On 14 October 2023, all enrolled voters will be asked to cast a vote to amend the Australian Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and ensure they have a say on the laws that impact their communities.

If a majority of Australians in a majority of states vote ‘yes’, we will finally have a meaningful mechanism to consult with communities to implement practical strategies to close the gap and improve health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
 
What’s more, by including a Voice in the constitution – the foundational document of Australia – future governments won’t be able to ignore Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Australia’s constitution is a high-level statement of principles that outlines the way we are governed.

The Federal Government is proposing to enshrine a body in the Australian Constitution that would enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to provide advice to the parliament on policies and projects that impact their lives - including on health, education, jobs and housing. This body would be known as the Voice to Parliament.

The Federal Government has proposed the constitution be amended to include a new chapter titled “Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples”, with the following wording to be added: 

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.

For too long, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have not had their voices heard. Successive governments have made policies that impact their communities without listening to what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people really need to improve their lives.

When governments change, ongoing work ceases. So much money and human potential is wasted and the problems don’t go away. This has happened many times over with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative bodies and projects.

Voting ‘yes’ will enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to have input on laws that impact them. And because the Voice will be in our constitution, future governments will have to listen.

Just as health policy and legislation are always stronger when nurses and midwives are consulted on decisions that impact their work, so too are health outcomes improved when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are consulted on decisions that impact their communities.

Recent and current Closing the Gap measurers indicate the gap is not closing. Billions of dollars have been spent with very little to show for it. 

This means that what we are doing right now to address Indigenous disadvantage in health, education, housing and jobs is not working. And it’s because decisions are continuously made without properly listening to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities about what they really need.

As nurses and midwives, we rely on evidence, data and ethics to provide safe, quality care. Evidence shows that when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a seat at the table and play an active role in shaping policies and programs made for them, not only are the outcomes substantially better, it also costs significantly less money.

The Voice would be an advisory body to the Federal Government. It would be consulted on any matters related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples - such as health, education, jobs and housing. This advice would be respected and impactful to the final outcome. 

The wording of the consultation principles of this body is as follows:

“Parliament is obliged to consult the National Voice on laws that will overwhelmingly affect Indigenous people, expected to consult the body on laws that significantly affect Indigenous people, and may consult them on any other law.”

For more information on the agreed design principles of the Voice to Parliament, click here. These principles will be used to guide how the Voice will work in practice when politicians draft the supporting legislation.

It is important to note, however, that the constitution is not a document that is designed to contain detail. Instead, the constitution provides the high-level principles that govern Australia, not the operational details of how any part of the federal system works.

For example, when Australians established the High Court under section 71 of the constitution, they were not deciding on specifics of the legal operation of the Court. They simply put in the constitution that Australia should have a High Court. Since then, parliament has had the power to determine the specifics of how the Court operates. The parliament does not, however, have the power to fundamentally alter or disband the Court. In other words, there is a deliberately high degree of ambiguity and detail omitted to allow our elected politicians to do their job of creating legislative frameworks that are fit for purpose for the day.

If Australians vote ‘yes’ to the Voice to Parliament, parliament will be called on to make the Voice operational through legislation. As we know, laws are made, repealed and amended regularly by the Australian Parliament (that is their job), and laws regarding the Voice to Parliament will be no different.

Yes. Other countries use First Nations bodies effectively, with First Nations representative structures being common in countries with minority Indigenous populations.

Comparable democracies such as New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Sweden and Norway all have First Nations representative structures:

• Canada has the Assembly of First Nations.
• New Zealand has the Maori Council, which is empowered to act as a consultative and advisory body.
• Norway, Sweden and Finland have Saami Parliaments which act as advisory bodies to government.

The Voice to Parliament is one of three fundamental changes being called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart: Voice, Treaty, Truth. 

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a profound call from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for constitutional change and structural reform in their relationship with Australia - a relationship based on fairness, truth, justice and self-determination where Indigenous cultures can flourish, and the Australian nation can reach a fuller potential.

The first reform is the constitutional enshrinement of the Voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 

The Uluru Statement from the Heart also calls for this to be supported by a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations people (Treaty), and oversee a process of truth-telling (Truth).

Read more about the Uluru Statement from the Heart here.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not homogenous, and therefore don’t all have one singular voice or opinion.

However, multiple polls of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples show 80-87% support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to Parliament. The largest, most diverse and representative poll shows 83% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are in support of a Voice to Parliament. 

In any other democratic process, this would be considered an overwhelming majority and largely understood to be a consensus amongst the population. By contrast, political parties that form government regularly do not get elected by more than 50% of the votes, but are instead carried across the line by other party preferences. 

An 83% consensus in the democratic process has only been beaten once before in Australian history – in the 1967 referendum, where Australians overwhelmingly voted to change the constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as part of the Australian population.

Because that was the outcome of the QNMU’s fair democratic processes

• The QNMU First Nations Branch reached a consensus through a democratic process to support the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full in 2019 (Voice, Treaty, Truth). 
• This includes the referendum for a Voice to Parliament (Voice), a Makarrata Commission to supervise the making of agreements or treaties (Treaty), and a process to oversee truth telling for our nation (Truth). 
• Delegates at Annual Conference – who represent the views of their QNMU Local Branch – endorsed the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2020, and it was then ratified by Council. 
• All Delegates and Councillors are democratically elected by the general QNMU membership.

Because closing the health gap is nursing and midwifery business

• Just as health policy and legislation are always stronger when nurses and midwives are consulted on decisions that impact their work, so too are health outcomes improved when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a voice on decisions that impact their communities.
• Recent and current Closing the Gap measurers indicate that the gap is not closing – meaning what we are doing right now to address Indigenous disadvantage in health, education, housing and jobs is not working.
• Evidence shows that when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a seat at the table and play an active role in solving the challenges and issues their communities face, the whole community sees better outcomes.

Because social justice has and always will be union business

• Social justice is and has always been union business, and the Australian union movement is committed to supporting the Uluru Statement from the Heart. 
• Giving people a voice is a core union value – as union members, we know how important it is for people on the ground to have a say on the things that impact them, and we know how badly things go when people in power don’t listen to us. By enshrining Voice in the constitution, we are seeking to ensure that voice will not be abolished by governments who do not care to listen.
• The 1967 referendum – where Australians overwhelmingly voted to change the constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as part of the Australian population – was won in partnership with the union movement, and we continue to support this social justice agenda.

Because the majority of First Nations people support it

• Multiple polls of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples show 80-87% support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice to Parliament. 
• The largest, most diverse and representative poll shows 83% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are in support of a Voice to Parliament.

As per the design principles of the Voice, the first step will be extensive consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities regarding how their communities should be represented. 

Next, this consultation will be used to draft legislation that will ultimately form the Voice to Parliament body. This will include recommendations regarding the composition, functions, powers, and procedures. 

This draft legislation will then be put to both houses of parliament and will undergo a thorough review process.

Once the legislation has passed both houses and the body has been created, it will continue to be reviewed by the parliament to evaluate and improve the body’s ability to provide effective advice to government.

There is no information regarding what politicians pushing for a ‘no’ vote are proposing to happen next. The ‘no’ campaign has not released an alternative strategy or plan to address current issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, or how we can do things differently to finally start closing the gap.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have expressed concern that a ‘no’ vote could set Australia back 20 or more years regarding political will to tackle Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues, and could further embolden divisive politicking.

The Australian Constitution is the legal framework for how Australia is governed. The constitution establishes the composition of the Australian Parliament, describes how parliament works and what powers it has. 

The Australian Constitution can only be changed by referendum (ie: a vote of the Australian people). Click here for more information.

A referendum is a vote on whether to change a particular aspect of Australia’s constitution. The only way to change the Australian Constitution is by holding a referendum. This means the constitution cannot be altered without ‘the approval of the people’.

Click here for more information about referendums and how they work.

Similar to voting in any election, you must vote at a public polling booth. Pre-polling and postal voting options will also be available.

If you agree with the change being proposed to the constitution, you write ‘yes’ in the square on the ballot paper. If you disagree with the proposed change, you write ‘no’.

Click here for more information.

Yes, voting in a referendum is compulsory by law for all eligible Australian citizens aged 18 and older. If you are already enrolled to vote through the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), you do not need to enrol again, but you do need to ensure your details are up to date.

Click here for more information.

For a referendum to be successful, the proposed change to the constitution must be approved by a ‘double majority’. That is:

• a national majority of voters in the states and territories
• a majority of voters in a majority of the states (i.e. at least four out of six states).

The votes of people living in the ACT, the NT and any of Australia’s external territories count towards the national majority only.

Click here for more information.

The nation is already divided by race in the constitution. Section 51 (xxvi) provides parliament the authority to make laws regarding people of different races. This has been used exclusively to create laws regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. 

The Voice to Parliament is all about including people – it’s about giving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a say on the policies that impact their community so we can finally start addressing the existing divides. Guaranteeing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a seat at the table when we discuss their interests is the most inclusive thing we can do as a democratic nation.

The Voice to Parliament is an advisory body to the government. Advisory bodies cannot compel governments to make any laws. Raising taxes for, or taking land from 97% of Australia’s non-Indigenous population, would not be a smart move for any government wanting to get re-elected. 

Discussions with Traditional Owner Groups regarding ownership of ‘Crown land’ (ie: land that is unused and owned by the Crown) have been ongoing since the Mabo decision in 1992. This process is already embedded within Australian law and will continue regardless of the outcome of this year’s referendum. This will not and cannot expand to people’s private property.

Everybody has the right to make representations to parliament. Representations are made daily by mining and oil lobbies, pharmaceutical lobbies, special interest groups and big business. In fact, there are over a hundred committees that receive government funding that regularly provide advice on policy and legislation to the government. 

Previous attempts to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities also have a seat at the table and provide advice to government have been dismantled, defunded or rendered ineffective by the government of the day. 

By enshrining Voice in the constitution, we are seeking to ensure that voice will not be abolished by governments who do not care to listen.

Yes, there are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ministers of Parliament (MPs) – but their job is to represent their constituents who elect them (who are largely non-Indigenous voters), not to represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. 

Like other MPs, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander MPs are largely expected to maintain their political party positions, which are determined by mostly non-Indigenous people. Like any other politician, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander MPs want to be re-elected, so they will usually work to make their broader constituents happy, sometimes in direct contrast to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. 

The Voice to Parliament would be an independent advisory body, not an extension of the government. Its purpose is to guarantee Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say on the issues that impact their communities.

No.

No. Several constitutional lawyers, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander constitutional lawyers, as well as past High Court judges, have been consulted on this, and all agree that the Voice would not and cannot cede sovereignty in any way – meaning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have never given up their right to land, sea and air. 

To understand what is meant by ‘cede sovereignty’, take a read of this article.

It is also worth noting that over 97% of this vote will be made by non-Indigenous Australians, and they do not have the authority to cede the sovereignty on behalf of any other nations or peoples.

No. Treaty is the next step in the process. The Albanese Government has committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. This includes a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, forming a Makarrata Commission to work towards Treaty, and a commitment to truth telling regarding Australia’s history and First Nations people.

This process will protect the creation of Treaty – representations to government on matters that overwhelmingly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (such as Treaty) is the role of the Voice.  If there is no Voice to Parliament, then any treaties agreed by the Australian Government could be changed by any subsequent government without consultation.