Indigenous Voice to Parliament#ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body

{{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.{{Cite web |last=Attwood |first=Bain Munro |date=2023-03-02 |title=90 years ago, Yorta Yorta leader William Cooper petitioned the king for Aboriginal representation in parliament |url=http://theconversation.com/90-years-ago-yorta-yorta-leader-william-cooper-petitioned-the-king-for-aboriginal-representation-in-parliament-198396 |access-date=2023-08-21 |website=The Conversation |language=en}} In 1967, the first Indigenous referendum was held.

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".{{Cite web |last=National Museum of Australia |date=13 April 2018 |title=Defining Moments: Indigenous referendum |url=https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/indigenous-referendum |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230609152613/https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/indigenous-referendum |archive-date=9 June 2023 |access-date= |publisher=National Museum of Australia |language=en}} 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.{{Cite web |last=Taylor |first=Russell |title=Indigenous Constitutional Recognition: The 1967 Referendum and Today |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/Papers_on_Parliament_68/Indigenous_Constitutional_Recognition_The_1967_Referendum_and_Today |access-date=9 February 2019 |publisher=Parliament of Australia |language=en-AU}}

Additionally, since 1973 various Indigenous advisory bodies have been created in response to activist lobbying. Later in 1992, calls for the recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution emerged in the context of the Keating Government's response to the Mabo decision.{{Cite web |last1=Synot |first1=Eddie |last2=Appleby |first2=Gabrielle |date=2023-03-28 |title=The Voice: what is it, where did it come from, and what can it achieve? |url=http://theconversation.com/the-voice-what-is-it-where-did-it-come-from-and-what-can-it-achieve-202138 |access-date=2023-08-21 |website=The Conversation |language=en}}

{{Excerpt|Australian Indigenous advisory bodies|Past Commonwealth bodies|subsections=yes}}

{{Main|Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians}}

The Keating government in 1993 passed the Native Title Act as a statutory recognition of native title. However, the government originally intended to pass that act as a part of a broader social and justice reform package, which would entail negotiations with Indigenous leaders to develop a mutually acceptable form of constitutional recognition. This did not eventuate however, with the Howard government coming to office in 1996.

During this Coalition government, 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.{{Cite journal |last1=Williams |first1=George |last2=Mckenna |first2=Mark |last3=Simpson |first3=Amelia |date=1 January 2001 |title=With hope in God, the Prime Minister and the poet: lessons from the 1999 Referendum on the Preamble. |url=https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/24-2-17.pdf |journal=University of New South Wales Law Journal |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=401–419}}

The government otherwise opposed what it called "symbolic" recognition, until during the 2007 election campaign, Howard committed to hold a referendum on constitutional recognition. All subsequent prime ministers have endorsed this position; however no proposal prior to the Voice was taken to vote.{{cite web |last=Chrysanthos |first=Natassia |date=27 May 2019 |title=What is the Uluru Statement from the Heart? |url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-is-the-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-20190523-p51qlj.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190705123003/https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-is-the-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-20190523-p51qlj.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true |archive-date=5 July 2019 |access-date=19 July 2020 |website=The Sydney Morning Herald}}

While the Rudd government also endorsed constitutional recognition, formal consultation with Indigenous leaders on a new proposal did not begin again until 2012 under the Gillard government. This resulted in the creation of an expert panel, which recommended, amongst other things, the insertion of a prohibition on racial discrimination.{{Cite web |last=Expert Panel |date=January 2012 |title=Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution |url=https://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/mp/files/resources/files/12-01-16-indigenous-recognition-expert-panel-report.pdf}} The report was not acted on by the government and was criticised by the opposition. Debate continued to stall for the remainder of Labor's time in office until 2014.

Incoming prime minister Tony Abbott was opposed to substantive constitutional change, arguing in his 2014 Neville Bonner oration that the goal is to "acknowledge Aboriginal people in the Constitution without otherwise changing it".{{Cite web |last=Abbott |first=Tony |author-link=Tony Abbott |date=28 November 2014 |title=Neville Bonner Oration: Prime Minister The Hon. Tony Abbott MP |url=https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2015/4.pdf}} However, in 2015 over 40 Indigenous leaders presented the Kirribilli Statement. It rejected non-substantive changes, stating:{{Cite web |date=6 July 2015 |title=Statement Presented By Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Attendees At A Meeting Held With The Prime Minister And Opposition Leader On Constitutional Recognition |url=https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2015/37.pdf |website=Austria}}

{{Blockquote|text=A minimalist approach that provides recognition in the Constitution’s preamble, removes section 25 and moderates the race power section 51(xxvi) does not go far enough, and would not be acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.}}

This statement resulted in the created of the bi-partisan creation of the Referendum Council by new prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.{{Cite web |last=Davis |first=Megan |date=2020-02-17 |title=Constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians must involve structural change, not mere symbolism |url=http://theconversation.com/constitutional-recognition-for-indigenous-australians-must-involve-structural-change-not-mere-symbolism-131751 |access-date= |website=The Conversation |language=en-US}}

The proposal for a Voice to Parliament was initially conceived in 2014 by Aboriginal advocate Noel Pearson of the Cape York Institute (assisted by the Institute's senior constitutional advisor Shireen Morris) in discussion with academic Anne Twomey and constitutional conservatives Greg Craven, Damien Freeman and Julian Leeser.{{Cite speech |last=Lesser |first=Julian |author-link=Julian Leeser |title=Address to the Sydney Institute |date=3 October 2023 |location=Sydney |url=https://www.julianleeser.com.au/news/address-to-the-sydney-institute/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240424060952/https://www.julianleeser.com.au/news/address-to-the-sydney-institute/ |archive-date=24 April 2024 |url-status=live}}{{Cite news |last=Middleton |first=Karen |date=10 June 2017 |title=The making of the Uluru statement |url=https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/06/03/the-making-the-uluru-statement/14964120004739 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180508171035/https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/06/03/the-making-the-uluru-statement/14964120004739 |archive-date=8 May 2018 |work=The Saturday Paper |publisher=Schwartz Media}}{{Cite book |last=Morris |first=Shireen |title=Radical Heart |date=2 July 2018 |publisher=Melbourne University Press |isbn=9780522873573 |chapter=Chapter 6: In Search of the Radical Centre}} 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.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mi-1wMj3G4 The Voice dissected by Noel Pearson and Ben Fordham], 2GB Sydney, 8 Sep 2023. "[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." The proposal was first publicly raised by Pearson in his 2014 Quarterly Essay, "A Rightful Place: Race, Recognition and a More Complete Commonwealth"{{Cite book |last=Pearson |first=Noel |title=A Rightful Place: Race, Recognition and a More Complete Commonwealth |publisher=Black Inc |year=2014 |isbn=9781863956819 |editor-last=Feik |editor-first=Chris |series=Quarterly Essay |location=Australia |page=67}}{{Cite news |last=Gregory |first=Katherine |date=11 September 2014 |title=Noel Pearson proposes changing constitution to create Indigenous representative body |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-11/noel-pearson-change-constitution-indigenous-advise-parliament/5736804 |access-date=9 June 2023 |publisher=ABC News}}{{Cite news |last=Karvelas |first=Patricia |date=18 September 2014 |title=Pearson, Craven unite on reforms |url=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/noel-pearson-greg-craven-unite-on-indigenous-constitutional-reforms/news-story/65befa1298b2a95a90b14210b229849d |url-access=subscription |work=The Australian}} and 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.{{cite report |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=e7940d6b-918d-4295-bea9-8089279a5c95&subId=301030 |title=Submission No. 38 to the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples |author=Cape York Institute |date=October 2014 |author-link=Cape York Institute |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230127050035/https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=e7940d6b-918d-4295-bea9-8089279a5c95&subId=301030 |archive-date=27 January 2023 |url-status=live}}{{cite report |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=764fe11f-9cab-4a6f-8c9a-6f8d92bba731&subId=301030 |title=Submission No. 38.1 to the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples:Supplemental 1 |author=Cape York Institute |date=August 2014 |author-link=Cape York Institute |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230407084519/https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=764fe11f-9cab-4a6f-8c9a-6f8d92bba731&subId=301030 |archive-date=7 April 2023 |url-status=live}}{{cite report |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=39adf412-a9f2-4ba5-9b5b-15d69ae3fb8b&subId=301030 |title=Submission No. 38.2 to the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples:Supplemental 2 |author=Cape York Institute |date=January 2015 |author-link=Cape York Institute |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230910022044/https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=39adf412-a9f2-4ba5-9b5b-15d69ae3fb8b&subId=301030 |archive-date=10 September 2023 |url-status=live}}

The proposal was made in part to bridge the gap between Indigenous advocates and constitutional conservatives in the debate around recognition.{{Cite news |last=Martin |first=Sarah |date=13 April 2015 |title=Pearson's Shift on Recognise Campaign |url=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/noel-pearsons-shift-on-recognise-constitution-campaign/news-story/b65ee1b8f781c7e81c932a6f6dad5fda |url-access=subscription |access-date=9 June 2023 |work=The Australian}} 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.{{Cite journal |last=Davis |first=Megan |author-link=Megan Davis |date=November 2014 |title=A rightful place: Correspondence: Megan Davis |url=https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.852281921490272 |journal=Quarterly Essay |publisher=Schwartz Publishing |issue=56 |pages=77–8 |isbn=978-1863957014 |issn=1832-0953 |url-access=subscription |via=Informit}} 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 Parliament to consult with Indigenous communities, but with no duty to follow this advice, thereby retaining parliamentary sovereignty. 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". The proposal was described as Pearson and Morris as a "third way" or "radical centrist" solution that synthesised progressive concerns that any constitutional recognition must involve structural reform and not "mere symbolism" with conservative concerns that any change must not limit parliamentary sovereignty and "minimise legal uncertainty".{{Cite book |last=Morris |first=Shireen |title=Broken Heart |date=2024 |publisher=La Trobe University Press |isbn=978-1-76064-520-5 |page=28–32}}{{Cite web |last=Morris |first=Shireen |date=2024-08-23 |title=Friday essay: how an unholy alliance of the separatist left and reactionary right rejected the Voice's 'sensible middle way' |url=https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-how-an-unholy-alliance-of-the-separatist-left-and-reactionary-right-rejected-the-voices-sensible-middle-way-236508 |access-date= |website=The Conversation |language=}}

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{{Cite journal |last=Appleby |first=Gabrielle |date=July 2015 |title=An Indigenous advisory body : some questions of design. |url=https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/agispt.20153512 |journal=Indigenous Law Bulletin |volume=8 |issue=19 |page=3 |issn=1328-5475 |url-access=subscription |via=Informit}} and that the body may not be able to provide advice early enough to be effective.{{Cite journal |last=Saunders |first=Cheryl |date=July 2015 |title=Indigenous constitutional recognition : the concept of consultation |url=https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/agispt.20153516 |journal=Indigenous Law Bulletin |volume=8 |issue=19 |issn=1328-5475 |url-access=subscription |via=Informit}}{{Cite book |last=Davis |first=Megan |author-link=Megan Davis |title=Constitutional recognition of First Peoples in Australia: theories and comparative perspectives |date=2016 |publisher=The Federation Press |isbn=978-1-76002-078-1 |editor-last=Young |editor-first=Simon |location=Annandale, N.S.W |pages=76–9 |editor-last2=Nielsen |editor-first2=Jennifer |editor-last3=Patrick |editor-first3=Jeremy}}

On 7 December 2015 the 16 members of the Referendum Council were appointed by Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and the ALP's Bill Shorten.{{Cite web |date=7 December 2015 |title=Commissioner Gooda appointed to Referendum Council |url=https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/commissioner-gooda-appointed-referendum-council |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221130221006/https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/commissioner-gooda-appointed-referendum-council |archive-date=30 November 2022 |access-date=30 November 2022 |publisher=Australian Human Rights Commission |language=en}} 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.{{Cite book |url=https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2016-12/referendum_council_discussion_paper.pdf |title=Discussion Paper on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples |publisher=Commonwealth of Australia |year=2017 |location=Australia |pages=11 |language=en |access-date=9 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170217002939/https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2016-12/referendum_council_discussion_paper.pdf |archive-date=17 February 2017 |url-status=live}} 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."{{cite web |title=Uluru Statement from the Heart |url=https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/final-report.html#toc-anchor-ulurustatement-from-the-heart |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190306043617/https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/final-report.html |archive-date=6 March 2019 |access-date=14 July 2018 |publisher=Referendum Council}}

On 13 June 2017, the Referendum Council released their final report, which recommended that a referendum for a constitutional voice be held. It stated that the body would recognise Indigenous Australians as "the first peoples of Australia" and that it should be tasked with "monitoring the use of the heads of power in section 51(xxvi) and section 122".{{cite book |url=https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf |title=Final Report of the Referendum Council |date=2017 |publisher=Commonwealth of Australia |page=15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180314004450/https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf |archive-date=14 March 2018 |url-status=live}}

In October 2017, the Turnbull government rejected the major recommendations of the report, arguing that the constitutional proposal was neither "desirable or capable of winning acceptance at referendum" and that the body "would inevitably become seen as a third chamber of parliament".{{Cite web |last=Wahlquist |first=Calla |date=26 October 2017 |title=Indigenous voice proposal 'not desirable', says Turnbull |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/26/indigenous-voice-proposal-not-desirable-says-turnbull |website=The Guardian}} Instead, the government established the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in March 2018.{{Cite web |title=Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/constitutionalrecognition |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190512222707/https://www.aph.gov.au/constitutionalrecognition |archive-date=12 May 2019 |access-date=2022-11-29 |publisher=Parliament of Australia |language=en-AU}} 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".{{cite book |author=Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Former_Committees/Constitutional_Recognition_2018/ConstRecognition/Final_Report |title=Final report |date=November 2018 |publisher=Commonwealth of Australia |isbn=978-1-74366-926-6 |access-date=18 July 2020}} [https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportjnt/024213/toc_pdf/Finalreport.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf PDF] 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".{{Cite web |last= |first= |title=2. Designing a First Nations Voice |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Former_Committees/Constitutional_Recognition_2018/ConstRecognition/Final_Report/Section?id=committees/reportjnt/024213/26672 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221214000528/https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Former_Committees/Constitutional_Recognition_2018/ConstRecognition/Final_Report/section?id=committees/reportjnt/024213/26672 |archive-date=14 December 2022 |access-date=9 February 2023 |publisher=Parliament of Australia |language=en-AU}}

File:Ken Wyatt cropped.jpg, Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the Morrison government|280x280px]]

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.{{cite web |date=30 October 2019 |title=A voice for Indigenous Australians |url=https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/wyatt/2019/voice-indigenous-australians |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200307132502/https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/wyatt/2019/voice-indigenous-australians |archive-date=7 March 2020 |access-date=18 July 2020 |publisher=Ministers Media Centre}} 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".{{cite web |last=Grattan |first=Michelle |author-link=Michelle Grattan |date=29 October 2019 |title=Proposed Indigenous 'voice' will be to government rather than to parliament |url=http://theconversation.com/proposed-indigenous-voice-will-be-to-government-rather-than-to-parliament-126031 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191030131654/http://theconversation.com/proposed-indigenous-voice-will-be-to-government-rather-than-to-parliament-126031 |archive-date=30 October 2019 |access-date=18 July 2020 |website=The Conversation}}

An interim report by the Senior Advisory Group led by Langton and Calma was delivered to the government in November 2020,{{cite web |last=Doran |first=Matthew |date=15 November 2020 |title=Minister Ken Wyatt wants Indigenous voice to government to pass parliament before next election |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-15/ken-wyatt-wants-indigenous-voice-laws-to-pass-before-election/12885306 |access-date=13 December 2020 |publisher=ABC News}} 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.{{cite web |date=9 January 2021 |title=Indigenous voice to parliament to have no veto power under interim plans |url=http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/09/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-to-have-no-veto-power-under-interim-plans |access-date=10 January 2021 |website=The Guardian}} On the same day, Wyatt announced a second stage of co-design meetings lasting four months, involving more consultation with Indigenous people.{{cite web |date=9 January 2021 |title=Indigenous Voice to parliament will get no veto power under interim proposal |url=https://www.sbs.com.au/news/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-will-get-no-veto-power-under-interim-proposal |access-date=10 January 2021 |publisher=SBS News}} 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.{{cite web |last=Lysaght |first=Gary-Jon |date=24 March 2021 |title=Indigenous Voice to Parliament to include regional voices to address local issues |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-25/voice-to-parliament-to-include-regional-voices/100020562 |access-date=27 March 2021 |publisher=ABC News}}

In July 2021 the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process panel released its final report.{{cite book |last1=Langton |first1=Marcia |url=https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf |title=Indigenous Voice Co-design Process – Final Report to the Australian Government |last2=Calma |first2=Tom |date=July 2021 |publisher=National Indigenous Australians Agency |isbn=978-1-925364-72-9 |author1-link=Marcia Langton |author2-link=Tom Calma}}{{cite web |author=Tim Rowse |date=10 March 2022 |title=Review of the The{{sic|hide=yes|expected=Only one 'the'}} Indigenous Voice Co-design Process: Final Report to the Australian Government |url=https://aph.org.au/2022/03/review-of-the-the-indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report-to-the-australian-government/ |publisher=Australian Policy and History Network, Deakin University}} 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.{{Cite web |last=Senior Advisory Group |date=16 September 2022 |title=Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report |url=https://voice.gov.au/resources/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report |website=Voice}} 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){{sfn|Langton|Calma|2021|p=7}} and these bodies would be created via legislation rather than through a constitutional amendment.{{Cite web |last=Grattan |first=Michelle |date=17 December 2021 |title=There'll be a lot more talk before we hear the Indigenous Voice |url=https://theconversation.com/therell-be-a-lot-more-talk-before-we-hear-the-indigenous-voice-173993 |website=The Conversation}} 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.

File:Linda Burney.jpg, Minister for Indigenous Australians in the Albanese government|300x300px]]

In the May 2022 Australian federal election a Labor government was elected with Anthony Albanese becoming Prime Minister. 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.{{cite web |last=Brennan |first=Bridget |date=22 May 2022 |title=Debate over Indigenous Voice to Parliament may define Anthony Albanese's government |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-22/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-may-define-albanese-government/101089742 |access-date=23 May 2022 |publisher=ABC News}}

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 discussions about the amendment:{{Cite web |title=Address to Garma Festival |url=https://www.pm.gov.au/media/address-garma-festival |access-date=2022-11-30 |publisher=Prime Minister of Australia}}{{cite web |author=Ella Archibald-Binge |date=29 July 2022 |title=Prime Minister to announce Australia's first referendum in 20 years at Garma Festival. Here's what you might be asked |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-29/pm-anthony-albanese-promises-referendum-on-indigenous-voice-/101284404 |publisher=ABC News |location=Australia}}{{cite web |date=29 July 2022 |title=Anthony Albanese reveals 'simple and clear' wording of referendum question on Indigenous voice |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/29/anthony-albanese-reveals-simple-and-clear-wording-of-referendum-question-on-indigenous-voice |website=The Guardian Australia}}

{{blockquote|

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?"

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.

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?{{Cite web |title=Press Conference – Parliament House |url=https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-parliament-house |access-date=2023-03-24 |publisher=Prime Minister of Australia}} {{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}}

The proposed amendment was:

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.

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 would "underpin the shape and function of the Voice".{{Cite web |date=24 March 2023 |title=Voice principles released |url=https://voice.niaa.gov.au/news/voice-principles-released |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230324223906/https://voice.niaa.gov.au/news/voice-principles-released |archive-date=24 March 2023 |access-date= |website=Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice |publisher=Australian Government}}{{Cite web |author=Albanese, Anthony |author-link=Anthony Albanese |title=Press Conference – Parliament House: Transcript |url=https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-parliament-house |access-date=2023-03-24 |publisher=Prime Minister of Australia}} {{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}} 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.

These principles stated that the Voice would be "proactive" and "independent" when giving advice to both Parliament and the government, Voice members would be chosen according to "the wishes of local communities" and "representative" being gender balanced and including remote and youth representatives. Additionally, the Voice would be "community-led, inclusive, respectful and culturally informed". Also, the Voice would be subject to standard transparency measures, would exist in addition to current organisations, would not deliver programs nor have a "veto power".{{Cite web |last=First Nations Referendum Working Group |date=3 April 2023 |title=Design Principles of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice |url=https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230904005326/https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles |archive-date=4 September 2023 |website=Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice |publisher=National Indigenous Australians Agency}}{{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}}

{{main|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.

The question that was put to the Australian people at the 2023 referendum was:{{blockquote|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?}}

The proposed amendment to be inserted into the Constitution was:

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.

{{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:{{cite web | title=First meetings of Referendum Working Group & Referendum Engagement Group |publisher=Prime Minister of Australia | date=29 September 2022 | url=https://www.pm.gov.au/media/first-meetings-referendum-working-group-referendum-engagement-group | access-date=13 October 2022}} 50px Text has been copied from this source, which is available under a [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)] licence.

• 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.

On 28 December 2022 at the Woodford Folk Festival, the prime minister said that the referendum would be held within a year,{{Cite web |title=Woodford Folk Festival |publisher=Prime Minister of Australia |url=https://www.pm.gov.au/media/woodford-folk-festival |access-date=2023-01-07 }}{{Cite news |date=2022-12-28 |title='Momentum is growing': Anthony Albanese promises to deliver Voice referendum by December 2023 |language=en-AU |publisher=ABC News |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-28/anthony-albanese-promises-voice-referendum-by-december-2023/101813422 |access-date=2023-01-07}} with the date eventually set for 14 October 2023.{{Cite news |last=Worthington |first=Brett |date=2023-08-30 |title=Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament referendum set for October 14 |language=en-AU |publisher=ABC News |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-30/voice-to-parliament-referendum-date-set-october-14/102757140 |url-status=live |access-date= |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230915155549/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-30/voice-to-parliament-referendum-date-set-october-14/102757140 |archive-date=15 September 2023}} 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.{{Cite web |last=Australian Electoral Commission |title=Your official referendum booklet |url=https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/learn/www.aec.gov.au |access-date=2023-09-10 |publisher=Australian Electoral Commission |language=en-AU}}

File:IanCallinan.jpg]]

Legal opinion in Australia was divided over the suitability of the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment.{{cite web | last1=Pelly | first1=Michael | last2=McIlroy | first2=Tom | title=Indigenous Voice to Parliament splits Australian High Court judges | website=Australian Financial Review | date=3 March 2023 | url=https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/the-high-court-judges-split-over-the-voice-20230227-p5cnzq | access-date=12 April 2023}}{{cite web | title=Barristers battle over Voice proposal amid racism claims [Opinion] | publisher=Sky News| author-link=Peta Credlin| last=Credlin| first= Peta | date=13 March 2023 | url=https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/peta-credlin/barristers-battle-over-voice-proposal-amid-racism-claims/video/975107e598f08a8e362d6318a76f158e | access-date=12 April 2023}}{{cite web | last=Butler | first=Josh | title=Indigenous voice a 'safe and sensible' legal option that will not impede parliament, experts say | website=The Guardian | date=24 March 2023 | url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/24/indigenous-voice-a-safe-and-sensible-legal-option-that-will-not-impede-parliament-experts-say | access-date=12 April 2023}}{{cite web | last=Visentin | first=Lisa | title=Indigenous Voice to Parliament: Mark Dreyfus dismisses High Court concerns | website=The Sydney Morning Herald | date=28 February 2023 | url=https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/high-court-action-shouldn-t-deter-yes-vote-on-voice-dreyfus-20230228-p5co5l.html | access-date=12 April 2023}}[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-24/constitutional-experts-divided-on-voice-referendum-legal-/102136900 Legal experts worry the words 'executive government' could lead to Voice referendum court battles]; abc.net.au, 24 March, 2023

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.{{cite web |last=Worthington |first=Brett |date=16 April 2023 |title=Legal experts weigh in on the Voice's two most controversial words: 'executive government' |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-16/voice-constitution-two-words-executive-government-albanese/102217212 |access-date=17 April 2023 |publisher=ABC News}} It is a broad term, which covers a wide range of people from the governor-general to the cabinet and public servants. 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. 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. Noel Pearson also stressed the importance of talking to the public service as well as politicians in effecting change.{{cite interview |last=Pearson |first=Noel |subject-link=Noel Pearson |interviewer=David Speers |title=Cape York Leader Noel Pearson |type=video |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-10/cape-york-leader-noel-pearson/102837312 |work=Insiders |publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation |date=10 September 2023 |quote=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. |at=at 11 minutes}}

On 3 April 2023, shadow attorney-general Julian Leeser outlined his concerns about the words "executive government" in proposed sub-clause 129(ii) during an address at the National Press Club, namely that the meaning of the words 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.{{cite web |last=Lesser |first=Julian |date=3 April 2023 |title=Address to the National Press Club |url=https://www.julianleeser.com.au/news/address-to-the-national-press-club/ |publisher=Julian Lesser}} [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-03/liberal-party-discuss-voice-to-parliament-position-referendum/102180324 Liberal Party to discuss Voice to Parliament position at party room meeting this week]; abc.net.au, 3 April 2023 However, despite these concerns, Leeser stated he would vote yes and continued to campaign for a successful referendum, after resigning from shadow cabinet.{{cite news |last=Karp |first=Paul |date=11 April 2023 |title=Julian Leeser resigns from shadow cabinet over Liberals' voice stance |work=The Guardian Australia |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/11/julian-leeser-resigns-from-shadow-cabinet-over-liberals-voice-stance}}

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,{{Cite web |last=Jackson |first=David |date=11 April 2023 |title=Inquiry into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum: Submission 31 |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=4f0c29fe-a9f2-4893-b55b-b392ffc27c4b&subId=740087 |website=Parliament of Australia}} Nicholas Hasluck,{{Cite web |last=Hasluck |first=Nicholas |date=16 April 2023 |title=Inquiry into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum: Submission 56 |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=c512b8e3-aae7-425c-a25a-a096021e67cb&subId=740239 |website=Parliament of Australia}} and Terry Cole,{{Cite news |date=26 April 2023 |title='Wrong in principle': Top jurist the latest leader to slam voice to parliament |work=news.com.au |publisher=News Corp Australia |url=https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/wrong-in-principle-top-jurist-the-latest-leader-to-slam-voice-to-parliament/news-story/1a45c6ae857b82595fb01fb112f565bc}} suggested that the changes could have unintended effects and would introduce inequality of citizenship into the Constitution. Former High Court Justice Ian Callinan had said that the changes were legally unsafe.{{cite news |last1=Clegg |first1=Louise |date=5 May 2023 |title=The Voice is an undercooked thought experiment |work=Australian Financial Review |publisher=Nine Entertainment |url=https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/the-voice-is-an-undercooked-thought-experiment-20230503-p5d57h |url-access=subscription |access-date=6 October 2023}}{{Cite web |last=Callinan |first=Ian |date=20 April 2023 |title=Inquiry into the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum: Submission 71 |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=39f44cab-2d37-41cd-b64d-6741bef5f501&subId=740396 |website=Australian Parliament}}

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,{{cite web |last1=Aroney |first1=Nicholas |last2=Gerangelos |first2=Peter |title=Submission to the Joint Select Committee on the Aboriginal and torres Strait islander Voice Referendum |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6d0caa69-30df-4273-bbe6-20eebc42bace&subId=740521 |access-date=6 October 2023 |publisher=Australian Parliament House}} 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. 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,{{cite journal |last1=Aroney |first1=Nicholas |last2=Congdon |first2=Peter |date=2 October 2023 |title=The Voice Referendum and the Federal Division of Powers: A New Head of Commonwealth Legislative Power to Implement the Voice's Representations? |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4589764 |journal=SSRN |doi=10.2139/ssrn.4589764 |ssrn=4589764 |s2cid=264906774 |access-date=7 October 2023}} 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.{{cite news |last1=Albrechtsen |first1=Janet |date=7 October 2023 |title=Indigenous voice to parliament: The legal analysis the Yes camp won't want you to read |publisher=The Australian |url=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-the-legal-analysis-the-yes-camp-wont-want-you-to-read/news-story/452926fe4166114230db77ae4ef5e105 |url-access=subscription |access-date=7 October 2023}} They wrote that neither side had mentioned this issue.{{cite news |last1=Albrechtson |first1=Janet |last2=Taylor |first2=Paige |last3=Down |first3=Rhiannon |date=7 October 2023 |title=Indigenous voice to parliament: Laws pose threat to powers of the states |publisher=The Australian |url=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-laws-pose-threat-to-powers-of-the-states/news-story/a84cb39307fecbd5eb2852848b87011b# |url-access=subscription |access-date=7 October 2023}}

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".{{cite news |last1=Hannaford |first1=Patrick |date=2 May 2023 |title=A submission about implications of the Voice to Parliament by two 'well-respected' legal experts has been labelled 'terrifying' |publisher=Sky News Australia |url=https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/voice-to-parliament/a-submission-about-implications-of-the-voice-to-parliament-by-two-wellrespected-legal-experts-has-been-labelled-terrifying/news-story/f739e8dad5f3a3a9164d810a1665de86 |access-date=6 October 2023}}

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 Williams, and Asmi Wood{{cite web |title=Constitutional Expert Group |url=https://voice.gov.au/advisory-groups/constitutional-expert-group |access-date=6 October 2023 |website=The Voice |date=9 August 2022 |publisher=Australian Government}}) 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".{{cite web |last=Thomas |first=Sonam |date=16 April 2023 |title=The Voice and the High Court challenge: analysis of a misrepresented legal debate |url=https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/crosscheck/the-voice-and-the-high-court-challenge |access-date=6 October 2023 |publisher=RMIT University}}

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".{{cite web |last=Hobbs |first=Harry |date=18 July 2023 |title=Solicitor-general confirms Voice model is legally sound, will not 'fetter or impede' parliament |url=https://theconversation.com/solicitor-general-confirms-voice-model-is-legally-sound-will-not-fetter-or-impede-parliament-204266 |access-date=6 October 2023 |website=The Conversation}} 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".{{Cite news |last=Butler |first=Josh |date=2023-04-21 |title=PM says solicitor general's advice on Indigenous voice refutes 'absolute nonsense' from Dutton and Joyce |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/21/pm-says-solicitor-generals-advice-on-indigenous-voice-refutes-absolute-nonsense-from-dutton-and-joyce |access-date=2023-04-24 |issn=0261-3077}}

In early October 2023, 71 constitutional and public law teachers and professors published an open letter to the Australian public, stating that:{{cite web |last=Chwasta |first=Madi |date=6 October 2023 |title=More than 70 university law professors say Voice 'not constitutionally risky' in letter to Australian public |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-06/open-letter-constitutional-law-university-voice-to-parliament/102937352 |access-date=6 October 2023 |publisher=ABC News}}{{cite web |title=A letter from public law teachers about The Voice |url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24013524-a-letter-from-public-law-teachers-about-the-voice |via=DocumentCloud}}

{{block quote|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.{{cite web |last=Karp |first=Paul |date=5 October 2023 |title=Former chief justice slams no campaign's core argument against voice as 'resentful' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/06/former-chief-justice-slams-no-campaigns-core-argument-against-voice-as-resentful |access-date=6 October 2023 |website=The Guardian}}{{cite web |date=6 October 2023 |title=Retired Australian top judge and lawyers rebut opponents of Indigenous Voice |url=https://apnews.com/article/australia-indigenous-voice-high-court-judge-a6546f9eb182aa99ca6aed0b1a24dcb6 |access-date=6 October 2023 |publisher=Associated Press}} 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.{{cite web |last=Ransley |first=Ellen |date=6 October 2023 |title=Aussies 'better than' No campaign slogan |url=https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/robert-french-addresses-national-press-club-ahead-of-voice-to-parliament-referendum/news-story/6633299a4caa877e35f65f7669cdd703 |access-date=6 October 2023 |website=news.com.au}}{{cite web |last=Pelly |first=Michael |date=5 October 2023 |title=Voice to parliament: Robert French, former chief justice, lashes No campaign |url=https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ex-chief-justice-lashes-resentful-no-campaign-20231005-p5e9zl |access-date=6 October 2023 |website=Australian Financial Review}}

{{main article|2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum#Positions|Endorsements in the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum}}

The Anthony Albanese led Labor government supported the Voice,{{cite web

| url = https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-05/voice-garma-festival-albanese-things-are-not-going-well/102690280

| title = The Voice was supposed to unify Australians. Where has the optimism gone?

| last = Tingle

| first = Laura

| date = 5 August 2023

| website = ABC.net.au

| publisher = ABC News

| access-date = 6 August 2023

| quote = }} 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.{{sfn|Members of Parliament|2023|p=6}}

Both the Liberal{{cite web

| url = https://theconversation.com/dutton-condemns-voice-as-symptom-of-identity-politics-as-burney-says-it-will-bring-better-outcomes-206089

| title = Dutton condemns Voice as symptom of 'identity politics', as Burney says it will bring 'better outcomes'

| last = Grattan

| first = Michelle

| date = 22 May 2023

| publisher = The Conversation

| access-date = 6 August 2023

| quote = }} 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.{{sfn|Members of Parliament|2023|p=7}} Peter Dutton 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).{{Cite news |last1=Williams |first1=Carly |last2=Speers |date=6 August 2023 |title='Not focused on hypotheticals': PM not considering other forms of Indigenous recognition if Voice fails |language=en-AU |publisher=ABC News |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-06/pm-warns-no-constitutional-indigenous-recognition-if-voice-fails/102693828 |access-date=2023-08-06}} However, the leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud, indicated that his party did 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.{{Cite web |title=Nationals leader rejects call for legislated Voice model despite Liberal backing |url=https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/nationals-leader-rejects-call-for-legislated-voice-model-despite-liberal-backing/ph8ayocen |access-date=2023-08-30 |publisher=SBS News |language=en}} Following the defeat of the proposal, Dutton stated that his party's prior commitment to symbolic constitutional recognition would be reviewed and that "it's clear the Australian public is probably over the referendum process for some time".{{Cite web |last=McHugh |first=Finn |date=16 October 2023 |title=Days after Voice vote, Peter Dutton waters down Indigenous recognition commitment |url=https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/days-after-voice-vote-peter-dutton-waters-down-indigenous-recognition-commitment/t5or4hzpz |access-date= |website=SBS News |language=en}}

{{excerpt|Opinion polling for the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum}}

• Assembly of First Nations (Canada)
• Australian Aboriginal sovereignty
• Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association, the first Aboriginal activist organisation
• Bureau of Indian Affairs (United States)
• Australian state and territory Indigenous voices
• First Nations Voice to Parliament (South Australia), the first state Voice
• Indigenous treaties in Australia
• Māori politics, in New Zealand
• Māori electorates
• Māori wards and constituencies
• New Zealand Māori Council
• Te Puni Kōkiri
• National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, body representing indigenous groups in the Philippines
• Sámi parliament (disambiguation), several bodies representing Sámi peoples in the Nordic countries and Russia
• List of Indigenous Australian politicians
• List of Indigenous Australians in politics and public service

{{Notelist}}

{{Reflist}}

{{Ref begin}}

• {{cite web |author=Members of Parliament |date=18 July 2023 |title=Your Official Yes/No Referendum Pamphlet |url=https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/files/pamphlet/your-official-yes-no-referendum-pamphlet.pdf?=v1.0|format=PDF |publisher=Australian Electoral Commission |access-date=6 August 2023}}

{{Ref end}}

• [https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20231010002606/https://voice.gov.au/ Archived official government Voice website]

Category:Albanese government

Category:Constitutional referendums in Australia

Category:Defunct organisations serving Indigenous Australians