The Voice to Parliament explained
Now we finally have a date for the Voice to Parliament referendum, it’s a good time to return to the terrific work our academic experts have done to explain the Voice to Parliament – as well as debunking some of the misinformation and disinformation we’ve seen so far.
- Now we finally have a date for the Voice to Parliament referendum, it’s a good time to return to the terrific work our academic experts have done to explain the Voice to Parliament – as well as debunking some of the misinformation and disinformation we’ve seen so far.
- Many of the questions we have addressed came from readers who took part in our Voice reader survey last year.
- The Australian constitution and the 220-plus page report of the co-design proposed Voice are not very accessible for those of us who don’t speak fluent policy.
Helpful general information:
- Pre-eminent constitutional scholar Anne Twomey reminds us of the referendum basics – what will it say on the ballot paper?
- But what may have been forgotten is how we got here in the first place – and why it matters.
- And is there a risk that proposals that are too detailed, or too vague, can end up being rejected by voters?
- This article explores how factors such as race, religion, and experience with racial interactions may inform how these demographics could vote.
Constitutional and legal explainers
- A constitutional law expert explains Legislation is an unsatisfactory way to institute a Voice to Parliament because, among other reasons, it would make the body insecure and vulnerable to the whims of different governments.
- With 11 Indigenous politicians in parliament, why does Australia need the Voice?
- Why is it legal to tell lies during the Voice referendum campaign?
- Solicitor-general confirms Voice model is legally sound, will not ‘fetter or impede’ parliament Australia’s solicitor-general Stephen Donaghue provided the federal government with legal advice on the Voice to Parliament.
First Nations perspectives
- Kelly Menzel explores the cultural and historical complexities behind many First Nations peoples’ apprehension or uncertainty around the proposed Voice.
- Failure to incorporate Indigenous perspectives has contributed to decades of misinformed, ineffective policy such as the Northern Territory Intervention.
- Why a First Nations Voice should come before Treaty A leading argument against the Voice to Parliament is that Treaty should come first.
- Non-Indigenous Australians must listen to the difficult historical truths told by First Nations people In the Uluru Statement, alongside “Treaty” and “Voice”, there is also a call for “Truth”.
Voice, Treaty, Truth explainers
- Since the Uluru statement was declared in 2017 we have heard calls from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders for “Voice, Treaty and Truth”.
- Our experts explained each stage of this process.
- The Voice: what is it, where did it come from, and what can it achieve?