Indigenous voice to parliament explained: what is it and how would it work?
Summary
TLDRThe 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
🗣️ 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.
🌐 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Voice to Parliament
💡Uluru Statement from the Heart
💡Makarrata Commission
💡Constitutional Recognition
💡Referendum
💡Indigenous Sovereignty
💡Advisory Body
💡Non-Indigenous Politicians
💡Stolen Generations
💡Bipartisan Support
💡Respectful and Civil Discussions
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]
浏览更多相关视频
The dimensions of the Australian Curriculum
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Australia rejects historic referendum to recognise Indigenous people in the Constitution | WION
OpenAI unveils its Voice Engine tool that can replicate people’s voices
Close the Gap Evaluation 2006 - 2011
Concurso Nacional Unificado CNU: MODELO PERFEITO DE REDAÇÃO
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)