8 questions to ask about the Voice to Parliament

8 questions to ask about the Voice to Parliament

Later this year, Australians will vote in a referendum to decide whether to change our nation’s Constitution to include an indigenous Voice to Parliament. Our Constitution is the set of rules which govern the federal Parliament, executive government, and the High Court.

This vote is one of the privileges of living in our democracy, which we shouldn’t take for granted. Likewise, changing the Constitution is no trivial matter. So, we should all think carefully about the proposed Constitutional reform.

The proposed Voice to Parliament

The proposed alteration to the Constitution would involve:

  • Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first peoples of Australia.
  • Establishing a body of people selected by indigenous communities across the country as the Voice to Parliament (‘the Voice’).
  • Enabling that body to provide advice to the Parliament and executive government on policies that directly affect indigenous communities.

If most Australians in most States vote in favour of establishing the Voice, then the referendum will succeed. Parliament will then be responsible for designing the Voice mechanism in detail. It is clear, however, there is no intention for the Voice to be a decision-making body. Nor would it have a program delivery function or the power to impede or veto government decisions.

In making a decision about the proposed Voice, we need to reflect and act on our personal beliefs and values. What are yours? It’s clear that within political parties there are a range of views about the Voice, as there are within our families and communities.

Thinking objectively about the Voice

What matters on such issues of national significance, is that we get informed and think objectively. It’s also true that we all make better decisions when we break a proposal down and think about its constituent parts. To aid my own thinking, I have sketched out and reflected on 8 questions that you may also find useful:

  1. Is it helpful to healing and inclusion to recognise in our Constitution the peoples who inhabited, cultivated and cared for our country before colonisation?
  2. Should a broad group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders be enabled to ‘have a say’ on policy issues that directly affect the lives of their communities?
  3. Are parliamentarians of indigenous background already capable of reflecting these views? Might personal interests, community allegiances, or party politics get in the way?
  4. If indigenous communities provide policy advice to Parliament will it translate into better outcomes on the ground? Conversely, does a lack of engagement contribute to poor policy and thus outcomes for communities?
  5. Should the right to give advice to the Parliament be an ongoing right or a legislated entitlement that a future government could change?
  6. Are federal parliamentarians are capable of designing the Voice – its composition, functions, powers and processes – in a way that will make it fair, representative, useful and effective?
  7. If some indigenous people are not in favour of the Voice, does that mean it has no merit?
  8. What credible, unresolvable problems would accompany a majority “yes” vote, and would they outweigh the credible, unresolvable problems from a majority “no” vote?

First nations leaders asked for a Voice to Parliament

The recognised facts are that Australia’s indigenous peoples suffer systemic and multi-generational disadvantage. This contributes to lower standards of health, education, employment and housing, and higher rates of incarceration.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are also the only Australians about which laws are currently made based on their ethnicity. This has involved the establishment of representative bodies, which previous governments have progressively reformed, transformed, defunded and abolished. In aggregate, past attempts to ‘close the gap’ on indigenous disadvantage have been largely ineffective.

This is why most first nations leaders across Australia decided they wanted a Voice to Parliament. They want a say in determining how their lives can be improved in a practical way.

In my experience of working alongside aboriginal people, their knowledge and culture is rich and valuable, and they want to create a better Australia for all Australians.

The ultimate question

Ultimately, I think the most important question is “What sort of Australia do we want to create?” And “What do our kids want for their Australia?” It’s our children that will inherit the consequences of this decision – a decision that won’t be revisited for many years, if at all.

I don’t see this referendum is about judgement of the past, about rights and wrongs, or blame. It’s a question about what will make Australia stronger, happier, and more prosperous. Can we work together to make the lives of all Australians better?


This is a personal reflection and perspective that in no way reflects the positions of any organisation with which I am affiliated. Information on the referendum question and details of the constitutional amendment are available here.

Turlough Guerin

Senior Executive and Non-Executive Director

1 年

These are helpful questions Nick Fleming GAICD. Thanks for sharing.

Dr Martin Cole

Engineer, Inventor, Astrophysics, Novelist

1 年

The Referendum actually proposes: “the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters that affect the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.” Nick, you claim that: (1) "there is no intention for the Voice to be a decision-making body. Nor would it have a program delivery function or the power to impede or veto government decisions." In fact this is not clear. Indeed on the contrary, a Yes outcome would enable some indigenous body to hold sway over Government. If the Voice "advice" is not enacted, Voice would have recourse to the High Court, which interprets the Constitution, and based on a Yes vote, should always find in favour of Voice. (2) "policies that directly affect indigenous communities". You have incorrectly included the word "directly". Policies affecting all Australians, affect indigenous communities too. We are one nation. We are ALL affected by the economy, health, education, defence, foreign policy, immigration, etc. Voice has no boundaries. Membership of Voice is open to anyone who identifies of that race. A Racial Constitution would be highly divisive and counter-productive. Forever.

Jane Bassham, lives on Kaurna Country

Barossa Hills Fleurieu Local Health Network Introduction to Continuous Improvement Trainer

1 年

I’ve read the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and it resonates with me as a health practitioner passionate about improving health and wellbeing outcomes for patients, as an aunt, as a godmother, as a friend of some amazing First Nations people. We can do better. First Nations people and First Nations leaders I’ve listened to about this topic reckon a national Voice to Parliament is a good idea and will lead to positive changes and outcomes at the local level. I do too. Thanks for your post Nick, some interesting questions posed and helpful perspective.

Nathan Cooper

Lawyer at Self Employed

1 年

Nick Fleming GAICD If you're going to be a Voice proponent, at least state that up front instead of giving the impression that you're neutral ("here's some questions I'm asking myself..."). These are my thoughts on your 8 points: 1. The Voice is, self evidently, not necessary in order to recognise First Nations people in the Constitution. They are 2 different things. 2. First Nations people should have a say on issues that affect them. But they should have no more say than any other citizen. 3. As you note, First Nations people are already in Parliament. If those parliamentarians might be swayed by personal interests (as you say) how will this be different in the Voice body? Acting in self interest is the human condition. Is it your contention that members of the Voice body will be inherently more selfless than the current First Nations politicians? 4. The Voice will not inevitably lead to better outcomes on the ground. "No" proponents such as Warren Mundine oppose the Voice expressly because he believes it will do basically nothing for the remote communities that need the most help.

Phil G.

Black Duck SeatCovers - Pioneers in Heavy Duty Seat Protection

1 年

Look. Notice no comments allowed?

  • 该图片无替代文字
回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Nick Fleming GAICD的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了