Our first question is a 2-parter from Sharon: first, how would the change to the constitution be worded? And second, what happens if the ‘Yes’ vote gets up but there is disagreement on how to legislate the Voice?

There’s a lot to unpack here - but let’s get to the straightforward bit first…

• The proposed amendment to the Constitution would be:

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

2. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

3. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

• That will be on your ballot paper, and you will be asked to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the question: “Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

As for part 2…

• It's likely there will be debate about how to set the Voice up. There are different views in parliament on the Voice, and you can bet that MPs and senators will have a bit to say about the legislation.

• The Albanese Government is likely to do a lot of consultation before it puts forward legislation on how the Voice should be set up, and there would also be parliamentary committee inquiries.

• We aren't fortune tellers, so we can't be sure of the precise  timeframe to pass whatever they come up with through both houses of parliament.

Squizers Richard and Claire both want to know about how other countries have handled constitutional recognition and representative bodies for their indigenous populations. 

Let’s start with our mates over the ditch in New Zealand.

• The Maori people signed a treaty in 1840 with the British Crown and that document - the Treaty of Waitangi - has been crucial to giving Maori a voice within New Zealand’s political system.

• The arrangement isn’t in their constitution because New Zealand doesn’t have one… But the Treaty is a fundamental part of their civic life.

• Basically, the Treaty sets out land rights, equal citizenship and equality for Maori before the law. There are many aspects of the Maori relationship with the government that Indigenous leaders here would like to replicate.

Canada is another country that is similar to Oz in a lot of ways…

• Canada’s First Nations people achieved constitutional recognition in 1982 that outlines specific rights, including the right to self-determination.

• Canada also had a Truth and Reconciliation Commission running for about 8 years in the 2000s, and every Canadian was encouraged to read the final report.

Taiwan, the US, and South American, Scandinavian, and Pacific Island nations have worked through various models to guarantee their Indigenous peoples are heard. And there are others where it hasn’t worked. For example, last year, Chilean voters rejected proposed constitutional changes to enhance Indigenous rights.

That’s the question Mim has asked - she says she thought the same-sex marriage vote was a referendum...

We've got you, Mim...

• The key difference is that a referendum is only held if the government wants to change the Constitution.

• A plebiscite - like we had with the same-sex marriage vote in 2017 - didn’t require any change to the Constitution. It's purpose was essentially to be like a big national poll to get a sense of whether the majority of Aussies supported changing the legislation.

• The Voice could get up and running with legislation, but the Albanese Government has agreed with calls for the Voice to be put into the Constitution.

And on Mim’s question about the difference between a referendum and a plebiscite…

• A plebiscite isn’t binding like a referendum - so even when nearly 62% of Aussies voted in favour of allowing same-sex marriage, the government didn’t have to act.

• There are a couple of other differences to note - it’s compulsory to vote in a referendum but not a plebiscite.

• And usually a victory in a plebiscite is the national result for or against the question. In a referendum, you need a more complicated ‘double majority’ - an absolute majority of all Aussie voters plus a ‘Yes’ vote from the residents of at least 4 out of 6 states.

• We’ll leave you with this fun fact: Australia had a plebiscite back in 1977 to decide on an alternative national anthem to God Save the Queen. Advance Australia Fair won over Waltzing Matilda. And the ACT was the only jurisdiction which preferred the one about the jolly swagman…