It is a leap into the unknown. This Voice has not been road tested. There is no comparable constitutional body like this anywhere in the world.

Enshrining a Voice in the Constitution means it is open to legal challenge and interpretation by the High Court.

Legal experts don’t agree, and can’t know for sure, how the High Court will interpret such a constitutional change.

I would foresee a decade or more of constitutional and administrative law litigation arising out of a voice...
‍
Ian Callinan AC KC, former High Court Judge
The Australian, 17/12/2022

This opens a legal can of worms.

We don’t know how it will help disadvantaged communities and close the gap.

We don’t know how many members this Voice would have.

We don’t know if they would be elected or chosen, or how this would occur.

We don’t know how it would make representations or be held accountable.

These details would only be worked through after Australians have voted.

According to the Yes campaign, it “doesn’t make sense” to have details before the vote:

It doesn’t make any sense to do that detailed consultation until we have the support of the Australian people to change the constitution.

Yes23 Brochure

This is the wrong way around.

You wouldn’t buy a house without inspecting it or a car without test driving it.

Yet you are being asked to vote to change our Constitution without details.

Australians shouldn’t be asked to sign a blank cheque.

How can Australians possibly agree to something where we don’t know the detail?

Senator Kerrynne Liddle, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence and Arrernte woman

This goes against a key principle of our democratic system, that all Australians are equal before the law.

The inclusion of the proposed s 129 would mean that we become a nation where, whenever we or our ancestors first came to this country, we are not all equal.

David Jackson AM KC, former Federal Court Judge
Parliamentary Inquiry Submission, 11/04/2023

Our Constitution belongs to all Australians. Our Parliament is there to represent all Australians. It now includes a record 11 Indigenous Members and Senators.

Our national anthem was recently changed to reflect the fact we are “one and free”.

By contrast, this Voice would permanently divide Australians, in law and spirit.

We’re all Australians. And that’s the way it should end up. It shouldn’t be divided by this so called Voice which is going to split this country right down the centre.

Ian Conway, Central Arrernte Senior Custodian

There are currently hundreds of Indigenous representative bodies at all levels of government, along with the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has 1,400 staff.

A centralised Voice risks overlooking the needs of regional and remote communities.

A national voice cannot speak for country.

Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO, Australians for Unity board member and Bundjalung man

Right now, many voices are crying out for help in tackling devastating social problems in some remote communities. What’s needed is action.

What we need in Canberra is ears, not a Voice.

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians and Warlpiri woman

In the words of a member of the Government’s Referendum Working Group:

The voice will be able to speak to all parts of the government, including the cabinet, ministers, public servants, and independent statutory offices and agencies – such as the Reserve Bank ... It can’t shut the voice up.

Professors Megan Davis and Gabrielle Appleby
The Australian, 1/4/2023

In the words of a constitutional law professor who supports the Voice:

I think it’s fatally flawed because what it does is retain the full range of review of executive action. This means the Voice can comment on everything from submarines to parking tickets … We will have regular judicial interventions.

Professor Greg Craven AO
Daily Mail, 24/3/2023

Many legal experts have expressed concern about its scope, however their concerns have simply been overlooked.

If the Voice is not satisfied with the way it has been consulted, or a decision that is made, it could appeal to the courts. How long would this take?

Many legal experts have warned this would cause considerable delays in decision making.

The Voice will almost certainly become a lightning rod for protracted debate about a vast array of current issues. Nearly every matter of current concern on the national agenda will be seen as having an Indigenous component of some kind.

Nicholas Hasluck AM KC, former WA Supreme Court Judge
Parliamentary Inquiry Submission, 16/4/2023

The risk of legal appeals and delays means a risk of dysfunctional government.

That is not good for Australia.

This is the first step, it’s a vital step and it puts all the explanation behind it. ‘Pay the Rent’ for example, how do we do that in a way that is transparent and that actually sees reparations and compensation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people…?

Thomas Mayo, Referendum Working Group
SEARCH Foundation Speech, 12/2/2020

The Uluru Statement from the Heart says a Voice is a first step, before a treaty and truth telling.

By definition, a treaty is an agreement between governments, not between one group of citizens and its government.

A member of the Government’s Referendum Working Group has described “truth” as “leverage” to lead to “the abolishment of the old colonial institutions”.

It is a way to further what we need for our people in any negotiations for treaties and for other things like legislation, reform and abolishment of the institutions, the old colonial institutions that harm us.
‍
Thomas Mayo, Referendum Working Group
SEARCH Foundation Speech, 12/2/2020

Already, many activists are campaigning to abolish Australia Day, change our flag and other institutions and symbols important to Australians.

It’s always been #abolishAustraliaDay, changing the date is a cop out.

Teela Reid, Referendum Engagement Group
Twitter, 24/1/2023

If there is a constitutionally enshrined Voice, these calls would grow louder.

Australians need to understand that the Voice will be used to support the demands for recognition of coexisting sovereignty, a Makarrata commission designed to produce a treaty and monetary compensation, and a rewriting of Australian history…
The potential for great irremediable harm to Australian society means the voice should never be incorporated into the Australian constitution…

Terence Cole AO RFD KC, former NSW Supreme Court Judge
Spectator Australia, 6/4/2023; Parliamentary Inquiry Submission, 19/4/2023

This year, the Government has allocated $4.3 billion for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which has 1,400 staff.

This Agency’s website and corporate plan says: “We… ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a say in the decisions that affect them.”

There is no suggestion this Voice will replace any of these. It will operate as one bureaucracy among many.

Recognition has the widespread support of Australians. However, this Voice proposal is the problem.

There are many Australians who oppose a Voice on principle.

Others might be willing to consider a less risky Voice option, but the Government has not given you this choice.

When previous changes to the Constitution have been proposed, there has been a Constitutional Convention to properly consider options and details.

No such process happened here. This process was rushed and heavy-handed.

This approach isn’t unifying, or effective. It’s divisive.