Key arguments for and against the Indigenous voice

Here are a dozen arguments for and against enshrining an Indigenous voice in the Australian constitution.

YES

* The voice is the result of years of careful work by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to find an acceptable and legally sound way to recognise "the First Peoples of Australia" in the constitution.

* It will provide a permanent means of Indigenous community input into the work of the federal parliament and government, with members serving fixed terms to ensure accountability.

* The voices of women and young people will be heard and all parts of the country will be represented.

* It will not have a veto power over decision-making, but inform the making of policies, laws and rules.

* It is best practice to work with communities on practical outcomes rather than impose solutions from Canberra.

* It is a first step towards achieving the aims of the historic 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart.

NO

* Indigenous people already have a voice to parliament and government - their local MPs and senators.

* There is no place in the constitution for race to be put ahead of need and merit.

* The voice is likely to be made up of activists or people with the money to spend to get elected.

* It is merely symbolic, whereas what are needed are solutions to problems in Indigenous communities in the areas of family violence, housing, education, health and employment.

* A formal treaty should be the first step to reconciliation, rather than a referendum.

* Black sovereignty requires more than a voice, it requires direct involvement in policy-making.

Australian Associated Press