LinkedIn News Australia的动态

Transcript

Hi, I'm Shelly Reyes. I'm a gettable woman. I'm a partner and board member of KPMG and CEO of Gorilla Indigenous Consulting. When it comes to the proposition of a voice to parliament, I feel like there's a lot of myths and misconceptions out there. Some might even say the topic is almost drowning in a tsunami of conflicted debate and that leaves good spirited, fair minded people a little bit confused. Well, this piece has been developed for those people, for people who want to understand the innate value of a voice and want to clarify the facts from the fallacies and have their concerns addressed. Without judgment. What is a voice to Parliament? Well, there's a common view that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people know their communities and cultures best and therefore what would work and what wouldn't work in those communities. And so Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want to take responsibility for their own future and have input into how government programs work. This proposed group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is called the Voice to Parliament or The Voice. The voice is an opportunity to make policies with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people rather than 4 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Creating a mechanism for First Nations people to work in partnership with government is not just a symbolic act of reconciliation. It's a practical action resulting in a path where we can walk together, make decisions together and deliver solutions together. So why are we including the voice into the Constitution? Well, the alternative to constitutional enshrinement would be to include the voice as legislation. However, in the past legislation has been changed the will of government at the time, and this has meant that important policies have been diluted, lost or changed. And so enshrining the voice into the Constitution will better protect its use and its responsibilities to government. And at the same time, for the first time, it will recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia's constitution. I mentioned earlier that there's a number of misconceptions about the voice, leaving a number of people confused. So let's step through the top eight to help you get some clarity. There is no detail on The Voice. Well this is not the case. The concept of the voice was created through hundreds of regional dialogues and consultations involving thousands of First Nations peoples and 10s of thousands of non indigenous peoples and organisations. The outcome of all these efforts formed the basis of three reports, each of them passed through Parliament. Now no one expects you to read them, but these reports do provide answers to the questions that some people have. About the model, including how it would function, its responsibilities, how appointments would be made, how First Nations peoples would be represented and a whole lot more. A voice is 1/3 Chamber of Parliament. A voice will not have the power to initiate, reject or pass bills, and so it doesn't meet the definition of a parliamentary chamber. But did you know that there are many entities that already function like the voice, such as the Productivity Commission, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Sciences, and parliamentary committees? They all provide advice to government, yet none of these are considered to be a third Chamber of Parliament. Not all First Nations people support the voice. Well, what do all Australians think? It's hard to answer. Isn't it because Australians aren't one homogeneous group with a single point of view. So too with First Nations Australians. But thanks to the thousands of consultations held throughout the country, we know that the vast majority of First Nations peoples support the voice, and surveys have consistently shown that over 80% of First Nations people's supportive. This. A treaty should be implemented instead of a voice. Australia is the only country in the Commonwealth not to enter into a treaty with its First Nations peoples, and some believe that this would be a better foundation before we introduced a voice. Now I support a treaty, but I think if Australians were asked to vote for or against a treaty this year that it would fail. I don't believe it's the right time. But what's important to know is that a voice doesn't preclude the option of a treaty if we all want to have one in the future. A single entity can't represent all First Nations peoples. Yes, this will be a challenge, but no more challenging than having a local government represent you or a state or Commonwealth government. You vote for them and then you place a degree of trust in them that they'll represent you well. Now, I think we'd all agree that these entities aren't perfect, nor will the voice be perfect. But they are structures we're familiar with, and by and large they play their part. So let's not throw out an opportunity in favour of perfection. We don't have a role to play. You or your organisation are aligned with the common principles of fairness, diversity, equity and inclusion. Engaging the voice sits really comfortably with these well established values. And remember, the referendum includes everyone. Your family and friends, your customers, your shareholders and key stakeholders. Being part of the conversation helps you stay in step with these really important people. Aboriginal people will be given too much power to make laws and the way in which Australia is governed. There's lots of misconceptions here. All roll into one. First, the voice is an advisory body. That means it will provide advice to government. It will not have the power to make laws. And it won't provide advice on all matters, only the matters that affect First Nations peoples. So that might be indigenous education or indigenous health. If you're not a First Nations person, it's highly unlikely that their advice will affect you. Finally, the Voice will have no veto power, so it can't overrule a decision that the government or the parliament might make at any time. What happens if I vote no? Well, of course you could vote no. But remember that voting no does not mean you're saying yes to an alternative such as a treaty or a different model. No other option is being presented to you in this referendum but a voice to parliament. And so voting no for a voice means doing nothing. It means doing more of the same, it means accepting the status quo. And I think that most fair minded Australians would agree that the position that First Nations people find themselves in is untenable and unacceptable by any measure. And so more of the same is not the answer. So consider this. Can you imagine developing a strategy for women and having a group of men do it? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? It's hard to believe, but that's what we would have done until the recent past, but now we know better. Well this is a bit the same. To date non indigenous people across government have been developing strategies for First Nations peoples. A voice will mean that First Nation peoples will have a formal role in developing the solutions themselves, alongside government. The voice won't be a silver bullet, but Can you imagine how much more effective government programs would be if they are informed by those who are better placed to have the solutions? Remember, in the referendum, you're not voting on a model. You're not voting for an alternative like a treaty. It's far simpler than that. You're being asked if you agree or disagree to establish an entity to inform government. So let's celebrate the key milestones in our reconciliation journey. Let's congratulate ourselves on what we've achieved so far. Now let's look forward. Let's take an unapologetic, brave stance on this referendum. To propel us further and faster towards a reconciled nation by saying yes.