Indigenous voice to parliament explained: what is it and how would it work?

Summary

The Australian government is considering enshrining a 'Voice to Parliament' in the Constitution, as part of its commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This Voice would advise on issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A referendum is required for its inclusion, and while details of its structure are debated, the Voice is intended to be an advisory, non-binding body. The move aims to ensure indigenous input on policies impacting them, potentially preventing past harmful decisions and fostering better outcomes for these communities.

Takeaways

• 🗣️ The 'Voice to Parliament' is a proposed advisory body to the Australian Parliament and government on matters concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' well-being.
• 📜 It stems from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a consensus reached by indigenous community delegates in 2017, advocating for a voice in the Constitution and a commission for treaty making and truth-telling.
• 🏛️ Enshrining the Voice in the Constitution requires a referendum, which the government plans to support with a public education campaign but not by funding campaigns for or against it.
• 🤔 There is political risk due to a lack of detail on what the Voice will look like, which could fuel opposition arguments.
• 📚 Major reports, including 'The Voice co-designed process report' by Professor Marcia Langton and Tom Karma, provide recommendations and a potential structure for the Voice to Parliament.
• 📊 The report suggests a 24-member national Voice with gender balance, serving four-year terms, with limits on consecutive terms and a selection process involving co-chairs elected by Voice members.
• 🚫 The Voice would be advisory, without the power to veto laws or policies, deliver services, manage funding, conduct research, or mediate disputes.
• 🏢 If the referendum is successful, the government will legislate the final details of the Voice, which will then be debated and enacted by Parliament.
• 🌐 Support for the Voice is varied, with some indigenous people, organizations, the corporate sector, faith leaders, and politicians backing it, while others, including some Nationals and independent senators, oppose it.
• 🏢 Concerns have been raised that the Voice might overshadow the treaty process or undermine indigenous sovereignty, though legal experts argue it cannot.
• 🔍 The Voice is seen by supporters as crucial for indigenous input on policies affecting them, potentially preventing harmful laws and promoting better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
• ⚖️ Changing the Constitution is historically difficult, with a high threshold for success requiring majority votes across most states and territories, and bipartisan support is crucial.

Q & A

What is the 'Voice to Parliament' in the context of Australian politics?

The 'Voice to Parliament' refers to a proposed advisory body that would represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, advising the Australian Parliament and governments on matters related to their social, economic, and spiritual well-being.

What is the significance of the Uluru Statement from the Heart?

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a call for constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians, including the establishment of a 'Voice to Parliament' and a Makarrata Commission to supervise treaty-making and truth-telling. It emerged from a 2017 meeting of indigenous community delegates.

What are the two main components of the Uluru Statement from the Heart?

The two main components are the enshrinement of a 'Voice to Parliament' in the Australian Constitution and the creation of a Makarrata Commission to oversee treaty processes and truth-telling.

How does the government plan to enshrine the 'Voice to Parliament' in the Constitution?

The government plans to enshrine the 'Voice to Parliament' through a referendum, following a publicly funded education campaign to inform the public about the proposal.

What is the role of the 'Voice' as described in the script?

The 'Voice' is an advisory body; it does not have the power to veto laws or policies, and its advice is not binding. It can, however, table formal advice in Parliament for consideration.

What does the 'Voice co-design' report recommend regarding the structure of the 'Voice to Parliament'?

The 'Voice co-design' report recommends a national 'Voice' with 24 members, ensuring gender balance, with members serving four-year terms and a limit of two consecutive terms. It also suggests the inclusion of two co-chairs and permanent advisory groups on Youth and disability, along with a small ethics council.

Why is constitutional recognition important for the 'Voice to Parliament'?

Constitutional recognition ensures that the 'Voice to Parliament' cannot be abolished by governments of the day, providing continuity of advice and a way to hear the needs and desires of indigenous communities without starting from scratch each time a new government is elected.

What are some of the concerns raised by opponents of the 'Voice to Parliament'?

Some opponents are concerned about the lack of detail on what the 'Voice' will look like and fear it may create a new bureaucracy. Others worry that it might overshadow the treaty process or undermine indigenous sovereignty.

What is the historical context of constitutional change in Australia?

Changing the Australian Constitution is challenging, requiring a majority of votes in a majority of states and territories. Since 1901, only eight of 19 referendums have been successful, emphasizing the need for bipartisan support.

What does the 'yes' campaign argue in favor of the 'Voice to Parliament'?

Supporters believe the 'Voice' is essential for indigenous people to have a say on policies and laws that affect them, potentially preventing harmful policies and ensuring that the needs of indigenous communities are considered in government decisions.

What is the current status of bipartisan support for the 'Voice to Parliament'?

As of the script, bipartisan support is not yet guaranteed, with some politicians and community members on all sides expressing both support and opposition to the proposal.