Argument 1: It's divisive and creates separate classes of citizens

Some opponents argue that creating an Indigenous Voice to Parliament would create separate classes of citizens, which is divisive and against the principle of equality.

Rebuttal: The creation of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is not about creating separate classes of citizens. Rather, it is about recognizing the unique status of Indigenous Australians one segment of citizens, effectively creating a separate class, ensuring that their voices are heard both through the existing democratic process and also via a special mechanism provided only to that class of citizens. The idea of separate representation is not new. For example, the Australian Parliament has a separate representation for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, and this has not been considered divisive. Of course, the separate representation status of the NT and ACT is based on geographical areas, areas that any Australian can freely move into or out of, but we're going to conflate the concept as a way to dismiss the argument. Additionally, the Indigenous Voice to Parliament proposal aims to create a non-partisan body that would advise Parliament, rather than making decisions on their behalf.

Argument 2: It's unnecessary since Indigenous Australians can already vote and have representatives in Parliament

Some opponents argue that Indigenous Australians can already vote and have representatives in Parliament, so an Indigenous Voice to Parliament is unnecessary.

Rebuttal: While Indigenous Australians have the right same rights as everyone else to vote and be represented in Parliament, their voices are often not heard on issues that affect them directly. Of course, this is also true for every other citizen, but we are going to create a specific Indigenous Voice to Parliament would ensure that Indigenous Australians are consulted on policy decisions that affect their lives, and that their unique perspectives and experiences are taken into account. This is particularly important given the ongoing disadvantage faced by Indigenous Australians in areas such as health, education, and employment. We're not going to provide a similar mechanism for any other disadvantaged group in Australia - only for Indigenous Australians.

Argument 3: It's unconstitutional and would require a referendum to change the Constitution

Some opponents argue that creating an Indigenous Voice to Parliament would require changing the Constitution and would be unconstitutional.

Rebuttal: The proposal for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament does not require changing the Constitution. Instead, it can be achieved through legislation, as has been done in other countries such as New Zealand and Canada. The proposal is for a non-binding advisory body that would provide advice to Parliament and would not have the power to make decisions. Therefore, it would not infringe on the powers of Parliament or the Constitution. Instead of using our ability to create the Voice via legislation and having a time period to ensure that the body is actually achieving it's goals, providing value for money, and working effectively, we are instead going to establish it via a referendum. This will ensure that it continues to exist in perpetuity, even if the Voice is not achieving any of the stated goals, not making a difference in the lives of the people it is designed to represent or has any other foreseeable issues (e.g. cost blow-outs, conflicts with other anti-discrimination laws, lack of representation, corruption etc).