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.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ Voice to Parliament: Indigenous Representation in Australia

The script discusses the concept of a 'Voice to Parliament' for Indigenous Australians, which aims to advise on matters concerning the social, economic, and spiritual well-being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Originating from the Uluru Statement from the Heart, this initiative was a key promise from the federal government during elections. The Uluru Statement emerged from a 2017 meeting of indigenous community delegates, advocating for constitutional recognition and the establishment of a commission for treaty making and truth-telling. The government plans to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution through a referendum, supported by a public education campaign but without funding for campaigns for or against. Concerns about the lack of detail on the Voice's structure have been addressed by two major reports, one co-designed by Professor Marcia Langton and Tom Karma, recommending a 24-member national Voice with gender balance, four-year terms, and a limit of two consecutive terms. The Voice would be advisory, non-binding, and unable to veto laws or policies, focusing on providing formal advice to Parliament. The script also highlights the political risks and the importance of constitutional recognition for the Voice's permanence and continuity.

05:02

🌐 The Voice's Impact and the Road to Referendum

This paragraph delves into the potential impact of the Voice to Parliament and the process leading to its possible constitutional enshrinement. It emphasizes the importance of a permanent Voice for continuity in government advice and policy-making, allowing for a more grounded understanding of indigenous communities' needs without starting over with each new government. The script acknowledges the support from various sectors, including some politicians, but also notes the opposition from certain groups and individuals, including indigenous Australians themselves. Concerns are raised about the potential overshadowing of a treaty by the Voice and the misunderstanding that the Voice could undermine indigenous sovereignty. The paragraph outlines the challenges of changing the constitution, highlighting the high bar for successful referendums and the need for bipartisan support. It concludes by calling for respectful and civil discussions on this critical issue, recognizing the importance of the Voice for indigenous input on policies and laws that affect them, and the historical context of policies made without indigenous consultation.

Keywords

💡Voice to Parliament

The 'Voice to Parliament' refers to a proposed advisory body that would represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to the Australian Parliament and governments. It is a key part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, aiming to provide indigenous input on matters affecting their social, economic, and spiritual well-being. In the script, it is discussed as a potential constitutional change that would strengthen indigenous participation in national decision-making.

💡Uluru Statement from the Heart

The 'Uluru Statement from the Heart' emerged from a 2017 meeting of indigenous community delegates and is a call for constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians. It includes the establishment of a 'Voice to Parliament' and a 'Makarrata Commission' for treaty-making and truth-telling. The video script highlights the statement as a foundational document that the federal government has pledged to support.

💡Makarrata Commission

The 'Makarrata Commission' is proposed to oversee treaty-making and truth-telling processes between indigenous Australians and the government. It is one of the two main recommendations from the Uluru Statement, alongside the 'Voice to Parliament'. The script mentions it as part of the broader indigenous rights movement but focuses more on the Voice to Parliament.

💡Constitutional Recognition

Constitutional recognition in this context means the formal acknowledgment of indigenous Australians within the Australian Constitution. The script discusses the importance of enshrining the 'Voice to Parliament' in the Constitution to ensure its permanence and to prevent it from being abolished by future governments.

💡Referendum

A 'referendum' is a public vote on a single political question. In the script, it is the method proposed to enshrine the 'Voice to Parliament' in the Constitution. The government plans a public education campaign but will not fund campaigns for or against the change, leaving the decision to the public's discretion.

💡Indigenous Sovereignty

Indigenous sovereignty refers to the inherent right of indigenous peoples to self-governance and autonomy. The script touches on concerns that some indigenous Australians have about the 'Voice to Parliament' overshadowing or undermining their sovereignty, although legal experts argue that this is not the case.

💡Advisory Body

An 'advisory body' provides non-binding recommendations to a government or parliament. The 'Voice to Parliament', as described in the script, would serve in this capacity, offering advice on matters important to indigenous Australians without having the power to veto laws or policies.

💡Non-Indigenous Politicians

Non-indigenous politicians are those who do not belong to the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities. The script suggests that the 'Voice to Parliament' would allow indigenous Australians to express their needs and desires directly, rather than relying on non-indigenous politicians to represent their interests.

💡Stolen Generations

The 'Stolen Generations' refers to the historical policy of forcibly removing indigenous children from their families in Australia. The script uses this as an example of the negative consequences of policy-making without indigenous consultation, implying that a 'Voice to Parliament' could have prevented such actions.

💡Bipartisan Support

Bipartisan support means agreement and cooperation between two major political parties. The script notes that successful constitutional changes in Australia require such support, indicating the political complexity and the need for broad consensus for the 'Voice to Parliament' to be successful in a referendum.

💡Respectful and Civil Discussions

Respectful and civil discussions are dialogues conducted with courtesy and decency. The script emphasizes the importance of such discussions in the context of the 'Voice to Parliament', suggesting that a respectful approach is crucial for the referendum's success and for maintaining social harmony.

Highlights

The Voice to Parliament is proposed to advise on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' well-being.

It is part of fulfilling the Uluru Statement from the Heart, a commitment from the federal government during the election.

The Uluru Statement resulted from a 2017 meeting of indigenous community delegates advocating for a voice in the Constitution and a treaty-making commission.

The Prime Minister announced the government's intent to enshrine the Voice in the Constitution at the 2022 Garma Festival.

Enshrining the Voice requires a referendum, with a public education campaign but no government funding for campaigns.

There's political risk due to lack of detail, which could strengthen the 'no' argument.

Reports provided to the Morrison government outline the broad principles for the Voice to be upheld in the Constitution.

The Voice co-designed process report by Professor Marcia Langton and Tom Karama details recommendations for the Voice's structure.

Referendum should focus on establishing principles rather than specific details, according to legal experts.

The report recommends a national Voice with 24 members, ensuring gender balance and representation from various regions.

Members would serve four-year terms with a limit of two consecutive terms, and co-chairs would be elected every two years.

The Voice would have advisory groups on Youth and disability, and an ethics Council for probity and governance.

The Voice is advisory and non-binding, without the power to veto laws or policies, deliver services, or manage funding.

If the referendum is successful, the government will legislate the final details of the Voice, to be debated in Parliament.

The Voice aims to provide continuity of advice and improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Some indigenous Australians and politicians support The Voice, while others, including the Nationals, oppose it.

Concerns exist that the treaty process may be overshadowed by the Voice and its constitutional recognition.

The Voice is seen by supporters as a way to ensure indigenous input on policies and laws affecting them.

Changing the constitution is historically difficult, with only eight successful referendums out of 19 since 1901.

The campaign for the Voice is expected to be long and potentially contentious, requiring respectful discussion.

Transcripts

you would have been hearing a lot about

the voice to Parliament lately so what

is it how might it work and what's going

to happen next

the voice would advise the Australian

Parliament and governments on matters

relating to the social economic and

spiritual well-being of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander peoples it's part

of a promise that the federal government

campaigned on during the election to

support in full the uluru's statement

from the heart

the Uluru statement from the heart came

out of a meeting in 2017 of hundreds of

delegates from indigenous communities

all over the country they came away with

support for two things a voice enshrined

in the Constitution so indigenous people

could have their voice heard and the

macarata commission that would supervise

treaty making and Truth telling

at the gamma Festival in 2022 the Prime

Minister revealed his government was

going to start on the first component of

the statement from the heart enshrining

the voice to Parliament in Australia's

Constitution enshrining a voice in the

Constitution gives the principles of

respect and consultation strength and

status in order to enshrine the voice in

the Constitution there needs to be a

referendum the government says that

there will be a big publicly funded

education campaign but they won't be

funding the yes or the no campaign they

will be letting you make up your own

minds about it there is a political risk

there that the lack of detail could

inflame the no argument a lot of that

detail has been hammered out and and

reports were provided to the Morrison

government we want to uphold the

Constitution and recognize indigenous

people those details in terms of the

broad principles will be out there for

all to see one of the main arguments

against enshrining the voice is that

there is no detail on what it will look

like but since the Uluru meeting two

major reports into the model and

potential structure of a voice to

Parliament have been published The Voice

co-designed process report by Professor

Marcia Langton and Tom Karma has laid

out the recommendations for voice to

Parliament and the Prime Minister says

that this will form the basis of the

potential structure and what it might

look like Professor Tom Karma says

referendum should be about establishing

principles not details and this is

backed by legal experts who argue it

isn't necessary for the details of how

the voice will function to be debated

before a referendum and that this will

be determined by the parliament what

does the report recommend

The Voice co-design report recommended

that the national Voice have 24 members

with gender balance structurally

guaranteed it proposes two members from

each state the Northern Territory Act

and the Torres Strait Islands another

five members would represent from most

areas due to their unique needs one

member each from the Northern Territory

Western Australia Queensland South

Australia and New South Wales an

additional member would represent the

significant populations of the Torres

Strait Islanders living on the mainland

members would serve four-year terms with

half the membership determined every two

years there would be a limit of two

consecutive terms for each member two

co-chairs of a different gender to

another would be selected by members of

The Voice every two years the national

voice would have two permanent advisory

groups one on Youth and one on

disability and a small ethics Council to

advise on probity and governance what

wouldn't the boys be able to do the

voice would be an advisory body to the

Australian Parliament and government you

would not be able to veto laws or

policies and the advice is not binding

it would not deliver services like

Aboriginal health organizations or

Aboriginal legal services or manage any

government funding you would not do

research or mediate disputes

the boys would be able to table formal

advice in Parliament and a parliamentary

committee would consider that advice but

there could be no court challenges and

no law could be invalidated based on

this consultation so what happens if the

referendum is successful

if the referendum succeeds the

government will legislate the final

details of the voice the legislation

will be put before the Parliament and

debated and it is the parliament which

will enact The Voice it is about

improving the lives and the outcomes

which are completely unacceptable there

was a five-year process in the lead up

to the Uluru statement from the heart

and this is a gracious request why can't

the government just legislate The Voice

first

the whole point of the exercise is

constitutional recognition indigenous

people ask for the voice to be

constitutionally enshrined in the Uluru

statement from the heart that way the

voice cannot be abolished by governments

of the day although it can be changed

permanent voice allows for a continuity

of advice to governments regardless of

their political Persuasions and can help

guarantee the policies that work are

allowed to continue it's also a way of

hearing what people on the ground really

want elected indigenous Representatives

can speak of their own communities

themselves without having to go to

non-indigenous politicians or

bureaucrats this is considered a better

outcome for Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander people rather than having to

start from scratch every time a new lot

are elected does everyone support The

Voice

some Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander people are backing The Voice

While others are not organizations and

the corporate sector are getting behind

it as well as Faith leaders and a lot of

politicians are also backing The Voice

including Independence but others such

as the Nationals including walpro Celtic

and tea Senator just into price are not

what it is on the ground that indigenous

Australians are looking for and it is

not more division there are indigenous

Australians who do not agree with this

who do not know what this means the

Liberals say they are still working out

where they stand so I think the idea of

feeding in the Grassroots feedback and

how that can influence policy is a very

positive thing I don't want to see a

situation where the situation

deteriorates overcoming years because

we've created a great big new

bureaucracy independent Senator Lydia

Thorpe is concerned the treaty will be

overshadowed by the voice and its

constitutional recognition or undermine

First Nations over two and includes

sovereignty into the Australian

Constitution that we are sovereign or

your legislation

lawyers and constitutional experts have

explained that the voice can't undermine

or seed indigenous people's sovereignty

but it is still a very prominent concern

for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander peoples so why do people think

their voice is important and what could

this mean for Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander people in the yes Camp

they believe that this is one way that

indigenous people can have their say on

policies and laws that affect them in

the past many many policies and laws

were made that targeted indigenous

people without their consultation or

input a painful example of this would be

the laws and policies which led to the

stolen Generations many believe that the

heavy-handed and top-down approach

brought on by the Mt intervention would

never have happened if there had been an

indigenous voice to Parliament so how

hard has it been to change the

constitution in the past well the bar is

very high successful referendum needs a

majority of votes in a majority of

states and territories since 1901 only

eight of 19 referendums have been

successful no referendum has ever

succeeded without bipartisan support and

right now there are people on all sides

of politics and the broader Community

both Aboriginal and non-indigenous who

oppose it

this is expected to be a long campaign

and one that many indigenous people fear

could get ugly it's important that we

have respectful and civil discussions

about something that's important because

it will be for every person a voting age

in this country to decide

foreign

[Music]