potential loss of First Nations voices due to changes in government or policies.

Has there been examples of similar structures that would demonstrate the potential success of the model?

In 1977 the National Aboriginal Education Committee (NAEC) was legislated as a full First Nations committee representing all levels of education, culture and community as an expert voice to the Minister for Education. In recognition of the diversity of cultures and needs of First Nations communities the NAEC ensured there were state and territory education advisory groups that then had regional and local groups to feed relevant information through to the national groups. The NAEC was extremely successful in the creation of policies, practices and funding that created a strong foundation for the future of Indigenous education. In addition to the model the NAEC was a success based on its respectful relationships with Ministers and senior government officials. Bipartisan support was also a favourable factor. However, like many of these advisory bodies the committee was disbanded in the early 1990s based on a change of Government. 

Won’t this just be another ATSIC?

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was an Indigenous representative and consultative body established in the early 1990s. This body was created by legislation and not guaranteed in the Constitution. This meant once again that the Federal Government could abolish the body at any given time. ATSIC had both strengths and weaknesses. The Government should have improved the areas of weakness, but instead the body was abolished.  Unlike ATSIC, the Voice would not have a service delivery function. The Voice’s function would be to provide advice to Parliament and the Government. 

Don’t First Nations members of Parliament already provide a voice for First Nations peoples?

The First Nations Voice would serve a different purpose to Indigenous members of Parliament. The Voice would ensure that uniquely affected First Nations communities have the opportunity to be heard when Parliament and Government make laws and policies about them. In contrast, members of Parliament represent all the Australians in their electorates and their political parties.

Why would we have a separate legislation for one race of people?

Throughout the history of Australian laws in Australia there has been separate legislation for one race of people – Assimilation Policy, Segregation Policy, Protection Act (allowing for the removal of children). More recently the Government suspended the Anti-discrimination Act to enable legislation to be passed for the Northern Territory Intervention. All of these legislations had negative impacts on the lives of First Nations peoples. Any legislation that has the potential to better the lives of First Nations peoples should be considered a positive action. The Constitution already contains racially discriminatory provisions and has presided over much discrimination in relation to Indigenous peoples. The aim is to allow First Nations voices to advise on laws and policies specifically about them. It is hoped that the proposal will bring the nation closer together through respectful and positive dialogue. The Voice will also not contradict democratic equality as it only has advisory powers.  

Does accepting the Voice mean accepting Treaty?

No. The Treaty discussion and action is happening separately and will move forward despite the outcomes of the referendum.

What matters would the First Nations Voice advise on?

The First Nations Voice would advise on matters relating to First Nations peoples. This would likely include: 

• ‘Closing the Gap’ targets 

• Health and social services in remote Indigenous communities 

• Suicide prevention in Indigenous communities 

• Drug and alcohol regulation in Indigenous communities 

• Indigenous incarceration rates 

• Land rights and native title 

• Preservation of First Nations cultures and languages 

The Voice could also raise any issue that it considers to be important for First Nations peoples. This might include, for example, advice on how environmental legislation impacts Indigenous economic development. Read more: Explainer: A Constitutionally-Guaranteed First Nations Voice

Would this be a third chamber of Parliament?

No. The proposed function of the First Nations Voice, which is strictly advisory and non-binding, is completely different to the law-making powers of Parliament. Parliamentary independence would be unchanged. Parliament would control and oversee the operation of the Voice. The proposed body would have no veto power and would not posses the power to make laws. There would be no change to the Houses of Parliament whatsoever. Both former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce, who incorrectly called this proposal a 'third chamber' in 2017, have since admitted that this was wrong. Turnbull has now said that he will vote 'Yes' in the First Nations Voice referendum.

Would this body have veto powers?

No. Some say that the Voice would possess a ‘virtual veto’ power because its advice would be difficult for governments to ignore. However, the purpose would be to provide advice and guidance that may sometimes make the government pause to consider and it is in