"A proposed law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

"Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

Voters will be asked to write either "yes" or "no" on their ballot paper.

A Voice to Parliament will be a permanent body for First Nations people to advise Federal Parliament and the executive government when decisions are being made about their lives.

It is aimed to result in better laws, policies, targeted investment and outcomes for Indigenous people.

If the referendum succeeds, the exact shape of the Voice will be determined by Parliament, and could be changed by future governments according to the conditions of the day.

The Voice was born out of a National Constitutional Convention at Uluru in 2017 with 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates, after a series of regional dialogues were held around the country.

It was here that the Uluru Statement from the Heart was originally developed, specifically calling for "constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country".

"We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the constitution," the Uluru Statement outlines.

Members of the Voice would be selected by Indigenous communities to serve for a fixed term, and members would answer to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

It would be community-led, be gender balanced and and chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands.

In many respects, the referendum vote will be conducted in the same way as the federal election.

Voting will be compulsory but voters will be offered options including postal voting, early voting and mobile polling.

The voting day will fall on a Saturday but the exact date is yet to be determined. It is considered most likely it will be held between October and December.

The AEC will tally votes by state and territory, electoral division and by polling place.

No. In 2017, Australians were asked to take part in a non-binding plebiscite to decide Marriage Equality.

A plebiscite is a vote which does not affect the constitution. Plebiscites are normally advisory and do not compel a government to act on the outcome.

The result of the referendum is binding. This means the Australian government must act on what voters decide.

If the "yes" vote is successful, it would mean a Voice to Parliament would be enshrined in the constitution. This would mean the advisory body could not be disbanded by future governments without another referendum.

For a referendum to succeed, it must obtain a double majority. This means it must win the majority of votes nationally, and also win a majority in four out of the six states.

Votes in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory will only count towards the national majority. This is because the territories did not exist when the Constitution was drafted in 1901.

Australians have voted in 44 referendums since federation in 1901, but only eight have been successful. The last referendum, to decide if Australia should become a republic, was held in 1999 and failed.

The last successful referendum was in 1977 when Australia voted to set a retirement age of 70 years for High Court judges.

University of NSW constitutional expert George Williams said there are three keys to a successful referendum.

There should be bipartisan support, there must be popular ownership - meaning that people must not think that the reform idea is a "politicians' proposal" - and it must be backed by a public education campaign, according to Professor Williams.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has repeatedly said he wanted bipartisan support for the Voice proposal but the federal Coalition will be formally campaigning against it (though backbench Liberal MPs are free to campaign for the Voice).

One line of attack on the proposal adopted by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been to refer to the proposal as the "Canberra voice", inferring that the concept is being driven by political elites.

This line of attack aligns with Professor Williams' point about public ownership, in which he warns that, "Australians have consistently voted No when they believe a proposal is motivated by politicians' self-interest."

But Professor Williams said that there was still the possibility that this referendum, which lacks bi-partisanship, could buck the trend and succeed.

He said past failed attempts do not mean that winning a referendum is "mission impossible".

"Instead, it shows that we should expect a referendum to fail whenever our major political parties disagree, or when poor management means that the Australian people feel left out or confused about what is being changed," he said.

"People will also vote no to a proposal that is dangerous or has been poorly thought out. Of course, a lot of this is common sense, yet the referendum record displays a tendency to repeat these mistakes time after time."

The Coalition claims the Voice proposal lacks detail, opens up the potential for High Court challenges and would add a layer of bureaucracy to government.

The Coalition has also argued that it will not deliver practical outcomes for Indigenous communities and has instead called for local and regional advisory bodies.

But supporters of the Voice say it will provide First Nations people with an opportunity to advise Federal Parliament and the executive government on decisions being made that affect their lives.

Furthermore, Mr Albanese has assured that the proposal is constitutionally sound and had been backed by the Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus on the advice of the Solicitor-General.

The Prime Minister says the Voice would only advise matters directly affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The Australian Electoral Commission will be acting to ensure the accuracy of information about the process and the operation of the referendum.

As part of its conduct of the referendum, the AEC will distribute a pamphlet setting out the proposed change to the constitution and 2000-word arguments from both the yes and no campaigns, authorised by MPs in each camp.

It will specifically not comment on campaign material and it will not checking the truth or accuracy of claims made by the rival campaigns.

The AEC is urging voters to be alert to information that is not supported by evidence, is missing context or is even deliberately misleading.

The AEC also has a referendum process disinformation register which debunks misleading claims.

All financial donations above $15,200 to either the yes or no campaigns must be disclosed to the AEC.