Leading legal and constitutional experts have rejected the claim that the proposed Voice to Parliament will provide “special rights” to one race of people.

Professor Anne Twomey, a member of the Constitutional Expert Group that provides the government with legal support on constitutional matters relating to the referendum, told RMIT FactLab that “the proposed constitutional amendment does not confer any special rights”.

Professor Twomey added: “It just requires the establishment of a body with the function of making representations to parliament.”

She said that any individual or organisation can make representations to parliament by way of petitions, which are tabled in parliament, or by making representations to their local member of parliament.

Bodies with collective interests, such as unions, community groups, charities and business organisations, can also make submissions to parliamentary committees to point out problems or propose changes to bills being debated in parliament, she said.

“People with similar interests often band together in groups in their hope that their collective voice will be more influential than their individual submissions,” she said. “The Voice would be one such group.”

Professor Twomey likened the Voice to other statutory bodies that can make representations to parliament through reports, reviews or recommendations, such as the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Productivity Commission.

“The fact that the majority of people appointed to those bodies are lawyers and economists cannot be treated as giving members of those bodies ‘special rights’ and discriminating against doctors and plumbers,” she said.

The reason particular professionals dominate those bodies is due to their expertise and relevant experience, she said.

“The same can be said of a group of Indigenous Australians who have expertise and experience in how laws directed towards them are likely to affect them,” she said.

Professor Twomey said it was up to parliament to decide how the Voice would be composed and what its powers, procedures and other functions would be.

In an article published on December 14 in The Conversation, a website that publishes commentary, research and analysis from Australian universities and the CSIRO, Professor Twomey wrote that the Constitutional Expert Group were “unanimously of the view” that the Voice would not confer “special rights” to anyone.

The expert group comprises leading legal and constitutional experts, including Professor Greg Craven GCSG, Professor Megan Davis, Mr Kenneth Hayne KC, Mr Noel Pearson, Professor Cheryl Saunders, Professor Anne Twomey, Scientia Professor George Williams and Professor Asmi Wood. It is chaired by the Attorney-General of Australia, Mark Dreyfus.

In their advice to the First Nations Referendum Working Group, the constitutional experts said the Voice would not change or take away any rights of non-Indigenous people. A summary of their advice was published in a communique on December 13 by the Referendum Working Group.

“The Voice does not confer ‘rights’, much less ‘special rights’, on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,” the communique states. “Nor would the Voice change or take away any right, power or privilege of anyone who is not Indigenous.”

RMIT FactLab also consulted a legal expert outside of the Constitutional Expert Group - Professor Gabrielle Appleby of the Law Faculty at the University New South Wales.

Professor Appleby agreed that the Voice to Parliament would not provide “special rights” to one race of people.

“The Voice does not itself grant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people rights, such as land rights or cultural rights, which are still granted, amended and even repealed by the parliament, as with all other laws,” Professor Appleby said.

The Voice provides an additional opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people input in the decision-making processes of government and parliament, she said.

“It does not change or reduce the rights of any other Australian,” she said.

specific race

Why is this so dog whistly

It's not a voice based on race, this is the biggest fallacy. It's a voice for people who are traditional owners of a land that was never ceded.

Is not because they're aboriginal, it's because they were here first.

This is great. Thanks.

Except they're not in Parliament. The Voice is a body that can make submissions to Parliament; they don't get to make the decisions. Parliament is still made up of elected representatives.

They won't hold a position in Parliament. That is not how this works at all.

They're not in parliament; literally all this does is mandate that their lobby group exist, not that anyone has to listen to them... it's not exactly a big ask

It's not a voice based on race, this is the biggest fallacy. It's a voice for the traditional owners of a land that was never ceded.

Is not because they're aboriginal, it's because they were here first.

No vote is "wasted". That happens in some other election systems (e.g. the United States) but it doesn't happen here.

Gerrymandering is an issue in Australia, and also the territories have less representation than a proper state (not just NT - we have ten Territories in Australia, mostly off shore islands). But there's none of that for a referendum - it's a straight count of votes.

The way we structure our democracy with territories makes sense for the other nine territories. We shouldn't change that, instead we should make the NT a state. I'm sure it'll happen one day, when there are more people living there. Have you been to the NT? Most of the state barely even has water and roads, and I suspect building those would be even more difficult if it was managed locally instead of with help from the much larger and better funded federal government.

The voice is very close to a lobby group’s position in Canberra. I can’t remember when Indigenous issues were in the top 3 most important during an election, so what’s stopping the government by just ignoring them?

The voice is something leaders within Australia's indigenous community have asked for, as the next step in reconciling this country with the indigenous nations that have ruled here for tens of thousands of years and have never legally relinquished their authority to the Australian government that summarily took over relatively recently (practically yesterday, in the history of the indigenous Australians).

It's just one small step, and it's not intended to be a silver bullet that fixes everything, and in fact it won't change much at all. But it will improve some small things and more importantly it will signify that we, as a country, care about the broader issue at hand and want to fix it. The symbolism for the voice is very powerful and I will be voting yes to the voice.

Will people in the Northern Territory have their vote counted as if it were a state or just to the total national amount?

National count only.

Am I the only one here who thinks they could’ve made actual change if they became a state (more senators, can contribute to a referendum)?

Possibly, but then we'd have a state with less population than Hobart which raises it's own issues.

The voice is very close to a lobby group’s position in Canberra. I can’t remember when Indigenous issues were in the top 3 most important during an election, so what’s stopping the government by just ignoring them?

Nothing, but that's kind of the point.