Yes or No? Here are the key arguments for and against the Voice

By Finn McHugh
13 June 2023 Updated 4 July 2023

As the debate surrounding the upcoming referendum intensifies, here are the key arguments for and against enshrining an Indigenous Voice in the Australian constitution.

Australians will decide whether to enshrine a Voice to Parliament in the constitution when they head to the polls on 14 October.

In the country's first referendum since 1999, they'll be asked to vote Yes or No on this question:

"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?"

Unveiling that question in March, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the Uluru Statement from the Heart - which first called for the Voice - as a "gracious request" that would give Indigenous people input in policies that were particularly impacting them.

"Every Australian wants us to close the gap. Today points the way to how we are going to do it. By consulting the people on the ground, by working with the people who live alongside these challenges. By enshrining a Voice in our Constitution, and by listening to that Voice," he said.

Arguments for and against enshrining the Voice

Arguments against the Voice have morphed since opponents first claimed it would act as a 'third chamber' of parliament, a claim which has since disappeared.

But other questions over how the body would function have emerged, with opponents both arguing the Voice would go too far or not far enough.

Here are the key arguments for and against enshrining a Voice to Parliament in the constitution:

YES

• The Voice was recommended after a years-long engagement with Indigenous communities across Australia.
• Indigenous people should have a say in policies that affect them.
• If the government listens to Indigenous people as it creates policies about them, the policies will be better.
• It will be permanent, and future governments won't be able to remove it.
• Ensuring the Voice can speak to "executive government" means its central role is entrenched, regardless of future governments.
• It will be gender equal and include youth members, meaning more voices from Indigenous communities will be heard.
• It has been carefully devised and given the green light by legal experts.
• Fixed terms mean representatives will always be accountable.
• The Voice would be a good mechanism through which to negotiate Truth and Treaty processes with the Commonwealth.
• Parliament, and by extension the Australian people, would still hold the ultimate say over what becomes law.

NO

• It's symbolic, and fixing systemic issues facing Indigenous communities would require a body with actual power.
• Governments can ignore its advice if they don't like it.
• The Voice adds race to the constitution.
• Because the Voice will be designed by parliament, future governments could change or sideline it.
• Indigenous people already have a voice via an unprecedented level of Indigenous representation in parliament.
• Truth and Treaty should come before the Voice.

*     *     *     *     *     *