tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/constitutional-recognition-2237/articlesConstitutional recognition – The Conversation2023-08-02T06:36:30Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2107992023-08-02T06:36:30Z2023-08-02T06:36:30ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: ‘yes’ campaigner Thomas Mayo and ‘no’ advocate Derryn Hinch on the Voice<p>The Garma Festival is being held over the next few days in Arnhem Land. There will be a great deal of talk this year about the Voice. Anthony Albanese will speak on Saturday, but he won’t announce the date for the referendum. Peter Dutton isn’t attending.</p>
<p>Meanwhile in parliament this week the opposition has sought to turn the discussion of the Voice to the issue of treaty, also a feature of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. But the government wants to keep the debate strictly to the Voice, dodging questions about treaty where it can.</p>
<p>In this podcast Thomas Mayo, a signatory of the Uluru Statement and one of the leaders of the yes campaign, and Derryn Hinch, former prominent broadcaster and a former crossbench senator, join us to argue for the yes and no sides respectively. </p>
<p>Mayo has been travelling extensively through central Queensland (viewed as one of the toughest states to garner a yes vote) hosting forums about the referendum. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I went from Maroochydore and Caloundra to a whole lot of towns, including Cherbourg, an Aboriginal community and Eidsvold, up to Mackay. The experience was great, really positive - full crowds at each of the forums, some great questions and signing up a whole lot more volunteers.</p>
<p>There were people that were fully supportive and there was also a lot of people that were unsure. So people that were leaning either yes or no, that came along to learn more. We also had some people that were set in a position of saying no, but that was a great opportunity to have the discussion. They were able to listen to our history behind this and the good sense of it and what the actual proposition is and what will be changed in the Constitution. They were able to raise their concerns and reasons and they were respectfully listened to.</p>
<p>But I think the result was that anybody that wasn’t already set in their ways that weren’t entrenched in a position politically, came up to me later and said, we’ve decided to vote yes now.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Mayo’s history organising union campaigns and some past provocative comments have made him a target for no campaigners. But he looks on his past as only a positive, seeing much in common with both causes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think there’s there’s actually a lot in common, in that you are trying to unite people. This referendum is about unity. It’s about uniting on a common cause, which is to heal from our colonial past. It’s to empower people that are suffering and to create fairness. </p>
<p>My union background has helped in my ability to advocate. But mostly I think what motivates me is understanding that this is the right thing to do.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In contrast, Derryn Hinch sees the referendum as dangerous, divisive and unnecessary. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Look, let me say from from the get-go, I wish they could split the referendum into two bits. If they could give genuine, fruitful recognition to Indigenous Australians and our history in the Constitution, I would vote yes for that in two seconds time, and I think most of Australians would as well.</p>
<p>It’s the second half of having the Voice to Parliament. That worries me because they say they need the Voice – they already have 11 members of Parliament of Indigenous extraction! And if in fact they are spending all these umpteen [billions on] Aboriginal welfare and medical and other bodies, if they are spending $30 billion, there should not be one Aboriginal kid with glaucoma or drinking dirty water in the whole country.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hinch says that even if the Voice were to be legislated instead of enshrined in the Constitution, he would still vote against it. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I just don’t like the way they’re doing it. I know they quote the Waitangi Treaty (which they have across the ditch in New Zealand) but as I understand it, in the late 1800s [it] was designed to stop warfare and British troops would defend New Zealand and defend the Maori, if anybody came from abroad. I was in New Zealand only last year and they are changing a lot of names to Maori names. I mean I supported them changing the name of Mount Egmont in my home town to Taranaki. I supported changing Ayers Rock to Uluru and yet I don’t support people being banned from climbing Uluru. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hinch won’t be campaigning for a “no” vote, but he is making his views “very well known”. He says he feels “uncomfortable” being on the same side as certain politicians (such as Pauline Hanson), but notes he made his decision a long time ago. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I made those decisions long before I even knew what other people would be in the no camp.</p>
<p>I don’t like misrepresentation by either the no people or the yes people.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210799/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this podcast, Thomas Mayo and Derryn Hinch discuss misinformation in the Voice to Parliament campaign.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2102862023-07-24T08:57:20Z2023-07-24T08:57:20ZView from The Hill: It’s just too hard and too late to delay and recalibrate Voice referendum<p>With the polls showing public support for the Voice flagging, some people believe the referendum should be deferred. </p>
<p>There is certainly reason for concern about the fate of the “yes” vote. The polls have been softening for a while, but the Resolve Political Monitor survey <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nsw-slip-into-no-camp-puts-voice-on-track-for-defeat-20230720-p5dpxs.html">published</a> in the Nine newspapers at the weekend showing support for the Voice down to 49% in New South Wales was particularly alarming for its supporters. </p>
<p>NSW and Victoria (where the “yes” vote is 52%) would be expected to form the backbone of a successful referendum. </p>
<p>“No” supporters have an interest in advocating delay, seeing it as a way to kill off the whole thing. But on the other side, some nervous “yes” advocates fear defeat and all the consequences that would bring, and are looking for salvage options. </p>
<p>Even before the Resolve poll, NSW Liberal senator Andrew Bragg, a “yes” backer, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/21/delay-voice-to-parliament-referendum-2024-liberal-andrew-bragg#:%7E:text=voice%20to%20parliament-,Pro%2Dvoice%20Liberal%20Andrew%20Bragg%20calls%20for%20referendum%20delay,2024%20to%20'save%20the%20concept'&text=One%20of%20the%20few%20Liberal,the%20referendum%20to%20next%20year.">suggested</a> the referendum should be put off until mid-2024. He said in a 2GB radio interview on Friday </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I fear that the process has not yielded enough consensus to garner a “yes” vote. And I think it would be worth considering recalibrating at this stage, to save the concept and to deliver a successful referendum.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Superficially tempting as this argument might seem, it is impractical and would almost certainly be counterproductive.</p>
<p>To back off the current wording and timetable (the vote is due in the last quarter of the year and is expected in October) would be nearly impossible for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. He has come too far, invested too much. </p>
<p>It would spark a serious backlash from Indigenous leaders, many of whom would likely see it as a sellout by the prime minister. Albanese would be opening another battlefront for himself. </p>
<p>From the government’s point of view, prolonging the argument around the Voice into another year would distract attention from other parts of its agenda and take the issue dangerously closer to the next election. Some ministers would surely resist.</p>
<p>If the referendum were merely deferred, with the wording unchanged, there’s no reason to think the Voice proposal would become any more popular. That could just provide more time for opposition to build. </p>
<p>Bragg proposes “recalibrating” the Voice in an effort to get bipartisan support. </p>
<p>But trying to do this would be fraught, even if the government were willing to attempt it. </p>
<p>When it needed a relatively minor change in the proposed wording, it ran into opposition from its Indigenous advisers, and had to compromise. </p>
<p>To obtain bipartisan support – Bragg’s aim – the government would almost certainly have to retreat to seeking to put only recognition in the constitution, with a Voice simply legislated. Opposition leader Peter Dutton would not be able to sign up to anything other than a gutted Voice, which was not in the Constitution. </p>
<p>This would never be accepted by the Indigenous proponents. </p>
<p>And Bragg himself said: “I don’t think it’s the right thing to let go of the Voice in the Constitution concept”. </p>
<p>The easier road would always have been a constitutional amendment for recognition, with the Voice legislated. </p>
<p>But Albanese on the night of the election, and well before, embraced the full Uluru Statement from the Heart. That, in its entirety, committed him to a Voice in the Constitution, treaty and truth telling. </p>
<p>Indigenous people have argued strongly that without being in the Constitution, the Voice would be at risk of being scrapped, as previous bodies have been. </p>
<p>The risk now is that voters’ wariness of putting it in the Constitution might mean the Voice never starts. </p>
<p>The die is cast on the content of the question and the window in which the vote will be held. The government can only manage its campaign as effectively as it can, and hope enough of those who are undecided, “soft no” voters, or have yet to tune in to the debate fall the way of a “yes” vote when the time comes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210286/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg, a ‘yes’ backer, suggested the referendum should be put off until mid-2024 in a radio interview last weekMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2100612023-07-20T03:46:38Z2023-07-20T03:46:38ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Battle of the Voice – Greens senator Dorinda Cox & Liberal senator Kerrynne Liddle<p>The Voice to Parliament reached another milestone this week, with the official essays for the Yes and No cases published online by the Australian Electoral Commission. These will be sent to all Australian electors in the lead up to the vote, which will be in the last quarter of the year </p>
<p>In recent weeks, polls have suggested the “yes” vote is on the slide, and has an uphill battle if it is to be successful. </p>
<p>In this podcast, we talk with two Indigenous senators, The Greens’ Dorinda Cox, and Liberal Kerrynne Liddle. Cox is campaigning for the Voice, while Liddle does not believe a Voice will achieve the practical outcomes those in favour are championing. </p>
<p>Cox, from Western Australia, believes a Voice will deliver more and better practical results for First Nations peoples compared to the former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). She says ATSIC was a “boots and all” approach that “gave a lot of power through commissioners and through a governance structure that essentially was different from what’s being proposed”.</p>
<p>“I see the Voice enabling us to provide advice to all sides of parliament to talk through those representations to the executive government and to talk very specifically about what Closing The Gap is.”</p>
<p>Liddle, from South Australia, is a supporter of Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, but has an issue with the referendum proposal. She would rather see an Indigenous Voice legislated, with the “executive government” clause removed. “I think we would blitz that if it was that single [recognition] question and the Voice was actually legislated.”</p>
<p>Liddle has a message for Anthony Albanese. “I would like to see this prime minister stop this divisive form and approach that he’s taken to this, and actually go back and say constitutional recognition, tick, we can all do this.”</p>
<p>“Because if this is defeated, the concept of constitutional recognition may not ever occur.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210061/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this podcast, @michellegrattan discusses the Voice with Indigenous Senators Dorinda Cox and Kerrynne LiddleMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2060892023-05-22T08:21:36Z2023-05-22T08:21:36ZDutton condemns Voice as symptom of ‘identity politics’, as Burney says it will bring ‘better outcomes’<p>Opposition leader Peter Dutton has condemned the plan to enshrine a constitutional Voice to Parliament as “a symptom of the madness of identity politics which has infected the 21st century”. </p>
<p>As debate on the historic referendum legislation – introduced by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus in March – began in the House of Representatives on Monday, Dutton claimed the Voice would “re-racialise our nation.” </p>
<p>“At a time when we need to unite the country, this prime minister’s proposal will permanently divide us by race,” Dutton said. </p>
<p>But Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney told the house: “Constitutional recognition through a Voice to Parliament is about giving Indigenous Australians a say in the matters that affect us.</p>
<p>"It means delivering structural change that empowers Indigenous communities. It means getting better advice, so we get better policies and better outcomes.” </p>
<p>The debate in the house is expected to continue all week and into next week, with about 70 speakers listed at the moment. When the vote comes, the votes of all MPs will be recorded, even if there is not a division called, because it is a referendum bill. The legislation’s passage is assured because the Liberals are not opposing it. </p>
<p>Dutton condemned the Voice as “regressive, not progressive”. </p>
<p>In the referendum, Australians “will be voting as to whether they should change, or to preserve, our Constitution – our nation’s rule book. </p>
<p>"It’s one of the most important decisions Australians will make in their lifetime. </p>
<p>"Because if Australians vote for change, then our nation, our democracy and their lives will be fundamentally altered – and, in this case, not for the better,” Dutton said. </p>
<p>“The Voice would be the most radical and consequential change to the way our democracy operates in our nation’s history.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-government-should-set-date-for-voice-to-start-talking-199404">Word from The Hill: Government should set date for Voice to start talking</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Dutton said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wanted people to vote for the Voice “on a vibe”.</p>
<p>He said Albanese was “seeking to conflate two separate issues. One, the constitutional recognition, and two, enshrining the Voice in the Constitution. </p>
<p>"He wants to leverage the overwhelming public support for constitutional recognition to piggyback his poorly defined, untested and risk-ridden Canberra Voice model.” </p>
<p>What was needed was a “bottom-up approach”, Dutton said, rather than “another top-down one”. “We believe that local communities know best.”</p>
<p>Burney accused Dutton of putting into one speech “every bit of disinformation and misinformation and scare campaigns that exist in this debate”. </p>
<p>She said the Voice had been “a grassroots movement, the culmination of years of discussion, consultation and hard work by so many”. </p>
<p>Recognition through a Voice was about “making a practical difference”.</p>
<p>“The purpose of the Voice is to improve outcomes for our people,” she said. “It is symbolic – and practical.” </p>
<p>Burney said that after a successful referendum “we will work to link the national Voice in at a regional level, in a way that works for local communities”. </p>
<p>“Everyone agrees that the Voice needs to be connected to grassroots communities. </p>
<p>"It’s why regional voices that can plug into a national Voice are so important. And why the investment set by the former Liberal government for regional arrangements remains in the budget.” </p>
<p>Burney said the Voice was constitutionally sound and got the balance right, as the solicitor-general’s opinion made clear.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-should-not-try-to-make-the-voice-the-only-game-in-town-in-indigenous-affairs-204038">View from The Hill: Albanese should not try to make the Voice the only game in town in Indigenous affairs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But this was “not enough for those hell-bent on dashing the hopes of a people. Not enough for those hell-bent on stoking division. </p>
<p>"It’s not enough for those trying to play politics with an issue that should be above partisan politics,” Burney said. </p>
<p>Liberal backbencher Bridget Archer, who is campaigning for the yes case, strongly rejected Dutton’s argument that the referendum was dividing the country by race.</p>
<p>“This referendum provides an incredible chance to begin righting so many wrongs and to bring about tangible differences in quality-of-life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I think most Australians would agree that the status quo isn’t acceptable and that we as a country must do better. Here is our chance.” </p>
<p>Speaking earlier on the report of the parliamentary inquiry on the Voice, Andrew Gee, who defected from the Nationals to the crossbench because of their opposition to the Voice, said while the committee had heard some differing legal opinions, “I found the evidence that the proposed words are legally sound to be highly persuasive”. </p>
<p>The evidence had showed it was “ridiculous to suggest that the Voice […] could or would imperil Anzac day, federal budgets or nuclear submarine contracts”. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Cricket Australia has thrown its weight behind the Voice, joining a number of other sporting bodies. Former NSW Premier Mike Baird, who chairs Cricket Australia, said: “The board is proud of cricket’s powerful and unique history with First Nations people”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206089/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As debate on the historic referendum legislation, Dutton claimed the Voice would ‘re-racialise our nation’.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2036722023-04-12T07:34:46Z2023-04-12T07:34:46ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Professor Marcia Langton on the Voice’s powers and potential<p>Professor Marcia Langton holds the Foundation Chair of Australian Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne, and was co-author (with Professor Tom Calma) of the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process report to the Morrison government. She has been a fighter for rights and progress for Indigenous Australians for decades, and she’s one of those at the centre of the yes campaign for the Voice. Her own voice is always forthright and formidable.</p>
<p>Langton admits she isn’t “entirely confident” where the referendum stands at the moment but is more positive as the debate continues. “I’ve been gauging the response of the general public by reading a lot and having a look at the social media, and I think most people can see that this is a very simple and modest proposition and that it will make a difference. And what I’m seeing more and more is most people realising, yes, well, why don’t Indigenous people have a say about policies and the laws that affect them?</p>
<p>"They realise when they think about it that this has gone on for too long, where all of these laws and policies that seem to be universally ineffective in closing the gap, and causing more suffering, have been imposed on us by non-Indigenous people. […] I think most people are still very embarrassed about the Northern Territory intervention initiated by John Howard.”</p>
<p>While Langton admits she doesn’t agree with Julian Leeser’s preference to alter the proposed wording of the constitutional change, she believes Leeser – who has quit the opposition frontbench to campaign for the yes case – has shown “integrity and decency of the kind that most Australians aspire to. You can see from the response that he’s getting from across the political spectrum that he’s now even more respected for his stance.”</p>
<p>One key issue in the debate about the Voice is how extensive will be the issues on which it would be able to make representations. </p>
<p>Langton says a point “widely misunderstood […] is that the voice will be a statutory body. And like any other statutory body, it should be treated according to the standards of non-discrimination. If no other statutory body is restricted on the basis of race or gender or age in making representations to government, then to restrict the Voice in making such representations could be seen as racially discriminatory.” </p>
<p>A key question being asked is how people will be selected to represent their communities. Langton says: “We have to accommodate an already existing Indigenous governance landscape. So across the country we have an enormous number of existing bodies, none of which have any assured way of advising governments. None of them are provided with a formal way to advise governments. I’ll give you two examples.</p>
<p>"One is the Torres Strait Regional Authority. And the other is the ACT Indigenous elected assembly. Now, indeed, both of them can give advice to the state governments, and that’s a good thing. But they don’t sit in an integrated framework. […] We developed a set of principles for the creation of such bodies as the Indigenous voice arrangements.</p>
<p>"Those principles are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Empowerment</li>
<li>inclusive participation</li>
<li>cultural leadership</li>
<li>community-led design</li>
<li>non-duplication and links with existing bodies</li>
<li>respecting long-term partnerships</li>
<li>transparency and accountability</li>
<li>capability driven data</li>
<li>evidence based decision making. </li>
</ul>
<p>"Those are the principles, and it was our preference that those principles be legislated so that each body that is created, should we be successful, complies with those principles.”</p>
<p>A major point for debate around The Voice is whether it will deliver practical outcomes. Langton illustrates by example. </p>
<p>“As for the kinds of problems that the Voice would be able to tackle much more effectively than governments, I give you the case of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first people to respond effectively, long before governments did so, were the Indigenous health organisations […] The Indigenous community-controlled health sector leaders had dealt with two epidemics in recent history and one in particular had a very high mortality rate. So in response to that, the Indigenous health sector wrote an epidemic plan, and that was about ten years old, but it was easily revised to become the pandemic plan. So they went straight into action when we began to hear the news from overseas about COVID-19.”</p>
<p>“So who was first to close their borders? Not the states and territories. It was the Aboriginal landowners on advice from the Indigenous health sector that closed their borders to stop travel in and out of Aboriginal lands to keep their populations safe.</p>
<p>"Because the most vulnerable populations to COVID-19 were the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations with pre-existing health burdens such as chronic diseases, diabetes, kidney disease and so on. </p>
<p>"We expected, you know, an enormous death toll in the Indigenous community, we expected at least 3% of the indigenous population to contract the disease. 27,701 cases was the prediction.</p>
<p>"But because the Indigenous health sector rushed to implement the pandemic plan and set up a national taskforce with public health advisories that went out across our media sector, translated into at least 18 languages, we were able to stop the deaths. And so in the first year of the pandemic, I think we had one death as opposed to 27,000. And so we were the most successful group in the world, I would argue, in preventing COVID-19 from taking lives. So up until January 2021, there were only 148 cases of COVID among Indigenous people nationwide, 15% hospitalisations, one case in ICU and no deaths. And there were no deaths in remote communities and no cases associated with the Black Lives Matter marches because of our public health advisories.</p>
<p>"So I think that’s, you know, a very good example, of why Indigenous people in control of their own affairs is much more effective than governments. And we can see the terrible mistakes that governments across the country made, even though they were advised by the very best of our epidemiologists, is because they don’t have the reach into the local population that our Indigenous health sector has.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/203672/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In this podcast, Michelle Grattan and Professor Marcia Langton discuss the Voice to Parliament and constitutional recognition for First Nations AustraliansMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1952052022-11-27T19:05:09Z2022-11-27T19:05:09ZWhat we mean when we say ‘sovereignty was never ceded’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/496928/original/file-20221123-22-w3kxpw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=25%2C0%2C5582%2C3732&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Bianca De Marchi</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In discussing the Uluru Statement from the Heart, I will be doing something that, as a lawyer, is perhaps not best practice: I am not going to define my terms or confine my comments to the law. </p>
<p>Although our constitutional system of governance is underpinned by a rigid concept of sovereignty we have inherited from the British parliament, its meaning is in fact quite nebulous. </p>
<p>This sovereignty is not actually defined in our constitution, but rather made out by the structure and role of the institutions within. An example of this legacy is the prime minister not being mentioned. Rather, the prime minister is established by convention as “first among equals”. The only roles mentioned in the Australian Constitution are the ministers of state and cabinet itself, and the executive council.</p>
<p>In a constitutional monarchy, both the Crown and the parliament borrow their authority from the people: the Crown by consent and heredity, and the parliament through the electoral process. </p>
<p>Ostensibly, we in Australia, have two competing claims to sovereignty by right of heredity over this continent: that of the Crown and of Indigenous peoples. But although the case for Indigenous sovereignty seems irrefutable, the reality is much more complicated.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/albanese-releases-draft-wording-for-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-187933">Albanese releases draft wording for Indigenous 'Voice to parliament' referendum</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Sovereignty never ceded</h2>
<p>There are two undeniable and competing facts about the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia that both sides must face up to. </p>
<p>The first is summed up in one well known phrase that is much more than a slogan: “sovereignty never ceded”. It is as simple as that. </p>
<p>First Nations have never ceded sovereignty. The land was taken by force and has been retained by force. </p>
<p>Many have <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/bloody-aboriginal-liberal-candidate-rails-against-indigenous-people-abortion-and-climate-change-20221119-p5bzm6.html">claimed</a> Indigenous peoples have acquiesced by default. None are correct. In Arnhem Land and other locations, where Indigenous people only came into contact with Europeans in the 20th century, their law remains the <a href="https://nationalunitygovernment.org/pdf/ngarra.pdf">predominant legal system</a>.</p>
<p>Those pockets of uninterrupted continuity of law and culture have enabled Indigenous peoples Australia-wide to refuse to be erased, despite the weight the nation has thrown behind it, and for us to have this conversation today and force this change.</p>
<p>The second, undeniable fact is that the Australian state’s legitimacy does not rest upon a treaty with First Nations. This is a fact that is hard for many to swallow. I don’t agree with it. I don’t like it, but it is a fact we must accommodate if we are to give meaningful expression to Indigenous sovereignty. </p>
<p>The path to change is through understanding and acknowledgement of this fact. </p>
<p>Further, First Nations are not recognised as nation states under international law. It is important to note the international legal system was authored by those same nation states whose invading colonies are founded on Indigenous lands and now draw their authority from them. </p>
<p>So, our rights, even under the <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html">United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples</a>, a non-binding agreement, are subservient to the nation states within which we have our legal existence. </p>
<p>With our acceptance of this system comes the fact the Commonwealth of Australia is paramount. Even when we enter treaties with the commonwealth, and states and territories, those agreements remain susceptible to the Australian Constitution and the Commonwealth of Australia. </p>
<p>Short of a coup or an entire rewriting of the Australian nation – neither desirable nor realistic – there is no stepping outside of those authorities. It is constitutionally impossible.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-constitutional-voice-to-parliament-ensuring-parliament-is-in-charge-not-the-courts-193017">A constitutional Voice to Parliament: ensuring parliament is in charge, not the courts</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The fabric of government</h2>
<p>These are the political and legal realities we must accept as First Nations. No matter how strong the belief in our sovereignty or how just our claims, those facts will never change. Technical points of law and principles of fairness count for little in the face of history. This is the context within which we must frame our response.</p>
<p>Some see it as intractably difficult. I do not. Although we must work within the institutions of the Australian state, this does not mean those institutions must remain irredeemably colonial, nor does it mean we cannot change our nation. </p>
<p>The answer is not to accept loss of sovereignty as an inescapable reality. Instead, we need to navigate a pathway through the system that gives expression to what we mean when we say sovereignty was never ceded.</p>
<p>The delegates of the 13 regional dialogues that led to the Uluru Statement from the Heart understood this. </p>
<p>In a process of deliberative dialogue and informed decision-making, they worked through the political and legal obstacles to giving meaningful expression to Indigenous sovereignty and achieving change. This is a key reason why the First Nations Voice to Parliament enshrined in the constitution comes first in the Statement. </p>
<p>Substantive structural reform to the political system has to come first if the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-10/makarrata-explainer-yolngu-word-more-than-synonym-for-treaty/8790452">Makarrata Commission</a> for treaty and truth-telling is to have meaningful effect. </p>
<p>We have had treaty promises and truth-telling processes before, but in the absence of this structure they have had little impact on the grander scheme of things. </p>
<p>If we are to change the constitutional structure of this nation then we need to begin here, at its foundation, with the Voice to Parliament: a permanent institutional mechanism that respects First Nations by recognising their place and sovereignty in the fabric of government.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-first-nations-voice-should-come-before-treaty-192388">Why a First Nations Voice should come before Treaty</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is an edited extract from Volume 2 of the New Platform Papers: From the Heart: The Voice, the Arts and Australian Identity, available now from <a href="http://www.currency.com.au">www.currency.com.au</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195205/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eddie Synot does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Uluru Statement from the Heart will give us new meaning to the expression.Eddie Synot, Lecturer, Griffith Law School, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1879332022-07-29T12:31:45Z2022-07-29T12:31:45ZAlbanese releases draft wording for Indigenous ‘Voice to parliament’ referendum<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/476771/original/file-20220730-13615-wdx2ee.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=281%2C616%2C3544%2C1802&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the Garma Festival in northeast Arnhem Land on Friday.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Aaron Bunch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Anthony Albanese will propose draft wording to insert into the constitution an Indigenous “Voice” to parliament when he addresses the Garma Festival in Arnhem Land on Saturday. </p>
<p>The Prime Minister is also releasing a draft of the question that would be put to the people at the referendum for the change.</p>
<p>The new provision in the constitution would have three sentences: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</p>
<p>The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples </p>
<p>The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In his speech, released ahead of delivery, Albanese says this might not be the final form of words but it is the next step in the discussion. </p>
<p>His draft referendum question would ask: “Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?”</p>
<p>To pass, a referendum needs to win both an overall majority of votes as well as majorities in a majority of states. There have been 44 proposals for constitutional change put in 19 referendums with only eight changes passing. </p>
<p>Although Albanese has been anxious for the referendum to be held next year, he talks in his speech only of having it in the current parliamentary term. </p>
<p>“I believe the country is ready for this reform,” he says. “I believe there is room in Australian hearts for the [Uluru] Statement from the Heart.”</p>
<p>“We are seeking a momentous change – but it is also a very simple one.” </p>
<p>“It is not a matter of special treatment, or preferential power. It’s about consulting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on the decisions that affect you. This is simple courtesy, it is common decency.”</p>
<p>Albanese says that putting a Voice into the constitution “means a willingness to listen won’t depend on who is in government or who is prime minister”. Such a Voice “cannot be silenced”. </p>
<p>“The Voice will exist and endure outside of the ups and downs of election cycles and the weakness of short-term politics. </p>
<p>"It will be an unflinching source of advice and accountability.” </p>
<p>It would not be a “third chamber” but “a body with the perspective and the power and the platform to tell the government and the parliament the truth about what is working and what is not”.</p>
<p>Albanese says the “best way to seize the momentum” is to settle on the proposed referendum question as soon as possible. </p>
<p>“I ask all Australians of goodwill to engage on this,” Albanese says. </p>
<p>“Respectfully, purposefully we are seeking to secure support for the question and the associated provisions in time for a successful referendum, in this term of parliament. </p>
<p>"This is a reform I believe every Australian can embrace, from all walks of life, in every part of the country, from every faith and background and tradition.</p>
<p>"Because it speaks to values we all share and honour – fairness, respect, decency.” </p>
<p>Albanese says while there may be fear campaigns to counter, perhaps the greatest threat to success is indifference – the notion this is symbolism without practical benefit, or that advocating for a Voice is at the expense of expanding economic opportunity or improving conditions. </p>
<p>“Let us all understand: Australia does not have to choose between improving peoples’ lives and amending the constitution. We can do both – and we have to.” </p>
<p>Issues of life expectancy, incarceration, disease and other problems would get worse if “governments simply continue to insist they know better”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/187933/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Anthony Albanese will propose draft wording to insert into the constitution an Indigenous “Voice” to parliament when he addresses the Garma Festival in Arnhem Land on Saturday. The Prime Minister is also…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1848412022-06-24T02:09:24Z2022-06-24T02:09:24ZThe Albanese government has committed to enshrining a First Nations Voice in the Constitution. What do Australians think of the idea?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469143/original/file-20220616-13070-wbhp31.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C27%2C3003%2C1967&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/canberra-feb-22-2019sovereignty-sign-aboriginal-1330606682">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his new government have <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-22/anthony-albanese-acceptance-speech-full-transcript/101088736">committed</a> to enshrining a First Nations Voice in the Australian Constitution. To do so, a majority of Australians in a majority of states will have to vote “yes” at a referendum. </p>
<p>But what are the other challenges along the way? Why might people support a Voice, or why might they be against it?</p>
<p>Last year, CQUniversity and Griffith University conducted the <a href="https://theconversation.com/most-australians-support-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-survey-157964">Australian Constitutional Values Survey</a> to answer these questions. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1538356740160225281"}"></div></p>
<h2>Survey questions and findings</h2>
<p>The survey measured attitudes towards the Voice from more than 1,500 respondents. Through quota sampling across participants’ location, age, education and voting preference, we were able to obtain a nationally representative sample. </p>
<p>Our survey found substantial support for a constitutional Voice (51.3%). Twice as many people supported the Voice as were against it (20.8%, with 27.9% undecided). But just as important are the reasons <em>why</em> participants said they were in favour, against or undecided. </p>
<p>Here are four key challenges that need to be addressed, our data suggests, on the journey towards a Voice.</p>
<p><strong>1. Why have a First Nations Voice to Parliament?</strong></p>
<p>As a first step, people must see a good reason to establish a Voice. The <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a>, which formalised calls for a constitutional Voice, is framed as a generous invitation towards reconciliation from First Nations Peoples. The sentiments in the Uluru Statement are reflected in many survey respondents’ support of the Voice. For example, one participant said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I believe that if Australia really wants to reconcile with the Indigenous community - that this is a very important step in that process.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, some people remain sceptical. While it seems most First Nations Peoples <a href="https://www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Australian_Reconciliation_Barometer_2020_-Full-Report_web.pdf">support a Voice</a>, this view is not unanimous. Some First Nations scholars and respondents to our survey questioned whether supporting the Voice further legitimates the Constitution, a colonial document. </p>
<p>At the other end of the spectrum, 10% of respondents did not see the need for a Voice at all. Evidence of the disadvantages faced by First Nations Peoples under all existing political institutions continues to suggest otherwise. For example, the inability to “close the gap” is often attributed to the government’s failure to <a href="https://fromtheheart.com.au/why-isnt-closing-the-gap-working/">genuinely engage</a> with Indigenous Australians. Nevertheless, the view that reform is not needed is one the Voice campaign will need to confront.</p>
<p>Advocates for the Voice will be encouraged by the substantial number of survey respondents who are already convinced that institutionalising an Indigenous advisory body is a positive step. Many respondents cited the value in constitutionally recognising First Nations Peoples, and viewed it as the “right thing to do”. Further, when supporters of the Voice were asked how important this issue was, one in three thought it should be a priority for the government.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-keep-hearing-about-a-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-but-what-would-it-actually-look-like-in-practice-183718">We keep hearing about a First Nations Voice to parliament, but what would it actually look like in practice?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>2. The general public’s lack of knowledge</strong></p>
<p>The Voice was proposed in the Uluru Statement in 2017, and calls for an Indigenous advisory body are even <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-voice-to-parliament-isnt-a-new-idea-indigenous-activists-called-for-it-nearly-a-century-ago-122272">older</a>. Despite this, public awareness remains a core issue.</p>
<p>More than half of respondents to the survey had never heard of the Voice before. Of the 27.9% of respondents who were unsure whether they would be in favour of or against a constitutional Voice, most cited a lack of knowledge as the reason. </p>
<p>Encouragingly, the responses also suggest there is an appetite to learn more. Some 19% of undecided participants said they wanted more information about the Voice, while 17.7% had specific questions, such as how representatives would be chosen, and what powers the body would have. </p>
<p><strong>3. The role of bipartisanship</strong></p>
<p>While bipartisanship may <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-keep-hearing-about-a-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-but-what-would-it-actually-look-like-in-practice-183718">not necessarily be essential</a> to obtain a yes vote in a referendum, a proposal with the support of the major parties is far less likely to fail. So far we know Labor is committed to pursuing a constitutional Voice, although the Coalition’s position following its election loss is less clear. </p>
<p>One thing is clear from our survey: differences between the major parties’ positions do not reflect voters’ attitudes in a significant way. This is an important result, as it suggests the major parties should be able to find common ground in supporting the Voice. Senator Patrick Dodson’s <a href="https://www.niaa.gov.au/news-centre/niaa/ministerial-appointments-indigenous-australians">appointment</a> as Special Envoy for Reconciliation and the Implementation of the Uluru Statement is an important step, as Senator Dodson is highly regarded on both sides of politics.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/first-nations-people-shouldnt-have-to-wait-for-a-referendum-to-get-a-voice-to-parliament-184316">First Nations people shouldn't have to wait for a referendum to get a Voice to Parliament</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>4. Delivering a Voice with substance</strong></p>
<p>Support for Indigenous constitutional recognition is clearly strongest if believed to be likely to deliver practical benefits as well as its symbolic value. Many survey respondents saw tangible outcomes such as improved healthcare and learning from Indigenous land management as reasons to support the Voice. When asked, 75% thought the Voice would improve the lives of First Nations Peoples. Therefore, the Voice many Australians want to enshrine is one that can make a practical difference in the lives of First Nations Peoples. </p>
<p>The new government’s commitment to the Uluru Statement is a hopeful sign for all those seeking constitutional change. While there is still a long journey ahead for the First Nations Voice, if these four challenges are met then a majority of Australians are clearly ready to engage in this important step in the reconciliation process.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184841/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacob Deem receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Miller receives funding from NHMRC, ARC and BHP. He is affiliated with CQUniversity, BHP and Outside Opinion. I run my on small business call "Jirrbal Solutions" and I Chair a community organisation called "Jirrbal Aboriginal Corporation"</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>A J Brown has received funding from the Australian Research Council and other supporting universities to conduct the Australian Constitutional Values Survey over the years. He is also a boardmember of Transparency International Australia. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Bird does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Survey findings bring insight to the general public’s thoughts and concerns of an Indigenous Voice to parliament. What questions still need to be answered to obtain a yes vote in a referendum?Jacob Deem, Lecturer - Law, CQUniversity AustraliaAdrian Miller, Deputy Vice-President Indigenous Engagement & Director of the Jawun Research Centre, CQUniversity AustraliaA J Brown, Professor of Public Policy & Law, Centre for Governance & Public Policy, Griffith UniversitySusan Bird, Senior Lecturer in Law, Charles Darwin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1723842022-02-01T02:38:48Z2022-02-01T02:38:48ZCompelling even to his critics: Mission by Noel Pearson explores rights, land and justice<p>How does one tell the story of a life lived well in public service, and in service of your community? </p>
<p>That is the broad ambition of <a href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/mission-0#:%7E:text=Mission%20traces%20a%20life%20of%20politics%2C%20ideas%20and%20inspiring%20words.&text=There%20are%20indelible%20portraits%20of,Uluru%20Statement%20from%20the%20Heart.">Mission</a>, the latest book from Noel Pearson, First Nations lawyer, activist and founder of the <a href="https://capeyorkpartnership.org.au/our-partnership/cape-york-institute/">Cape York Institute</a>. </p>
<p>Mission, a series of Pearson’s essays, speeches and eulogies, is not as disjointed or disconnected as such collections sometimes are. </p>
<p>Instead, the collection presents a unified and coherent story of his life in public, his advocacy and the consistent views he has held over this time. </p>
<p>Mission portrays Pearson as only he himself could – a towering figure within the First Nations community, and one whose work has shaped decades of policy and debate on the issues most important to us and our communities: rights, land and justice.</p>
<p>It’s well worth your time to read to get an understanding of the man himself, and of the last several decades of First Nations affairs in this country.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="A yellow book cover titled 'Mission' by Noel Pearson." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443305/original/file-20220131-25-1ywct87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443305/original/file-20220131-25-1ywct87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443305/original/file-20220131-25-1ywct87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443305/original/file-20220131-25-1ywct87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=915&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443305/original/file-20220131-25-1ywct87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1150&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443305/original/file-20220131-25-1ywct87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1150&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443305/original/file-20220131-25-1ywct87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1150&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/mission-0#:~:text=Mission%20traces%20a%20life%20of%20politics%2C%20ideas%20and%20inspiring%20words.&text=There%20are%20indelible%20portraits%20of,Uluru%20Statement%20from%20the%20Heart.">Black Inc. Books</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Pearson the man, Pearson the politics</h2>
<p>I should be upfront at the outset of this review. I do not share much of Pearson’s politics, especially his idea of the “<a href="https://www.griffithreview.com/articles/white-guilt-victimhood-and-the-quest-for-a-radical-centre/">radical centre</a>”, and his views on some topics I strongly disagree with. I very much find myself to the left of politics, and see that as a legitimate way forward for First Nations communities. </p>
<p>This, however, is not a reason to discount what I have to say in this review. I would argue it is much better to be reviewed by people with whom you do not always see eye-to-eye, rather than devoted fans. Indeed, throughout this collection, Pearson outlines his positions in such clear and commonsense ways, even I found myself coming around on some of them. </p>
<p>It opens with the titular namesake essay, a 75-page reflection on his upbringing, early life and devotion to his community. The book then delves into many of the key parts of Pearson’s life and politics, including sections entitled After Mabo, The Radical Centre, Labor and Social Democracy, Profiles in Power and A Rightful Place. </p>
<p>All of these contain many essays on key issues of their time, and of today, all of which maintain their relevance to a contemporary audience. </p>
<p>His eulogy of former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, praised at the time it was given as <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/noel-pearsons-eulogy-for-gough-whitlam-praised-as-one-for-the-ages-20141105-11h7vm.html">one of the best speeches ever in Australian politics</a>, channels Pearson’s usual intellectual rigour alongside his wit, and his clear values in advancing his own community. Apart from all the successes of the Whitlam government, he asked, what did that “Roman ever do for us?” </p>
<p>An excerpt from Pearson’s speech: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Only those who have known discrimination truly know its evil. Only those who have never experienced prejudice can discount the importance of the Racial Discrimination Act. This old man was one of those rare people who never suffered discrimination but understood the importance of protection from its malice. </p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JsXmYHiuJ8s?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Noel Pearson remembers Gough Whitlam.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-closer-look-at-noel-pearsons-eulogy-for-gough-whitlam-33932">A closer look at Noel Pearson’s eulogy for Gough Whitlam</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A call for constitutional recognition</h2>
<p>A number of Pearson’s pieces in Mission are much less known and also much more recent. The newest and final essays present some of the clearest and best language on the recognition of First Nations people in the Constitution. </p>
<p>Pearson is a strong advocate for constitutional recognition and a Voice to Parliament, and alongside Professor Megan Davis and Aunty Pat Anderson, will <a href="https://sydneypeacefoundation.org.au/2021-sydney-peace-prize-award-ceremony-and-lecture/">receive the 2021 Sydney Peace Prize</a> this March on behalf of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. </p>
<p>Pearson writes strongly on why a Voice to Parliament is not only desired by First Nations people, but necessary for our full inclusion in this country, and to move forward on advancing issues of change for Blackfullas nationwide. </p>
<p>Pearson states: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Why recognition? The answer is straightforward: because the Indigenous peoples of Australia have never been recognised. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not a dumbing down of complex issues to be palatable for an audience, it is presenting true and undoubtable facts about this nation and First Nations peoples’ place within it. </p>
<p>As Pearson writes in one of the essays entitled A Rightful Place, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>history is never resolved, and we should not make a shared future contingent on a shared path. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1465856927884324870"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/most-australians-support-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-survey-157964">Most Australians support First Nations Voice to parliament: survey</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This series of essays on Uluru, recognition and the true place of First Nations people are the most powerful. They speak to a disenfranchisement, detachment and degradation of our people throughout history, and why a Voice to Parliament as a form of recognition is so necessary. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians is not a project of woke identity politics, it is Australia’s longest-standing and unresolved project for justice and inclusion. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>These words should be burned into the retinas of every politician, journalist and academic across the country. This project on First Nations constitutional recognition is not merely one in which we are engaged because we feel it is good politics. It is a project to fundamentally reshape the nation for the better, and to achieve justice and equity for our people after many centuries of dispossession and disregard.</p>
<h2>The power of his voice</h2>
<p>The only thing really lost in this collection is something which is not the fault of anyone but the format. In reading these essays, rather than listening to Pearson speak them, you lose the power of his presence and his articulation, and the way he captures an audience the way very few can. But what you don’t lose is his voice, which is as clear and consistent in his convictions, as if he were standing right before you. </p>
<p>Pearson is a strong advocate for his views and values, and presents them in a way that would be compelling even to his critics.</p>
<p>I’m not saying I walked away a changed man, but I definitely got a much better sense of who Pearson is from this book. On some things, I have come around more to his point of view, while on others, I feel even more sure of my own positions that counter Pearson’s. </p>
<p>Mission is a book worth reading whether you know of Pearson strongly or not, and whether you agree with him or not. You’ll find much to engage with here.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172384/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Blackwell is affiliated with the Uluru Statement From the Heart Campaign, and is a member of the Australian Greens.</span></em></p>Mission, a series of Noel Pearson’s essays, speeches and eulogies, delves into many of the key parts of the author’s life and politics.James Blackwell, Research Fellow (Indigenous Diplomacy), Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1728512021-12-08T19:19:37Z2021-12-08T19:19:37ZOur research shows public support for a First Nations Voice is not only high, it’s deeply entrenched<p>Much has been written about why Indigenous recognition is important. <a href="https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/indigenous-voice-codesign-process-interim-report-2020.pdf">Such</a> recognition would be a legal change to address the dispossession of Indigenous peoples from their lands and rights, and the widescale damage to Indigenous lives and culture. </p>
<p>At the top of the <a href="https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/indigenous-voice-codesign-process-interim-report-2020.pdf">recognition agenda</a> is a national First Nations Voice to Parliament. This would be an advisory body made up of Indigenous Australians that would interact with parliament and review bills affecting Indigenous people. </p>
<p>Currently, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/19/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-legislation-imminent-coalition-sources-say">reform</a> enjoys support from both the federal government and opposition, though exactly how to achieve this reform remains a point of contention.</p>
<p>If the Voice goes ahead, one big question is whether the change should be made via the Constitution – and the level of public support for such a change. </p>
<p>Our research suggests support for legal reform on Indigenous issues is not only high, it’s also durable. Public attitudes have shifted to such an extent in the last 40 years, there is little reason to think a constitutionally enshrined Voice wouldn’t pass a referendum if it was held today.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-delaying-legislation-on-a-voice-to-parliament-is-welcome-it-allows-more-time-to-get-things-right-165799">Why delaying legislation on a Voice to parliament is welcome — it allows more time to get things right</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Governments believe public support for change is weak</h2>
<p>The views of both the Turnbull and Morrison governments have been that the Voice to Parliament needn’t be enshrined in the Constitution. </p>
<p>However, this view goes against the <a href="https://www.indigconlaw.org/home/submission-the-imperative-of-constitutional-enshrinement">advice of experts</a>, who strongly favour enshrinement to give the Voice stability – especially to prevent its disbandment, as <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/Current_Issues_Briefs_2004_-_2005/05cib04">happened</a> with past Indigenous governing bodies. The Voice may also need constitutional status to have a genuine impact on law-making. </p>
<p>It’s never easy to change the Constitution. It requires a referendum, with 50% of voters and 50% of the states voting “yes”. Of the 44 referendums since 1901, only eight have been successful. </p>
<p>Recent governments have <a href="https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/response-to-referendum-councils-report-on-constitutional-recognition">argued</a> public support for constitutional enshrinement is too weak to lead to success in a referendum.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1465786661657141248"}"></div></p>
<h2>But here’s what the polling says</h2>
<p>The government’s pessimism here is belied by recent polls suggesting very high support for Indigenous recognition. </p>
<p>In the <a href="https://australianelectionstudy.org/voter-studies/">Australian Election Study</a> surveys conducted by the Australian National University, around three-quarters of voters were prepared to support a change to the Constitution to recognise Indigenous Australians in both 2016 and 2019.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/8042210/embed" title="Interactive or visual content" class="flourish-embed-iframe" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="width:100%;height:500px;" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<div style="width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;"><a class="flourish-credit" href="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/8042210/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=visualisation/8042210" target="_top"><img alt="Made with Flourish" src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg"> </a></div>
<hr>
<p>However, recent polls tell just part of the story. Our study of several decades of Australian Election Study polling shows not just transient support for Indigenous recognition, but something potentially deeper. </p>
<p>There has been a gradual firming up of positive attitudes towards legal reform for Indigenous people overall. Because of this, support for a constitutional change is unlikely to collapse in the course of a referendum campaign.</p>
<p>In surveys over 40 years, the results tell a remarkably consistent story. Though it would have been unthinkable in the 1980s, the clear trend since then is towards more favourable attitudes on Indigenous issues. </p>
<p>In the early period of the surveys in the 1980s, only one in five voters thought support for Indigenous Australians – whether it was land rights or assistance from government – had “not gone far enough”. </p>
<p>In 1987, voters who thought that land rights had “gone too far” outnumbered those who thought they had “not gone far enough” by almost <a href="https://dataverse.ada.edu.au/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.4225/87/PQFNYM">five to one</a>.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/8042319/embed" title="Interactive or visual content" class="flourish-embed-iframe" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="width:100%;height:600px;" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<div style="width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;"><a class="flourish-credit" href="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/8042319/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=visualisation/8042319" target="_top"><img alt="Made with Flourish" src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg"> </a></div>
<hr>
<p>By 2019, however, those believing support for First Nations people had “gone too far” and those believing it had “not gone far enough” were almost equal. This shows a considerable decline in voter hostility towards Indigenous affairs.</p>
<p>Notably, the consistent upward trend is also “secular”, meaning it is unrelated to whichever party is in government and the policies they promote. The long-term change in public opinion seems to rest instead with long-term social and economic changes and a gradual liberalising of attitudes in the country.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/most-australians-support-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-survey-157964">Most Australians support First Nations Voice to parliament: survey</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why have attitudes changed?</h2>
<p>Since the 1960s, attitudes towards a wide range of social issues have become more liberal in almost all established democracies. Numerous studies show dramatic changes on issues associated with equality, such as <a href="https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/83/2/759/2234759">women’s rights</a>, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00133">same-sex marriage</a> and <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Between-Two-Absolutes-Public-Opinion-and-the-Politics-of-Abortion/Cook/p/book/9780367012458">abortion</a>. </p>
<p>The causes of these long-term changes in attitudes are often traced to shifting value systems creating a <a href="http://www.brandonkendhammer.com/challenges_of_democratization/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/OUP_ch09-libre.pdf">more tolerant and egalitarian society</a>. Underlying this fundamental shift are unprecedented increases in economic prosperity, physical security and educational opportunities.</p>
<p>We assessed several factors in our study. One possibility is younger generations are more likely to vote “yes” to constitutional reform than older generations. Older generations tend to prioritise physical security and economic well-being as opposed to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402380701834747">equality and personal fulfilment</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/indigenous-recognition-is-more-than-a-voice-to-government-its-a-matter-of-political-equality-154057">Indigenous recognition is more than a Voice to Government - it's a matter of political equality</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Our data show, however, that factors such as age were not necessarily significant. There were other explanations for the shift in people’s attitudes that were stronger.</p>
<p>Especially significant was whether a person has pursued higher education – a category that, since the 1960s, includes many more Australians than before. Australia has been a world leader in the expansion of higher education. In 2018, just over half of 25- to 34-year-olds had a <a href="https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/population-with-tertiary-education.htm">tertiary education</a>.</p>
<p>A greater proportion of people are now better educated, meaning they have received training in the cognitive skills needed to evaluate complex political issues and come to a more considered personal view on Indigenous issues. </p>
<h2>Lessons for referendum design</h2>
<p>Importantly, education does not take place in schools alone. Some referendum processes do more than others to <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2302915">inform voters</a> through things like online tutorials, televised (including reality-style) programs and “voting advice applications” (like <a href="https://act.smartvote.org/en/home">smartvote</a>). This may counter some of the lack of knowledge among voters. </p>
<p>Citizens’ assemblies are another possible tool. These involve recruiting randomly selected citizens as decision-makers and thoroughly informing them on the issues so they can take the lead in <a href="https://sites.psu.edu/citizensinitiativereview/">writing referendum ballots and information materials</a>.</p>
<p>Our results suggest cautious optimism should replace cynicism about the prospects of constitutional recognition. Unprecedented rises in educational attainment may have brought Australian voters at least part way towards a more nuanced and open-minded understanding of Indigenous affairs. </p>
<p>Referendum education programs in the lead-up to the vote itself may take Australians even farther along this path.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172851/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ron Levy has received funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian McAllister receives funding from the Australian Research Council</span></em></p>There has been a clear trend since the 1980s towards more favourable public attitudes on Indigenous issues. The reason? A better-educated citizenry.Ron Levy, Associate professor, Australian National UniversityIan McAllister, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1657992021-08-13T00:28:44Z2021-08-13T00:28:44ZWhy delaying legislation on a Voice to parliament is welcome — it allows more time to get things right<p>Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt said last week plans to introduce legislation to establish an Indigenous Voice would be delayed beyond the next federal election. </p>
<p>Wyatt <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/wyatt-walks-back-timeline-on-indigenous-voice-20210730-p58ehu.html">said</a> he was unsure he would have time to introduce legislation, as he has yet to consider the final report of the <a href="https://voice.niaa.gov.au/">Voice co-design</a> process led by professors Marcia Langton and Tom Calma. </p>
<p>The shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, was quick to <a href="https://www.lindaburney.com.au/media-releases/2021/8/6/morrison-government-rules-out-first-nations-voice-before-next-election">criticise</a> the government’s failure to introduce legislation, saying it</p>
<blockquote>
<p>clearly walked away from any semblance of a Voice to the parliament. This is despite the fact that you know, at the beginning of the term, it was the big thing, the big ticket item. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>While government failure to introduce legislation may be a favourable political target, it is an unhelpful and confusing criticism to make considering Labor’s own <a href="https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/media-centre/closing-the-gap-speech">commitment</a> to the <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a>. </p>
<p>This would also mean pausing on Voice legislation — and its announcement to pursue a Makarrata Commission (for agreement-making and truth-telling) — until a referendum on constitutional protection for the Voice can be held</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/most-australians-support-first-nations-voice-to-parliament-survey-157964">Most Australians support First Nations Voice to parliament: survey</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why the sequence of reforms matters</h2>
<p>Supporting the Uluru Statement in full means accepting a sequence of reforms, the first of which is a change to the constitution to ensure the authority and protection of the reforms going forward. </p>
<p>This sequence is deliberate and key to its success. We have had representative bodies and truth-telling processes before — all introduced by legislation — which have then been taken away or ignored by government. This cannot continue to happen if we want lasting change. </p>
<p>The simple truth is that a legislation-first approach to establishing a Voice (or the Makarrata Commission) <em>without</em> constitutional protection is <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-indigenous-voice-must-be-enshrined-in-our-constitution-heres-why-153635">bad policy</a>. </p>
<p>It is not true to the Uluru Statement’s deliberate sequencing, it is contrary to expert advice that legislation first would be ineffective and kill constitutional reform, and it is not supported by the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/12/essential-poll-majority-of-australians-want-indigenous-recognition-and-voice-to-parliament">Australian people</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1425362606953537537"}"></div></p>
<p>The Uluru Statement, informed by the rightful place of Indigenous people, is fundamentally about changing the way things are done for the better by establishing a permanent institutional mechanism to negotiate and inform the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and governments.</p>
<p>The only way to change the constitution is by referendum. By legislating the Voice without constitutional protection, nothing substantive will change. It would remain susceptible to the whim of government and be kicked down the road for generations to come. </p>
<p>So, the failure to pursue this legislate-first path should be welcomed. This is especially so considering <a href="https://www.indigconlaw.org/home/what-do-we-know-about-public-attitudes-to-a-first-nations-voice">consecutive polling</a> and the government’s own <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-did-the-public-say-about-the-governments-indigenous-voice-co-design-process-163803">co-design process</a> indicate overwhelming public support for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to parliament.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-did-the-public-say-about-the-governments-indigenous-voice-co-design-process-163803">What did the public say about the government’s Indigenous Voice co-design process?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Process and trust are important</h2>
<p>The Voice co-design process was established following recommendations of the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/constitutionalrecognition">Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition</a>, co-chaired by Senator Pat Dodson and MP Julian Leeser. </p>
<p>Despite varying statements, the government has remained committed to a two-stage process recommended by the committee. That approach included the Voice co-design process and a second stage addressing what legal form the Voice would take. </p>
<p>This commitment included <a href="https://www.indigconlaw.org/home/constitutional-recognition-two-decades-on">A$7.3 million</a> for the co-design process and <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fpartypol%2F6725182%22;src1=sm1">$160 million</a> for a future referendum.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-voice-to-parliament-isnt-a-new-idea-indigenous-activists-called-for-it-nearly-a-century-ago-122272">The Voice to Parliament isn't a new idea - Indigenous activists called for it nearly a century ago</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The fact that Wyatt and senior members of the co-design process have been considering a legislated model should be concerning to all Australians. It is contrary to government policy and the Uluru Statement, and is also indicative of government decision-making that continues to be out of touch with public sentiment and rightfully expected standards of transparency, trust and accountability. </p>
<p>This concern is highlighted by the fact that providing advice on the legal form of the Voice (for example, constitutionally protected or legislated) was not part of the <a href="https://www.niaa.gov.au/resource-centre/indigenous-affairs/terms-reference-national-co-design-group">terms of reference</a> for the co-design process established under the Joint Select Committee. </p>
<p>That a legislate-first approach has remained a commitment of the minister shows just how important the structural reforms in the Uluru Statement are. </p>
<p>With the government now stepping back from introducing legislation before the federal election, this gives parliament the opportunity to focus on delivering a referendum so the Australian people can have their say.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1412184204184457223"}"></div></p>
<h2>Structural reform remains the burning issue</h2>
<p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s comments last week during his announcement of the <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/closing-gap-implementation-plan-australian-parliament-house-act">Closing the Gap implementation plan</a> indicated a considered approach to the staged recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, now that the first step is complete. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The first step was to define the detail of an Indigenous Voice […] Once a model for the Indigenous Voice has been developed, all governments will need to explore how they can work with the Voice to ensure that these views are considered.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yet, there is cause for concern when considering Morrison’s purported commitment to learning from the past and doing things differently with First Nations peoples. </p>
<p>Reiterating these steps again last week while detailing the $1 billion in funding to accompany the Closing the Gap plan, he noted “we are making good on our commitment to do things differently”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-can-the-new-closing-the-gap-dashboard-highlight-what-indicators-and-targets-are-on-track-163809">How can the new Closing the Gap dashboard highlight what indicators and targets are on track?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It’s not that the funding isn’t welcome. It is beyond time, for example, that members of the Stolen Generations in the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay (Commonwealth jurisdictions) are recognised and compensated for the harm they suffered. Other jurisdictions should follow. </p>
<p>The problem is that despite the rhetoric, much remains the same. The poorly conducted Voice co-design process is one example of this. </p>
<p>Perhaps more importantly, the government’s own vaunted new agreement on Closing the Gap shows, yet again, that it is not taking into account the views of the recently formed <a href="https://coalitionofpeaks.org.au/">Coalition of Peaks</a> on key policy decisions. </p>
<p>We only need look to the example of the heavily criticised <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-government-trying-to-make-the-cashless-debit-card-permanent-research-shows-it-does-not-work-149444">cashless debit card</a> to see this. </p>
<p>As was highlighted by <a href="https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1035339546891135&id=101157053642727">Northern Territory Senator Malarndirri McCarthy</a> during Senate Estimates last November, the government pushed ahead with its expanded rollout of the card, despite the vehement opposition of the Coalition of Peaks and extensive expert advice. </p>
<p>How can trust, accountability and change in decision-making be established if this is how the government continues to operate under its new approach to Indigenous affairs? </p>
<p>These questions aren’t just political. They matter for all Australians when it comes to the behaviour and practice of our government and parliament. They also highlight, once again, why the reforms called for by the Uluru Statement are more important than ever if we are to achieve real change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165799/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eddie Synot is a Centre Associate with the Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW that works in partnership with the Uluru Dialogue. </span></em></p>The simple truth is that a legislation-first approach to establishing a Voice without constitutional protection is bad policy. And it is not true to the Uluru Statement.Eddie Synot, Lecturer, Griffith Law School, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1579642021-04-08T20:10:03Z2021-04-08T20:10:03ZMost Australians support First Nations Voice to parliament: survey<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393902/original/file-20210407-19-sjjlq8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/04/wa-man-becomes-fifth-indigenous-person-to-die-in-custody-since-start-of-march">deaths in custody of five Indigenous Australians</a> since March highlight the treatment of First Nations peoples as one of the most pressing policy issues facing the Australian government.</p>
<p>They also come at a time when recognition of First Nations peoples in the Constitution faces many barriers, including <a href="https://nit.com.au/prime-minister-says-no-mainstream-support-for-constitutional-recognition-ignores-uluru-statement/">diminishing support from within the government</a>.</p>
<p>Despite this, our research reveals substantial public support for a First Nations Voice to parliament, pressing the case for action.</p>
<p>A First Nations Voice to parliament has been the focus of the push for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians since 2015. After being endorsed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders in the <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a> in 2017, the proposed Voice has also become the centre of efforts to give Indigenous Australians a permanent say in decisions affecting them, and progress meaningful reconciliation.</p>
<p>There are two different ideas for a Voice. The first is to enshrine it in the Constitution, as outlined in the Uluru Statement; the second is simply to legislate it. </p>
<p>Our research shows greater support for the former, which would require a national referendum. It would also require a change in the government’s current preference for a legislated Voice.</p>
<p>Politically, there is a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-voice-to-parliament-isnt-a-new-idea-indigenous-activists-called-for-it-nearly-a-century-ago-122272">long history of resistance</a> to First Nations people having a voice in parliament. Recently, there has also been debate over whether enough Australians would support this reform.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/indigenous-recognition-is-more-than-a-voice-to-government-its-a-matter-of-political-equality-154057">Indigenous recognition is more than a Voice to Government - it's a matter of political equality</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Substantial support for a First Nations Voice</h2>
<p>In 2017, Griffith University’s Australian Constitutional Values Survey showed <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-30/australians-would-support-referendum-indigenous-voice-parliament/9101106">solid public support</a> from the start, contrary to the fears of many leaders.</p>
<p>Now, the 2021 Australian Constitutional Values Survey by CQUniversity and Griffith University shows over 60% of Australians remain in favour of a First Nations Voice to parliament in some form.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="bU7SP" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/bU7SP/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>The nationally representative online survey of over 1,500 Australians was conducted in February. While a quarter of Australians remain undecided, most of those had not heard of the proposal. Only one in eight respondents (12%) was opposed to the idea of a First Nations Voice.</p>
<p>The feedback on why Australians do or don’t value the reform comes at a crucial time, as submissions are being gathered by the federal government’s <a href="https://www.niaa.gov.au/news-centre/indigenous-affairs/consultation-proposals-indigenous-voice-now-underway">co-design process</a> on what the Voice should look like.</p>
<p>Asked why they were in favour, most respondents said establishing a First Nations Voice would be the “right thing to do”, including as a step towards reconciliation. Many respondents also acknowledged the Voice’s role in addressing the ongoing effects of European colonisation. </p>
<p>Respondents also viewed the Voice as an important way of listening to First Nations peoples, improving policies and making a practical difference. Others saw the Voice as a way to recognise the special status of First Nations peoples as the country’s traditional owners. </p>
<p>These objectives and principles also have an impact on the form most Australians think the Voice should take.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/proposed-indigenous-voice-will-be-to-government-rather-than-to-parliament-126031">Proposed Indigenous 'voice' will be to government rather than to parliament</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Preference for constitutional rather than legislated Voice</h2>
<p>Voice proposals began as the pathway to meaningful recognition of Indigenous peoples in Australia’s Constitution, described by <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-doesn-t-make-sense-without-indigenous-recognition-noel-pearson-20210317-p57bfk.html">Indigenous leader Noel Pearson</a> as our “longest standing and unresolved project for justice”. </p>
<p>However, some leaders still question the constitutional goal, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/not-our-policy-scott-morrison-rejects-push-for-referendum-on-voice-20210318-p57bxc.html">fearing a lack of public support</a>.</p>
<p>Constitutional recognition would require a strong vote in a national referendum, similar to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/right-wrongs-write-yes-what-was-the-1967-referendum-all-about-76512">historic result in 1967</a> that <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2017/May/The_1967_Referendum">allowed</a> government to make laws for Aboriginal people and include them in the census.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393906/original/file-20210407-21-194t3re.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/393906/original/file-20210407-21-194t3re.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393906/original/file-20210407-21-194t3re.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393906/original/file-20210407-21-194t3re.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393906/original/file-20210407-21-194t3re.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393906/original/file-20210407-21-194t3re.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/393906/original/file-20210407-21-194t3re.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Indigenous leader Noel Pearson describes constitutional recognition as our ‘longest standing and unresolved project for justice’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A predictable “fallback” is to simply legislate the Voice rather than enshrine it in the Constitution. This strategy was reinforced by <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/not-our-policy-scott-morrison-rejects-push-for-referendum-on-voice-20210318-p57bxc.html">Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s</a> insistence that constitutional change is not on the agenda, claiming a lack of any</p>
<blockquote>
<p>clear consensus proposal at this stage, which would suggest mainstream support in the Indigenous community or elsewhere.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But our survey indicates this fallback option would fall short of public expectations. Over half of all respondents (51.3%) said they would be in favour of enshrining the Voice via constitutional change. Only a quarter (26.3%) said they would still be in favour of the Voice as only a legislated reform, with no constitutional recognition. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/lessons-of-1967-referendum-still-apply-to-debates-on-constitutional-recognition-76725">Lessons of 1967 referendum still apply to debates on constitutional recognition</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Many Australians are still undecided, but the results show that if the plan is said to be supported by Indigenous Australians, this would make a difference for many of those on the fence.</p>
<p>The scope for a positive 1967-style result, therefore, remains substantial and real.</p>
<p>Compared to a legislated Voice, a constitutional Voice would benefit from greater stability because its existence would be guaranteed. A constitutional Voice would also deliver <a href="https://theconversation.com/indigenous-recognition-is-more-than-a-voice-to-government-its-a-matter-of-political-equality-154057">recognition</a> called for by many Indigenous Australians. </p>
<p>The low public support for a legislated option also reinforces arguments that successful constitutional change would give <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-indigenous-voice-must-be-enshrined-in-our-constitution-heres-why-153635">more popular legitimacy than a legislated Voice</a>, directly engaging the entire community and making the reform part of Australian history. </p>
<p>The results also indicate Australians see the practical value of making the Voice permanent by putting it in Australia’s founding document. This means it could not be simply abolished by future parliaments.</p>
<p>With only 21% of Australians against a constitutional Voice - as opposed to 34% against a purely legislated one - there is wide opportunity to pave the way to successful constitutional recognition once the co-design process has resolved questions of the Voice’s functions and form.</p>
<p>Creating a First Nations Voice to parliament is now the obvious way forward. The government is committed to establishing it, and general public support is solidifying. This is a remarkable testament to how the idea has resonated with people.</p>
<p>But the important lesson to consider is that the core of public support lies in establishing the Voice in the Constitution as a step on the journey towards reconciliation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157964/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacob Deem declares that the Australian Constitutional Values Survey 2021 was funded by CQUniversity through a New Staff Research Grant and by Griffith University Business School.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>A J Brown receives funding from Griffith Business School and the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Bird does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New research reveals high support for a First National Voice to be enshrined in the Constitution.Jacob Deem, Lecturer - Law, CQUniversity AustraliaA J Brown, Professor of Public Policy & Law, Centre for Governance & Public Policy, Griffith UniversitySusan Bird, Lecturer in Law, CQUniversity AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1540572021-02-26T03:40:50Z2021-02-26T03:40:50ZIndigenous recognition is more than a Voice to Government - it’s a matter of political equality<p>The government earlier this year released a <a href="https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/indigenous-voice-discussion-paper_1.pdf">discussion paper</a> exploring how an Indigenous Voice to government might work. </p>
<p>The Voice to government is not the same as the Voice to parliament that the <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a> proposed in 2017. This is because the government doesn’t support the Uluru idea of a distinctive Indigenous body enshrined in the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/constitution">constitution</a>. </p>
<p>Instead, it prefers a body set up by an act of parliament. The government of the day could change its powers, or even abolish it, as it pleases. The powers could be expansive, but equally, they could be meaningless.</p>
<p>A Voice established under the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/constitution">constitution</a>, meanwhile, would have the authority of the Australian people. This idea has attracted <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2020/07/15/hugely-encouraging-voice-parliament-advocates-boosted-poll">majority support in public opinion polls</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/toxicity-swirls-around-january-26-but-we-can-change-the-nation-with-a-voice-to-parliament-153623">Toxicity swirls around January 26, but we can change the nation with a Voice to parliament</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recognition goes beyond mere symbolism</h2>
<p>The government’s <a href="https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/indigenous-voice-discussion-paper_1.pdf">discussion paper</a> is open for consultation. Indigenous people will form views on how it compares with the aspirations of the Uluru Statement. </p>
<p>But either way, constitutional recognition for Indigenous people is an important concept for every citizen. How and where political authority is exercised — and by whom — determines how fairly and effectively Australian democracy works. </p>
<p>A symbolic act that just acknowledges Indigenous prior occupancy without making any substantive changes to the constitution or opportunities for meaningful Indigenous political participation isn’t enough. </p>
<p>The Canadian First Nations’ writer, <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oy90DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=%22recognition%22+coulthard&ots=ohySyzh090&sig=550dL6mSbVcX05gQaDT83mn9NPU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22recognition%22%20coulthard&f=false">Glen Coulthard</a>, argues strongly against recognition because he says symbolism makes the state feel like it’s being inclusive, but doesn’t actually mean that Indigenous people have real influence over policies that matter to them.</p>
<p>In my recently published book, <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-33-4172-2">Sharing the Sovereign: Indigenous Peoples, Recognition, Treaties and the State</a>, I take a different view. </p>
<p>I argue that recognition is a theory of political freedom, which means that every person is equally entitled to help influence the society in which they live. And equally entitled to make decisions about how they will live. </p>
<p>A Voice to Parliament is an example of what these ideas could mean in practice.</p>
<h2>Voice is more than a right to ‘input’</h2>
<p>The government’s consultation paper says Indigenous people are entitled to “<a href="https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/indigenous-voice-discussion-paper_1.pdf">input</a>” into these decisions. </p>
<p>Input, however, is a limited political authority. It makes recognition a small ambition, just as it was when the Howard government proposed that recognition could be satisfied by an <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2010/November/Constitutional_recognition_of_Indigenous_people">amendment to the constitution</a> </p>
<blockquote>
<p>honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people, or their deep kinship with their lands and for the ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Recognition, rather, is really about sovereignty, or how political authority is distributed. In Australia, sovereignty is often understood as an absolute political authority that the state exercises over and above the people. But in practice, sovereignty actually refers to the people’s authority to determine how and by whom they will be governed. </p>
<p>It is the authority to elect parliaments and to amend the constitution. The authority to share in public decision-making. This is much more than the right to have an “<a href="https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/indigenous-voice-discussion-paper_1.pdf">input</a>”. </p>
<p>Sharing the sovereign means ensuring political structures give people meaningful opportunities to influence and make decisions. It isn’t just a matter of recognising Indigenous people were living here before the British settlers arrived. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-government-is-committed-to-an-indigenous-voice-we-should-give-it-a-chance-to-work-126683">The government is committed to an Indigenous voice. We should give it a chance to work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Everybody’s right to political participation</h2>
<p>Recognising everybody’s right to be equal participants in deciding how society works is a complex task, but it is not beyond a liberal democracy’s capacity to work out. </p>
<p>In New Zealand, Maori have had guaranteed representation in parliament since 1867, and five of the 20 ministers in Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s cabinet are Maori. </p>
<p>This week, parliament passed legislation to remove a discriminatory obstacle to Maori representation in local government. </p>
<p>In British Columbia, Canada, a law has been passed to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-nz-and-australia-can-learn-from-british-columbias-implementation-of-indigenous-rights-128221">focused on</a> ensuring Indigenous peoples enjoy the right to self-determination.</p>
<p>The purpose of a liberal democracy is to manage the differences in what people say they want politics to achieve — and differences in people’s understandings of what it means to be free and equal. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/guaranteed-maori-representation-in-local-government-is-about-self-determination-and-its-good-for-democracy-154538">Guaranteed Māori representation in local government is about self-determination — and it's good for democracy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In this light, recognition can be transformative — not merely a symbolic step.</p>
<p>Ultimately, whether they are supported or not, the Commonwealth’s proposals for a Voice to government have provided us with a way of thinking about the meaning of political equality. </p>
<p>But the proposal to establish a representative body only by legislation is limited and limiting.</p>
<p>Recognition, on the hand, should be enduring and certain. Denying a referendum to give constitutional certainty to the Voice means the government is standing between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people on this question of political equality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/154057/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dominic O'Sullivan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Recognition is about sovereignty, or how political authority is distributed. It can be transformative — not merely a symbolic step.Dominic O'Sullivan, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology and Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1536232021-01-24T18:53:43Z2021-01-24T18:53:43ZToxicity swirls around January 26, but we can change the nation with a Voice to parliament<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380123/original/file-20210122-15-x3x366.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We are on the eve of the nation’s <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-24/opinions-on-australia-day-split-on-generational-lines/13081322">annual ritual</a> of celebrating the arrivals, while not formally recognising the ancient peoples who were dispossessed.</p>
<p>Each year the tensions spill over, rendering Australia Day/Invasion Day/Survival Day <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/13/invasion-day-protest-in-sydney-set-to-go-ahead-despite-coronavirus-restrictions">a protest</a> as much as a celebration. </p>
<p>But there is a quiet process underway, aimed at achieving substantive recognition of the First Nations that has so far eluded Australia. </p>
<h2>A new report on an Indigenous Voice</h2>
<p>This process of constitutional recognition is now in its second decade — yes, it has been ten years since the process began. In early January, to kick off the second decade, Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt released the <a href="https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/indigenous-voice-codesign-process-interim-report-2020.pdf">Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Interim Report</a>. </p>
<p>It runs to almost 300 pages and offers First Nations peoples <a href="https://haveyoursay.voice.niaa.gov.au">about three months</a> to provide a response. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380314/original/file-20210124-19-19nt2kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380314/original/file-20210124-19-19nt2kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380314/original/file-20210124-19-19nt2kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380314/original/file-20210124-19-19nt2kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=431&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380314/original/file-20210124-19-19nt2kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380314/original/file-20210124-19-19nt2kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380314/original/file-20210124-19-19nt2kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=542&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt has just released a paper on an Indigenous Voice.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">David Mariuz/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The genesis for the Voice lies in the historic 2017 <a href="https://theconversation.com/constitutional-reform-made-easy-how-to-achieve-the-uluru-statement-and-a-first-nations-voice-116141">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a> and First Nations’ preference for a constitutionally enshrined Voice.</p>
<p>The report is a solid first run at designing a Voice. It brings Australia a step closer to realising the <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/">Uluru Statement</a>. But it falls short of the Voice to parliament sought by those consulted in the lead up to the Uluru Statement and the statement itself. </p>
<h2>A Voice for the voiceless</h2>
<p>Previously, <a href="https://theconversation.com/constitutional-recognition-for-indigenous-australians-must-involve-structural-change-not-mere-symbolism-131751">I have set out</a> the lengthy and complex process that has led us to this point.</p>
<p>I have also explained why First Nations people chose a constitutionally protected Voice as both symbolic and substantive recognition — and why a legislated voice is not able to deliver the transformative change communities so desperately need. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Young Indigenous woman holds her fist to the sky." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380313/original/file-20210124-15-1qtxhc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380313/original/file-20210124-15-1qtxhc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380313/original/file-20210124-15-1qtxhc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380313/original/file-20210124-15-1qtxhc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380313/original/file-20210124-15-1qtxhc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380313/original/file-20210124-15-1qtxhc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380313/original/file-20210124-15-1qtxhc0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The process of constitutional recognition for First Nations peoples is now in its second decade.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The push for a Voice came from the voiceless — those less likely to be afforded a seat at the table in Indigenous affairs — because the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjAn_fc-LPuAhVywTgGHQsKDnIQFjABegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2FDocumentStore.ashx%3Fid%3Db66a382a-d3b2-4030-a52f-2b0c6492f644%26subId%3D662832&usg=AOvVaw1HPdhFxa0XO-IzPl1bxkH9">regional dialogues</a> privileged their participation. </p>
<p>It was their view that those who filled the leadership vacuum left by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (<a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/Current_Issues_Briefs_2004_-_2005/05cib04">abolished in 2005</a>) were unrepresentative. This includes ever-present and overbearing Commonwealth bureaucracy on Indigenous affairs and other organisations who purport to represent community but are not accountable back to community.</p>
<p>In 2018, the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/constitutionalrecognition">joint parliamentary committee</a> on the Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Peoples — chaired by Labor’s Pat Dodson and Liberal MP Julian Leeser — found the Voice was the only viable constitutional option. But it also found the concept required more meat on the bones before Australians could vote at a referendum. It said this should be done through “co-design” with First Nations peoples. </p>
<p>The 2019 budget saw <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/federal-budget-money-for-indigenous-voice">$7.3 million </a>for a co-design process for the Voice and <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fpartypol%2F6725182%22;src1=sm1">$160 million</a> for a future referendum once a model is determined. The Coalition’s 2019 election policy also reflected the two-step approach:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A referendum will be held once a model has been settled, consistent with the recommendations of the [Dodson/Leeser] Committee. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The interim Voice report is the settling of that model.</p>
<h2>A Voice to government only?</h2>
<p>Wyatt has been clear in the past he is only designing a “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-15/ken-wyatt-wants-indigenous-voice-laws-to-pass-before-election/12885306">Voice to government</a>”, which aligns with his worldview as a career public servant. </p>
<p>However, the Voice <a href="https://voice.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-01/indigenous-voice-codesign-process-interim-report-2020.pdf">interim report</a> expressly sets out two components for comment: a Voice to government and a Voice to parliament. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ken-wyatts-proposed-voice-to-government-marks-another-failure-to-hear-indigenous-voices-126103">Ken Wyatt's proposed 'voice to government' marks another failure to hear Indigenous voices</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Voice to government component is one for First Nations communities to contemplate. </p>
<p>Only First Nations people on the ground can tell the inquiry whether the various local and regional mechanisms function in the way the report suggests they do. Only they can tell the government whether they feel their voices are represented effectively by the structures and entities that exist. This is why their input is so crucial to this report.</p>
<p>It is important to note that at the regional dialogues that led to the Uluru Statement, there was not a single existing entity that communities identified as representing their voices. National peak bodies and constituent organisations, were expressly singled out in regional dialogues as not representing grassroots voices. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/constitutional-recognition-for-indigenous-australians-must-involve-structural-change-not-mere-symbolism-131751">Constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians must involve structural change, not mere symbolism</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>They were also criticised for being unaccountable and not reporting back to communities about what they say and do in Canberra. </p>
<p>Even so, the interim report has some alignment with the Uluru dialogue’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uluru-statement-is-not-a-vague-idea-of-being-heard-but-deliberate-structural-reform-142820">deliberative method </a>, this includes the proposed transitional arrangements for local and regional entities, allowing communities to conceive of and design new entities. </p>
<p>However, it is difficult to gauge whether this can give voice to the voiceless.</p>
<h2>Voice to parliament falls short</h2>
<p>The Voice to parliament component of the interim report opens the door to submissions on a constitutional Voice. There is no other way to assess the efficacy of the legislated approach, which unsurprisingly <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/our-story">falls short of the voice</a> sought by delegates at the <a href="https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/event/first-nations-regional-dialogue-in-uluru.html">regional dialogues</a>, the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/UluruStatement">national constitutional convention</a> and in the Uluru Statement. </p>
<p>This is because the Uluru Statement sought a mandated place at the table with the force of law. The interim report falls short of this by studiously <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-will-get-no-veto-power-under-interim-proposal">avoiding power</a>. </p>
<p>While the proposal suggests there is an “obligation to consult” on race power matters and “expectation to consult” on broader matters, there is no power that animates an actual obligation. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Invasion Day protesters" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380315/original/file-20210124-21-tfwj4r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380315/original/file-20210124-21-tfwj4r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380315/original/file-20210124-21-tfwj4r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380315/original/file-20210124-21-tfwj4r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380315/original/file-20210124-21-tfwj4r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380315/original/file-20210124-21-tfwj4r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380315/original/file-20210124-21-tfwj4r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">January 26 is as much about protest as it is about BBQs and a public holiday.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">James Ross/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After all, it is based on legislation that can be overridden by subsequent legislation, which is par for the course in Indigenous affairs. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/09/indigenous-voice-to-parliament-to-have-no-veto-power-under-interim-plans">Media reports</a> talk of the “obligation to consult” on race power as if it is hard law, but this Voice is mediated by the government of the day and therefore the antithesis of what people sought. </p>
<p>It carefully crafts a process that still renders the voice supine to government. This is both in terms of reporting to a parliamentary committee and the transparency mechanisms, where inevitably, the government becomes the Indigenous Voice to parliament.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-day-invasion-day-survival-day-a-long-history-of-celebration-and-contestation-70278">Australia Day, Invasion Day, Survival Day: a long history of celebration and contestation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The most prominent misalignment with the dialogues was they wanted a voice protected by the Constitution via a referendum, so it could survive successive governments and avoid being subject to the whim of the government of the day. </p>
<p>This would give our communities the certainty and security they need to make long-term plans for the future. First Nations peoples understand our affairs are a political football. And that our working and community lives are subject to a three-year cycle of one government to the next. It is a driver of disadvantage. </p>
<p>This is why so many <a href="https://alc.org.au/newsroom/media-releases/voice-proposal-good-start-but-falls-short-of-uluru-aspirations/">Indigenous organisations</a> are expressing disappointment at this proposal. The “anything is better than nothing” approach does not apply when the change is akin to the status quo; it just looks more officious with more squiggly flow charts. </p>
<h2>A path to friendship</h2>
<p>This is now an opportunity for Australians and First Nations peoples to make their views clearly heard. It is only an interim report, and it requires the feedback of many.</p>
<p>All Australians want to find a way through the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-day-i-dont-feel-australian-that-would-be-australia-day-36352">annual debates</a> about Captain Cook, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/22/cant-compare-cathy-freeman-blasts-scott-morrisons-26-january-first-fleet-comments">First Fleet</a> and national identity, to a more inclusive and nuanced narrative of who we are. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/an-indigenous-voice-must-be-enshrined-in-our-constitution-heres-why-153635">An Indigenous 'Voice' must be enshrined in our Constitution. Here's why</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Survey research shows a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/12/essential-poll-majority-of-australians-want-indigenous-recognition-and-voice-to-parliament">clear majority</a> of Australians want to recognise a First Nations Voice in the Constitution. </p>
<p>As we approach yet another national day replete with swirling toxicity, the path to friendship offered by the Uluru Statement — an expression of peace — provides a roadmap for Australia. </p>
<p>This is not about changing the date, but changing the nation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153623/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Megan Davis receives funding from the Australian Research Council and is affiliated with the Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW and was a Referendum Council member.</span></em></p>There is a quiet process underway, aimed at achieving the recognition of the First Nations that has so far eluded Australia.Megan Davis, Pro Vice-Chancellor Indigenous UNSW and Professor of Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1416092020-07-08T02:03:42Z2020-07-08T02:03:42ZLidia Thorpe wants to shift course on Indigenous recognition. Here’s why we must respect the Uluru Statement<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/345730/original/file-20200706-33922-bixklw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=345%2C13%2C2380%2C1971&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Luis Ascui/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Gunnai-Kurnai and Gunditjmara woman Lidia Thorpe was recently elected by Greens party members to replace the former party leader, Richard Di Natale, as <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-20/lidia-thorpe-to-replace-richard-di-natale-in-greens-senate-seat/12376564">senator</a> for Victoria.</p>
<p>Thorpe is the first Indigenous woman to represent the Greens in federal parliament. She brings a welcome diversity of experiences and perspectives. There is understandable interest in her views on Indigenous issues. </p>
<p>Since entering the Senate, Thorpe has renewed her public engagement with the reform proposals of the <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a>. The statement calls for the constitutional entrenchment and protection of </p>
<ul>
<li><p>a First Nations Voice to Parliament to advise government on laws and policies that impact on Indigenous affairs</p></li>
<li><p>a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-10/makarrata-explainer-yolngu-word-more-than-synonym-for-treaty/8790452">Makarrata Commission</a> to supervise processes of treaty-making and truth-telling.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Most First Nations representatives championing the Uluru Statement are focusing first on the co-design of the Voice to Parliament proposal with government. They see the Makarrata Commission and its goals as the next step in the sequence.</p>
<p>The Greens have endorsed the Uluru Statement, but Thorpe has a different take on what she believes should be priorities for Indigenous leaders. She <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/without-treaty-incoming-senator-can-t-feel-part-of-team-australia-20200625-p55649.html">argues</a> a treaty should come first – not the Voice to Parliament.</p>
<p>However, a Voice to Parliament as a first step is a practical way forward, enabling First Nations to guide treaty-making processes. A change like this would be significant.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1276541253564293121"}"></div></p>
<h2>The path to Uluru</h2>
<p>The Uluru Statement was the outcome of an extensive consultation process. It emerged from 13 regional dialogues and the subsequent <a href="https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/event/first-nations-regional-dialogue-in-uluru.html">First Nations National Constitutional Convention of 2017</a>. This process was key to reaching a First Nations <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/UluruStatement">consensus</a> embedded with elder and community authority.</p>
<p>Throughout that process, First Nations people affirmed the immediate need for practical and meaningful changes to Australia’s governance structure. The most immediate proposed change was for a representative First Nations political voice. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/there-are-many-ways-to-achieve-indigenous-recognition-in-the-constitution-we-must-find-one-we-can-agree-on-142163">There are many ways to achieve Indigenous recognition in the constitution – we must find one we can agree on</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Voice to Parliament would give First Nations people a say on the laws and policies that affect their affairs. This is essential given the history in Australia of forgetting, marginalising or silencing First Nations perspectives, which continues today. </p>
<p>The Uluru proposal would also entrench the Voice in the constitution to protect against the possibility of being extinguished. This was the fate of the <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/media-releases/statement-atsic">Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission</a> (ATSIC) – the only previous Indigenous representative agency with substantial program and policy responsibilities.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/UluruStatement">majority</a> of the 250 First Nations leaders at the convention agreed to the Uluru Statement. But that does not mean all Indigenous people agree with its proposals. </p>
<p>Thorpe was among a small group of delegates who walked out of the convention in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/25/uluru-talks-delegates-walk-out-due-to-sovereignty-and-treaty-fears">protest</a>. Other Indigenous people have also <a href="https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/aboriginal-issues-are-still-not-a-vote-winner">challenged</a> the Voice proposal, <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2019/07/12/michael-mansell-if-choice-between-treaty-or-voice-i-say-treaty#:%7E:text=After%20a%20treaty%20is%20made,from%20unilaterally%20altering%20the%20treaty.&text=Peter%20Dutton%20says%20the%20government,expectations%20about%20Indigenous%20constitutional%20recognition.">preferring</a> a treaty process. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1279570244218941440"}"></div></p>
<h2>Why follow the Uluru sequence of reform?</h2>
<p>Yet, preserving the sequence proposed in the Uluru Statement respects the cultural authority of the reform process. </p>
<p>And diverging from a consensus outcome undermines the integrity of the consultative process that led to it. It can also devalue the standing of those elders who together designed the proposed reforms. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-voice-to-parliament-isnt-a-new-idea-indigenous-activists-called-for-it-nearly-a-century-ago-122272">The Voice to Parliament isn't a new idea - Indigenous activists called for it nearly a century ago</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Following the Uluru sequence ensures the word “self” remains key to the concept of self-determination for Indigenous peoples. </p>
<p>To put this in global perspective, all people around the world are recognised by the UN as having the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx">right to self-determination</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since 2009, Australia has affirmed its support for the <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf">UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples</a>. This declaration does not create new human rights, but puts universal rights in the context of Indigenous peoples’ lives and aspirations.</p>
<p>Article 4, for instance, states</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And Article 5 says</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the Australian context, First Nations people are not seeking to exercise self-determination by forming an independent nation state. They are, however, calling for respect for their never-ceded sovereignty. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cSoZArRXYLw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>This is a challenge for the Australian legal and political system, and for Australian society. It does not square neatly with the idea of a single political unit. It unsettles the assumption that a majoritarian democracy (in which a majority of voters decide the outcome of elections) can ensure equitable representation of citizens. </p>
<p>This takes us back to the idea of a Voice. The Voice to Parliament provides a platform for First Nations people to work in partnership with parliament. The Voice will challenge parliament to confront the hurdles preventing Indigenous people from exercising self-determination and other human rights.</p>
<p>One such hurdle – the over-policing and disproportionate <a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/pathways-to-justice-inquiry-into-the-incarceration-rate-of-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-alrc-report-133/executive-summary-15/disproportionate-incarceration-rate/">incarceration</a> of Indigenous people – is at the centre of the current <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/06/australian-black-lives-matter-protests-tens-of-thousands-demand-end-to-indigenous-deaths-in-custody">protest</a> movement.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/constitutional-recognition-for-indigenous-australians-must-involve-structural-change-not-mere-symbolism-131751">Constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians must involve structural change, not mere symbolism</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Does the Voice limit further reform potential?</h2>
<p>We acknowledge Thorpe’s position that constitutional reform is a distraction from the main aim of achieving a reckoning through treaty. </p>
<p>We agree, as lawyers, that only treaty-making can fundamentally shift the foundations of a legal system built on dispossession and denial of First Nations sovereignty. </p>
<p>Where we diverge from Thorpe is in our view that the Voice to Parliament can be a pragmatic first step in the deeper reform process Australia needs. </p>
<p>A political voice and standing – if constitutionally entrenched – can bring many more First Nations voices into the political arena and progress the unsettling of the Australian legal system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141609/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Greens senator-elect believes a treaty should be prioritised over a Voice to Parliament. But we believe a Voice can be a pragmatic first step toward deeper reform.Dani Linder, Associate Lecturer in Law, University of NewcastleAmy Maguire, Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1317512020-02-17T18:54:26Z2020-02-17T18:54:26ZConstitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians must involve structural change, not mere symbolism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/315432/original/file-20200214-11011-ilzt87.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In his <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/address-closing-gap-statement-parliament">Closing the Gap speech</a> to parliament last week, the prime minister injected some order and transparency back into the constitutional recognition process.</p>
<p>The PM anchored his government’s work on the co-design of a Voice to Government back to the <a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/235106662?selectedversion=NBD64864904">2018 parliamentary inquiry</a> led by Senators Pat Dodson and Julian Leeser. By doing this, he recognised the trajectory of hard work undertaken by politicians and the public for nearly a decade.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/constitutionalrecognition">Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples</a> reviewed the Referendum Council’s report and Uluru Statement from the Heart. It produced the most <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Former_Committees/Constitutional_Recognition_2018/ConstRecognition/Final_Report">recent report</a> in a long list of public processes on Indigenous constitutional recognition. </p>
<p>In the past nine years, there have been five formal, taxpayer-funded, government-endorsed processes, a legislated framework, the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00018">Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013</a> (the Act of Recognition) and eight reports. </p>
<p>The game-changer, Leeser and Dodson acknowledge, was the Referendum Council’s work. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ken-wyatts-proposed-voice-to-government-marks-another-failure-to-hear-indigenous-voices-126103">Ken Wyatt's proposed 'voice to government' marks another failure to hear Indigenous voices</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Dodson-Leeser report found that a Voice to Parliament (<a href="https://theconversation.com/proposed-indigenous-voice-will-be-to-government-rather-than-to-parliament-126031">as opposed to government</a>) was the only viable reform proposal following the Referendum Council’s deliberative process of 2016 and 2017. It recommended that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>following a process of co-design, the Australian government consider, in a deliberate and timely manner, legislative, executive and constitutional options to establish the Voice.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Symbolism is not enough</h2>
<p>This is why so many people were utterly confounded when Ken Wyatt, the minister for Indigenous Australians, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-17/ken-wyatt-calls-for-constitutional-referendum-indigenous-voice/11613672">unilaterally decided</a> there would be a referendum on Indigenous recognition with a symbolic proposal – likely a statement of recognition – that no one was advocating for. </p>
<p>This proposal was recently rejected by the constitutional dialogues and in the 2017 <a href="https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a>. It was also rejected before that in the 2015 <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2015/37.pdf">Kirribilli Statement</a>.</p>
<p>Then, last month, the minister announced a firm deadline for a referendum on symbolism to be held in mid-2021. Confusion reigned.</p>
<p>The consistent rejection of symbolic recognition proposals is poorly understood. One of the challenges of this work has been the very word “recognition”, <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/parliament-votes-for-indigenous-recognition/news-story/e6edec0052ffb82e1a7f510348350291">as adopted by the then prime minister</a>, Julia Gillard, in 2010. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/more-first-nations-people-in-parliament-matters-heres-why-115633">More First Nations people in parliament matters. Here’s why.</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>“Recognition” is a term commonly used in constitutional law and political science, and it has a technical meaning in the context of power relations. </p>
<p>Recognition can come in a weak form, such as symbolism. (It’s weak because it does not change the status quo.) Or it can be a strong form, such as designated parliamentary seats, a voice or even an autonomous region.</p>
<p>However, the dictionary meaning of recognition is “acknowledgement”. Until the Uluru Statement, in the absence of an agreed model of recognition, the public discussion on Indigenous recognition reverted to this meaning – acknowledgement. </p>
<p>However important symbols are to Aboriginal people, nine years of this work shows, incontrovertibly, that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples do not seek more symbols. And certainly not in the constitution, which distributes power across the federation. They seek change that can make a concrete difference to their lives.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/315427/original/file-20200214-11011-1rp59ob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/315427/original/file-20200214-11011-1rp59ob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/315427/original/file-20200214-11011-1rp59ob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/315427/original/file-20200214-11011-1rp59ob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/315427/original/file-20200214-11011-1rp59ob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/315427/original/file-20200214-11011-1rp59ob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/315427/original/file-20200214-11011-1rp59ob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Indigenous leaders met Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten to discuss constitutional recognition at Kirribilli in 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/David Moir</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The only viable option for constitutional reform</h2>
<p>The critical moment when Indigenous leaders expressly disavowed symbolic recognition came in 2015. </p>
<p>Leaders from across Australia gathered to speak with the then prime minister, Tony Abbott, and the then opposition leader, Bill Shorten, at Kirribilli House to talk about the direction recognition was headed, with fears there were plans for more symbolism. </p>
<p>The 40 Indigenous leaders present adopted the Kirribilli Statement. It read:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] [A]ny reform must involve substantive changes to the Australian Constitution. It must lay the foundation for the fair treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples into the future.</p>
<p>A minimalist approach that provides recognition in the Constitution’s preamble, removes <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s25.html">section 25</a> and moderates the race power <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html">section 51(xxvi)</a> does not go far enough, and would not be acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>During the Kirribilli meeting, we requested a new and ongoing dialogue between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the government to negotiate the proposal to be put to referendum. They listened. The Referendum Council was set up.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-indigenous-community-deserves-a-voice-in-the-constitution-will-the-nation-finally-listen-107710">The Indigenous community deserves a voice in the constitution. Will the nation finally listen?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The constitutional dialogues confirmed there was no appetite for symbolic gestures. After the final constitutional convention at Uluru, the Referendum Council recommended a referendum be held to provide in the constitution for a representative body that gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples a Voice to Parliament. </p>
<p>Dodson and Leeser’s report found the Voice was the only viable option for constitutional reform. The report recommended a co-design before deciding on the legal form. </p>
<p>It’s a critical point not readily understood that the Voice, which is a simple enabling provision in the constitution, is regarded as <em>both</em> substantive and symbolic recognition.</p>
<h2>Mixed messages on recognition</h2>
<p>Almost a decade of work has gone into this issue, including extensive consultation with Indigenous peoples and the wider Australian public, education programs and the design of constitutional proposals and referendum ballot papers. Australians from all walks of life, including politicians from across the political spectrum, have contributed to this body of work. </p>
<p>After Dodson and Leeser recommended co-design and then consideration of the legal form to follow in December 2018, the 2019 federal budget contained funding for this and a referendum. Leading into the 2019 election, the ALP committed to holding a referendum on the Voice to Parliament.</p>
<p>Following the election, however, matters became less clear. </p>
<p>Wyatt confused many because of his <a href="https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/uncertainty-and-cause-for-concern-uluru-statement-leaders-voice-disapproval-at-wyatt-20191020-p532hd.html">inconsistent public pronouncements</a>. Unusually for an Indigenous affairs minister, he did not reply to a letter from key Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders from land councils, native title bodies and peak organisations seeking a meeting to clarify his thinking until <a href="https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/don-t-silence-our-voice-minister-uluru-leaders-condemn-backward-step-20191020-p532h0.html">he was prompted by the media many months later</a>.</p>
<p>This year began with the minister stating once again that a constitutional Voice, a Makarrata Commission and truth-telling were <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/indigenous-leaders-barred-from-discussing-constitutional-reform-20200211-p53zmw.html">off the table</a>, disavowing entirely the past nine years of work and the Uluru Statement. </p>
<p>His co-design process talks of a “Voice to Government”, not a Voice to Parliament. The minister has also pre-empted the co-design by insisting the Voice to Government would use existing institutions and structures. </p>
<p>This is the complete opposite of the sentiment of the Uluru dialogues, which stated that no existing organisation or entity represents their Voice.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ken-wyatts-proposed-voice-to-government-marks-another-failure-to-hear-indigenous-voices-126103">Ken Wyatt's proposed 'voice to government' marks another failure to hear Indigenous voices</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Wyatt’s decision to set a firm deadline of mid-2021 for a referendum on a proposal no one wants was bewildering. </p>
<p>His own party room said <a href="https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/indigenous-australians-minister-ken-wyatt-staring-down-a-revolt-over-constitutional-recognition-ng-b881454003z">they had not been consulted</a> on this. Setting hard timelines for negotiations creates unnecessary pressure for any government. It is notable a spokesperson for the minister <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous-referendum-plans-would-ignore-uluru-statement-work/news-story/e490ff40325bef3cd2586bdf8744f5ae">quietly retracted</a> that firm deadline the next day. </p>
<h2>The one reform Australia has never tried</h2>
<p>This week signifies a restoration of order to constitutional recognition. The prime minister and opposition leader both presented important speeches on Closing the Gap. Labor is consistently supportive of a constitutionally enshrined Voice. </p>
<p>Scott Morrison reverted to the two-pronged approach, which is co-design and then decide the legal form. Many mob chipped the prime minister this week for deploying the language of listening and empowerment when Commonwealth policies and initiatives, such as the <a href="https://www.indigenous.gov.au/indigenous-advancement-strategy">Indigenous Advancement Strategy</a> and <a href="https://closingthegap.niaa.gov.au/">Closing the Gap</a>, demonstrate governments and bureaucrats do not listen to our voice and cannot deliver change. Even so, his important intervention was welcomed.</p>
<p>In the absence of a constitutionally entrenched Voice, there is no obligation on the state to listen. I have consistently argued as a constitutional lawyer, as others have, that structural reform is what is required for transformative change.</p>
<p>This is the one reform Australia has never tried. This is why the Uluru Statement invites all Australians to walk with us now for the structural change that many have been working hard on for almost a decade.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/131751/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Megan Davis receives funding from Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Australians have been working towards meaningful change for almost a decade. That cannot be derailed by reverting to symbolic recognition.Megan Davis, Professor of Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1275272019-11-21T10:22:48Z2019-11-21T10:22:48ZGrattan on Friday: Scott Morrison will go into 2020 with a challenging cluster of policy loose ends<p>Scott Morrison’s government is heading to the end of 2019 amid a debate about its economic judgement and with a number of substantial policy moves started but not completed.</p>
<p>Morrison this week delivered to an audience from big business what was described as his most important speech for the rest of the year. He wanted the voters to know the government is not – underscore NOT – panicking about the economy.</p>
<p>Even so, it is putting in a little extra stimulus by fast tracking some infrastructure.</p>
<p>Whether the government should be panicking is the question - we’ll be able to better answer that when the September quarter national accounts are released next month.</p>
<p>Morrison points out that since the election the Coalition has injected an additional $9.5 billion for 2019-20 and 2020-21 - through tax relief, the infrastructure bring-forwards and extra funding, and drought assistance to communities.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/government-to-inject-economic-stimulus-by-accelerating-infrastructure-spend-127358">This week’s modest infrastructure initiative</a> will amount to little in itself in terms of economic activity - it is a holding message as the government waits to see whether it will have to do more in the near term while firming up plans for its preferred timetable of some action in the budget.</p>
<p>Next week begins the year’s final parliamentary fortnight, with the main attention on the fate of two bills.</p>
<p>The ensuring integrity legislation, to crack down on bad behaviour in the union movement, seemed set to pass the Senate last week. After amendments had been promised to Centre Alliance, the government needed just one extra vote out of the combined three votes of One Nation and Jacqui Lambie.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-courting-quiet-australians-from-bubble-central-its-been-a-remarkable-first-year-for-scott-morrison-122260">Grattan on Friday: Courting 'quiet Australians' from 'bubble central', it's been a remarkable first year for Scott Morrison</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Lambie had earlier declared she’d support the legislation if maverick construction union official John Setka didn’t quit his post (which he has no intention of doing).</p>
<p>Then Lambie baulked, worried about the danger of some unions being caught on technical breaches. Pauline Hanson’s attention, meanwhile, was on other things. Hanson has now engaged with amendments; the government has done more tweaking; the legislation again seems set to pass.</p>
<p>The other bill in the spotlight would repeal medevac. The government’s determination on this is driven by its desire to look tough (and reverse the humiliation the passage of medevac inflicted on it) rather than by need. Medevac applies only to the dwindling number of people still in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, not to any future arrivals; the people smuggling trade hasn’t restarted.</p>
<p>Lambie is the swing vote on the repeal bill and, for reasons unclear, she has been refusing to disclose her position. The bill is on the Senate notice paper for Wednesday.</p>
<p>Beyond immediate legislation, and despite the conventional commentary about it lacking an “agenda”, the government in fact has set itself quite a lot of work.</p>
<p>Much of it falls under Christian Porter, who as attorney-general and industrial relations minister is one of the busiest people in the Morrison ministry.</p>
<p>The issues he’s dealing with bring fierce battles. As he lamented at the National Press Club on Wednesday: “Every new task I am allotted does seem to inevitably support the observation that rights in practice collide with each other rather than neatly contouring into each other.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-jackie-lambie-should-not-horse-trade-on-medevac-repeal-bill-124639">Grattan on Friday: Jackie Lambie should not horse trade on medevac repeal bill</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Religious freedom is an obvious case, as he’s found in consultations with more than 90 different stakeholders. He announced this week the draft bill will be changed so religious groups running hospitals and aged care facilities would be able to discriminate in favour of employing people on faith grounds, in the same way religious schools can.</p>
<p>Originally it had been hoped the legislation would be done and dusted this year, but this proved impossible. Indeed its eventual fate remains in question; the government will engage with Labor to try for a unity ticket.</p>
<p>Also in Porter’s bailiwick is press freedom, which became a hot issue after the raids on the ABC and a News Corp journalist.</p>
<p>A report on some aspects by the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence on security has been delayed until near Christmas. Chairman Andrew Hastie explained the committee is “endeavouring to achieve a bipartisan report, which delivers tangible areas for reform and consideration”.</p>
<p>One crucial area is whistle blower protection. Porter said the government would soon respond to an earlier review of this to ensure “the act is easily and readily understandable to the people who need to use it”.</p>
<p>How much ground the government is willing to give on media freedom is yet to be seen. It would prefer to yield as little as possible; its default position is secrecy. Porter is open to some reforms, including on problems in the freedom of information system and on whistle blowers, but it’s a matter of their degree.</p>
<p>Also still to come is legislation for an integrity commission. This was a reluctant pre-election commitment, essentially forced by the politics.</p>
<p>The body would be heavily circumscribed; as Porter reaffirmed this week, it wouldn’t be able to make “corrupt conduct findings” against politicians or public servants. Rather, in such cases it would investigate and send evidence to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.</p>
<p>Porter is also following up Morrison’s concern – which has sparked a sharp reaction - about resource companies being targeted by environmental activists.</p>
<p>As well as all this, Porter is running the government’s industrial relations reform process, which is taking a softly-softly-catchee- monkey approach, gradually moving through specified issues.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-coalitions-approach-to-religious-discrimination-risks-being-an-inconclusive-wasteful-exercise-125486">The Coalition's approach to religious discrimination risks being an inconclusive, wasteful exercise</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This week Morrison flagged another priority area – reducing the “administrative clutter” around awards as well as in other parts of the system.</p>
<p>“While the number of awards has reduced, it appears that they have not become simpler – indeed many believe that they have become more complex,” he told his business audience, again exhorting them to make the case for reform (meaning, not to leave the jawboning to him and his colleagues). </p>
<p>In his speech, Morrison gave the government’s plans to deregulate procedures for the approval of major projects a push along, saying environmental approval processes were “overly complex, duplicative and they take too long”. </p>
<p>Simplifying them seems a no brainer. The issue will always be, however, whether that goes further and cuts into proper scrutiny and environmental protections.</p>
<p>Among the initiatives the government has put on its plate since the election is the pursuit of indigenous recognition in the constitution.</p>
<p>Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt again asserted this week: “I am committed to delivering constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians in this term of parliament.” It is a desirable but very ambitious aspiration that will be extremely hard, if not impossible, to land. </p>
<p>In sum, the government will finish 2019 with a cluster of loose ends. The challenges ahead in managing the politics of trying to tie them up should not be under-estimated.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127527/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Next week begins the year’s final parliamentary fortnight, and the main attention will be on the fate of two bills - the ensuring integrity legislation, and the medevac repeal.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1266832019-11-10T18:58:02Z2019-11-10T18:58:02ZThe government is committed to an Indigenous voice. We should give it a chance to work<p>Over the past decades, Indigenous Australians have fought to have our voices heard. Too often, decision-makers across the country have failed to hear us and work genuinely with us. They’ve failed to commit to having decisions driven by those best-placed to inform and influence the outcomes needed to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. </p>
<p>That’s why <a href="https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/wyatt/2019/voice-indigenous-australians">the announcement</a> by Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone. The minister has essentially said it’s time to hit pause and rework how we approach Indigenous policy-making in Australia. </p>
<p>He’s asked us to help guide this process, and we have welcomed the opportunity because we genuinely feel this is a once-in-a-generation chance to recast how decisions are made, how governments engage, and most importantly, how governments can listen to what’s really needed in Indigenous communities and affairs. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/proposed-indigenous-voice-will-be-to-government-rather-than-to-parliament-126031">Proposed Indigenous 'voice' will be to government rather than to parliament</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For this process to work, we all need to accept that what has come before hasn’t represented a silver bullet. And the design of this process acknowledges there isn’t necessarily one out there. </p>
<h2>Moving forward from the Uluru Statement</h2>
<p>When the Uluru Statement from the Heart <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/UluruStatement">was presented in 2017</a>, it was a significant moment – a collective of Indigenous Australians saying the status quo had failed them and there was a need for their voices to be better heard and represented. These sentiments complemented the consultations and formation of the <a href="https://nationalcongress.com.au/about-us/">National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples</a> in 2010.</p>
<p>We remain committed to the intention of the Uluru Statement, but we must acknowledge the process failed to define what a voice would look like, which is why more work must be done. The Referendum Council <a href="https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/event/first-nations-regional-dialogue-in-uluru.html">report</a> also made a number of recommendations and acknowledged that more consultation would be needed to develop an appropriate model for a voice.</p>
<p>Both these processes introduced a number of new ideas for government to consider. While many of us have been talking about them for years, we must also acknowledge that no government – Coalition or Labor - was ever going to adopt and implement all recommendations overnight. </p>
<p>Appropriately, the Coalition government <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2018/03/02/pat-dodson-co-chair-new-indigenous-parliamentary-committee">established</a> a parliamentary joint select committee, led by Labor’s Pat Dodson and the Liberals’ Julian Leeser, to examine the recommendations and advise on the way forward.</p>
<p>The Coalition government elected to adopt a policy of co-design to develop an Indigenous voice. In other words, implementing a process that is a genuine partnership between government and Indigenous Australians and implementing the first recommendation of the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Former_Committees/Constitutional_Recognition_2018/ConstRecognition/Final_Report">joint-select committee’s report</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/albanese-says-voice-must-be-in-the-constitution-121380">Albanese says Voice must be in the Constitution</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>What we are doing now is what government took to the election. This was the process outlined in the report, which is why there should be no surprises on the path forward.</p>
<p>On the question of constitutional enshrinement, many are right to be upset that this government has ruled out putting the voice in the constitution. But this is the political reality of today. It doesn’t diminish the opportunity that we have before us to make long-lasting substantial and enduring change. </p>
<h2>How the process will work</h2>
<p>There are two stages to the co-design process that will unfold over the next year. </p>
<p>The senior advisory group, which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/oct/30/marcia-langton-and-tom-calma-to-lead-indigenous-voice-advisory-group">we will co-chair</a>, will oversee two separate processes. </p>
<p>First, a local/regional co-design group will look at what local and regional structures are currently in place across Australia. It will examine what’s working and where we can find improvement, and importantly, how we can better harmonise these models to ensure we have the best forms of engagement possible. </p>
<p>As part of this, Minister Wyatt has made it clear there won’t be a one-size-fits-all approach. Every community has different needs, so there will be different answers to the question of how we can help. We also know states and territories have existing processes in place. Their integrity will not be undermined.</p>
<p>At the same time, a <a href="https://www.niaa.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/indigenous-voice">national co-design</a> group will look at models for an Indigenous voice to government. </p>
<p>This process should be welcomed. The minister has not ruled anything in or out. And we are committed to presenting him with a range of models to give our people a voice to address the needs of Indigenous Australians in relation to employment, education, health, housing, culture and land rights, to name just a few. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-ken-wyatt-juggles-identity-and-politics-126205">Grattan on Friday: Ken Wyatt juggles identity and politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Following this first phase, models and options will be put to the Australian people for consultation and feedback. </p>
<p>Everyone will have the opportunity to assess a range of models that have been developed by Indigenous Australians from across Australia. </p>
<h2>Focusing on common ground</h2>
<p>We don’t know what a voice, or voices, will look like yet. </p>
<p>But for the first time, we have a government that is acknowledging the need for an Indigenous voice and is committed to working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to give them that voice, through a process of genuine co-design.</p>
<p>The critics who are deriding this process haven’t even given it an opportunity to work. This is their opportunity to work constructively with those of us who have toiled for decades to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. </p>
<p>If we don’t collectively grasp this opportunity, it may not come around again for a long time. </p>
<p>So let’s focus on the common ground – the need to finally work together and put behind us decades of underachievement in Indigenous policy-making. </p>
<p>The opportunity for a voice is now. </p>
<p>We’re prepared to lend ours to this process – and encourage everyone to join with theirs. We can be united together for all Australians and a better future for the generations of Indigenous Australians to come. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>Marcia Langton and Tom Calma are the co-chairs of the Voice Co-Design Senior Advisory Group.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126683/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Marcia Langton is a voluntary, unpaid member of the Public Education Campaign Committee of the Uluru Statement from the Heart managed by Gilbert & Tobin Lawyers on a pro bono basis.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Tom Calma AO is co-chair of Reconciliation Australia and a member of University Chancellors Council.</span></em></p>We have welcomed the opportunity to guide the co-design process because we feel this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to recast how decisions are made in Indigenous affairs.Professor Marcia Langton, Foundation Chair in Australian Indigenous Studies, The University of MelbourneTom Calma, Chancellor, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1262692019-11-01T02:40:25Z2019-11-01T02:40:25ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the aged care royal commission report<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299812/original/file-20191101-102220-1q2qewg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'It's really an appalling story of lack of accountability [and] lack of oversight by this government', says Michelle Grattan on the findings in the interim report from the aged care royal commission.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/disabled-man-suffering-loneliness-old-age-262066235?src=zUqmxT_Vc1PAP3mSVzVDrQ-2-5">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/65QqAF-Jwrg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>University of Canberra Deputy Vice-Chancellor Leigh Sullivan discusses the findings of the aged care royal commission’s interim report with Michelle Grattan. They also talk about the minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt’s announcement of an Indigenous “voice to government”, and Anthony Albanese’s first of a series of ‘vision statements’.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126269/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan discusses this week in politics with University of Canberra Deputy Vice-Chancellor Leigh Sullivan.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1262052019-10-31T11:08:45Z2019-10-31T11:08:45ZGrattan on Friday: Ken Wyatt juggles identity and politics<p>As an Indigenous man in a senior government role, Ken Wyatt is ambitious but pragmatic, as he struggles to bridge the gap between Indigenous expectations and political realities. </p>
<p>Wyatt, minister for Indigenous Australians, aspires to deliver constitutional recognition of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in this term, though he must know the odds are against it. The government is committed to a referendum only if there is bipartisan support on the question and a good prospect of success. </p>
<p>He also wants to land a legislated “voice” for Indigenous people, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/proposed-indigenous-voice-will-be-to-government-rather-than-to-parliament-126031">on Wednesday he unveiled a process</a>. </p>
<p>Achieving even this will be hard. Wyatt is caught between those Indigenous figures who see the idea as now much watered down from their preferred model, and those on the right of politics who cast it as an exercise in separatism.</p>
<p>As the first Indigenous federal cabinet minister, and widely respected in first peoples’ communities, Wyatt is well placed to be listened to by Indigenous Australians. His standing gives him leverage. By the same token, the pressures on him are much more personal than they’d be on a non-Indigenous minister.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ken-wyatts-proposed-voice-to-government-marks-another-failure-to-hear-indigenous-voices-126103">Ken Wyatt's proposed 'voice to government' marks another failure to hear Indigenous voices</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some would say Morrison has accorded Wyatt a great opportunity. The cynics wonder if he has been set up.</p>
<p>To be optimistic about what can be done in terms of the voice, it is perhaps best not to remember too much history. Leaving aside the triumph of the 1967 referendum which gave the federal government power to legislate for Aborigines in the states, previous attempts to deal Indigenous Australians into the wider political process, to a limited or greater extent, have ended badly. The most ambitious, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), became the most unfortunate.</p>
<p>We won’t see another ATSIC, which had executive as well as representative functions. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/an-evening-in-conversation-with-michelle-grattan-tickets-77950737755"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299097/original/file-20191029-183116-hryjas.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=111&fit=crop&dpr=2" alt="Join The Conversation in Melbourne" width="100%"></a></p>
<p>In 2017 the Uluru Statement from the Heart, produced by a broad cross section of Indigenous delegates, called for a voice that would be enshrined in the constitution. </p>
<p>How much does it matter that the voice now being pursued would not be in the constitution (Morrison would never contemplate that and Wyatt says he has never favoured it) and that the language being used is for a voice to “government” rather than to “parliament”, as originally envisaged? </p>
<p>Of course it matters quite a lot. </p>
<p>Failure to bed the voice into the constitution means it would lack long-term security – it could be legislated out of existence (as ATSIC was). Being pitched to “government” rather than to “parliament” would lessen the voice’s status, although that would partly depend on the detail – whether, for example, its recommendations had to be tabled in parliament.</p>
<p>The government - notably the prime minister - will make sure the voice is constrained.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean, however, the voice isn’t worth having. Its influence would be determined not just by its form but also by the way it operated, the quality of its advice, and what sort of relationship it struck up with the minister.</p>
<p>The critics of the present modest initiative are already out, including from the government’s ranks.</p>
<p>Queensland Liberal senator James McGrath is among those featured on a video posted by the Institute of Public Affairs. “I’m a Queensland senator. I don’t want indigenous Queenslanders being separated from non-indigenous Queenslanders on the basis of their race,” McGrath says, describing the plan as “nuts”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-megan-davis-on-a-first-nations-voice-in-the-constitution-120349">Politics with Michelle Grattan: Megan Davis on a First Nations Voice in the Constitution</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Wyatt estimates there are about a dozen critics in the Coalition party room.</p>
<p>He likens the voice issue to that of same sex marriage, where there were some internal opponents but strong support in the community.</p>
<p>He is encouraged by reactions he gets as he moves around, from strangers on planes to businesses urging him to continue efforts on the voice and on recognition. “We shouldn’t underestimate the good will sitting there”.</p>
<p>Wyatt announced an advisory group to oversee the voice process, chaired by Indigenous leaders Tom Calma, chancellor of the University of Canberra and former race discrimination commissioner, and Marcia Langton, who has the Foundation Chair in Australian Indigenous Studies at Melbourne University.</p>
<p>Under this group will be two other groups, one to work on proposals for the national voice and the other to examine how Indigenous input can be better fed in at the state, territory and local government level. Models will be developed, followed by consultation with Indigenous communities.</p>
<p>The appointment of Langton - an outspoken and sometimes inflammatory tweeter - is under fire from the right wing commentariat. It can, however, be regarded as positive that the government has chosen her, rather than someone tamer. Wyatt has said he and Langton have long been friends and “I respect her integrity”.</p>
<p>Langton says she remains a strong supporter of the Statement from the Heart – which she describes as “highly metaphorical” - although she has a particular interpretation of it. She told the ABC she takes it as suggesting a minimalist amendment to the constitution to provide for a body, rather like a parliamentary committee, that would advise on legislation. Anything like a representative body would be established by legislation, she said.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/constitutional-reform-made-easy-how-to-achieve-the-uluru-statement-and-a-first-nations-voice-116141">Constitutional reform made easy: how to achieve the Uluru statement and a First Nations voice</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Labor is somewhat conflicted. It supports the Uluru statement and sees sees the government’s position as failing that. But it doesn’t want to be the naysayer.</p>
<p>Indigenous Labor senator Malarndirri McCarthy said on Thursday: “We’re not going to wreck this.</p>
<p>"We’re not happy that they haven’t accepted [constitutional] enshrinement but we do acknowledge and respect the fact that consultations are going to occur with two esteemed leaders in professor Langton and Tom Calma and we will do our best to keep encouraging people to look at enshrinement”.</p>
<p>From Labor’s point of view, if an acceptable voice emerges from this process, it could always commit to putting it into the constitution later.</p>
<p>That’s assuming there is no referendum on recognition this term. Getting agreement among Coalition, opposition and Indigenous community on a recognition question that could pass the stringent referendum requirements would appear extraordinarily challenging. Even if there were agreement on the question, Labor might say it would only give the tick off if the referendum included the “voice”.</p>
<p>There is a case for scepticism about the government’s intentions on the voice, but there is a better one to see whether Wyatt can pull something potentially useful out of the process, even within the bounds that have been set.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126205/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the first Indigenous federal cabinet minister, Ken Wyatt is widely respected in first peoples communities, but by the same token, the expectations on him are very high.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1203492019-07-16T03:25:52Z2019-07-16T03:25:52ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Megan Davis on a First Nations Voice in the Constitution<p>Last week on this podcast <a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-ken-wyatt-on-constitutional-recognition-for-indigenous-australians-120167">we talked to Ken Wyatt</a> about the government’s plan for a referendum – hopefully this parliamentary term – to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. </p>
<p>This week, we continue the conversation on Indigenous recognition with Megan Davis, a law professor and expert member of a key United Nations Indigenous rights body on the debate about an <a href="https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/discussion-topics/indigenous-voice.html">Indigenous ‘Voice’</a> which has followed Ken Wyatt’s announcement. </p>
<p>“At this point the only viable option for constitutional reform is this proposal for a Voice to parliament,” says Megan Davis.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Uluru Statement from the Heart is significant because it’s the first time an Australian government has gone out to community and said to them what does recognition mean to you in the Australian Constitution? And their answer was we want a better say in the laws and policies that affect our lives. </p>
<p>[…]</p>
<p>The very key point here is the symbolic elements of recognition were completely unanimously rejected. So there was a very strong view that this needed to be practical reconciliation – that Aboriginal people were over symbolism.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Megan Davis is currently in Geneva for a meeting of the UN body she sits on, where she says this issue will be raised among other issues which Australian Indigenous people face. </p>
<p>Australia’s reputation on the international stage has had a number of issues such as “incarceration[…]the conditions of young people in youth detention[…][and] the numbers of child removals”. </p>
<h2>New to podcasts?</h2>
<p>Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click <a href="http://pca.st/BVa3#t=3m34s">here</a> to listen to Politics with Michelle Grattan on Pocket Casts).</p>
<p>You can also hear it on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Politics with Michelle Grattan.</p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/id703425900?mt=2"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2F1L3BvZGNhc3RzL3BvbGl0aWNzLXdpdGgtbWljaGVsbGUtZ3JhdHRhbi5yc3M"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png" alt="" width="268" height="68"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-conversation-4/politics-with-michelle-grattan"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233716/original/file-20180827-75981-pdp50i.png" alt="Stitcher" width="300" height="88"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Politics-with-Michelle-Grattan-p227852/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="318" height="125"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://radiopublic.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-WRElBZ"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-152" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="268" height="87"></a> <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/5NkaSQoUERalaLBQAqUOcC"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237984/original/file-20180925-149976-1ks72uy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" width="268" height="82"></a> </p>
<h2>Additional audio</h2>
<p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score/Lee_Rosevere_-_The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score_-_10_A_List_of_Ways_to_Die">A List of Ways to Die</a>, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.</p>
<p><strong>Image:</strong></p>
<p>RICHARD WAINWRIGHT/AAP</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120349/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Megan Davis says the idea of including an Indigenous Voice in the Constitution is being rejected on an understanding that "simply isn't true" but believes Australia has the "capacity to correct this".Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1202312019-07-12T08:27:44Z2019-07-12T08:27:44ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the government’s plans for Indigenous recognition<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bZZYTUA2kCc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Michelle Grattan talks with University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Professor Deep Saini about the government’s proposal to put a referendum this term to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. They discuss whether Indigenous leaders are likely to make the concession to not include the Voice in the Constitution, and the chances of reaching a bipartisan agreement on the referendum question itself. They also canvass the ongoing John Setka saga.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120231/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan speaks with University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Deep Saini about the government’s plans to put forward a referendum to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1202302019-07-11T12:35:13Z2019-07-11T12:35:13ZGrattan on Friday: When it comes to Indigenous recognition, Ken Wyatt will have to close multiple gaps<p>If the Morrison government manages to get a referendum passed to give Australia’s Indigenous people constitutional recognition, it will be truly remarkable.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison has previously taken little interest in this area, at least publicly. And he would have done something that proved beyond Tony Abbott, for whom it was a cause.</p>
<p>Morrison and his minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, would have stared down conservative colleagues, cut a deal with Labor, and persuaded enough Indigenous leaders to get on board.</p>
<p>Finally, the government would have overcome the public’s inherent negativity towards referendums.</p>
<p>It would, one might say, be another miracle.</p>
<p>But miracles are rare and on present indications this one will be extraordinarily hard to land.</p>
<p>We are yet to see how seriously committed Morrison will be to the recognition push. For a chance of success, he’ll need to put his back into it.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-morrison-government-proposes-an-indigenous-recognition-referendum-this-term-119998">The Morrison government proposes an Indigenous recognition referendum this term</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>His appointment of Wyatt, a man of Noongar, Wongi, and Yamatji heritage, was a statement in itself. The nomination of recognition for early attention was a surprise – and another indication that we have yet to get a grasp on Morrison as prime minister (as distinct from campaigner).</p>
<p>There has been much talk about his lack of an agenda, but the unveiling of a couple of significant priorities - industrial relations and now Indigenous recognition – suggests there might be more there than we suspected.</p>
<p>It’s important to be clear about what Wyatt – who outlined his proposals in <a href="https://www.kenwyatt.com.au/ministerial-news-indigenous-australians/2019/7/10/transcript-national-press-club-address-walking-in-partnership-to-effect-change">a speech on Wednesday</a> – is saying. </p>
<p>The government’s ambit hope is to put a referendum for recognition during this parliamentary term. But this will only happen if two conditions are met: it can get consensus on the content of what would go into the constitution, and there’s a high probability of a favourable outcome. The latter means winning not just the overall vote but the vote in four of the six states. Both content and potential support will present major problems.</p>
<p>What of the timetable? If the government really wants to give constitutional change a red hot go, there is a case for pushing it hard and quickly. Support doesn’t necessary build as time passes; beyond a certain point, it can erode.</p>
<p>But judging whether and when there would be sufficient likely public backing for a Yes vote would be tricky. Post May 18, everyone has become rather chary of <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/worse-than-the-trump-polling-fail-how-did-the-federal-election-polls-get-it-so-wrong">polls</a>. And things could quickly change in the final countdown.</p>
<p>History shows the voters’ penchant to say No. Despite the triumph of the 1967 referendum to give the federal government power to make laws for Aboriginal people and count them in the census (carried overwhelmingly in every state), referendums generally fail. Only eight have been passed - the last in 1977.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/listening-with-our-ears-and-our-eyes-ken-wyatts-big-promises-on-indigenous-affairs-120165">Listening with 'our ears and our eyes': Ken Wyatt's big promises on Indigenous affairs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Formulating the question will be an extremely challenging hurdle to climb over.</p>
<p>A constitutional change that acknowledged Australia’s First Peoples but didn’t go much beyond that would be easiest to get through government ranks and the popular vote.</p>
<p>It is hard to see either Indigenous leaders or Labor accepting just that.</p>
<p>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders in their <a href="https://www.1voiceuluru.org/the-statement">2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart</a> called for “the establishment of a First Nations voice enshrined in the constitution”.</p>
<p>But the indications are a voice would not be part of the government’s constitutional model. Wyatt does want a voice at the national level, but he is vague about its form, and the official line is that Morrison has “no plans” for the voice.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.billshorten.com.au/_labor_will_establish_a_voice_for_first_nations_people_tuesday_27_november_2018">Labor was committed</a> at the election to putting into the constitution a voice – which would be an input to the political process, not any sort of third chamber of Parliament – and the ALP would come under attack from Indigenous leaders if it walked away from this.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/treaty-when-dodson-warns-of-betrayal-and-airbrushing-of-indigenous-ambition-20190711-p52656.html">Writing for the Sydney Morning Herald</a> on Thursday, Labor’s Pat Dodson, shadow assistant minister for reconciliation and constitutional recognition (and an Indigenous man dubbed “the father of reconciliation”) declared: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We either deliver the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full or continue down the failed path of soft reconciliation measures.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney (also Indigenous), who is working closely with Wyatt and will do some travelling with him, may be more flexible than Dodson. Nevertheless she said after Wyatt’s speech: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We are at a point in our development, in our history where a voice to the parliament absolutely has to be entrenched in the Australian Constitution.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Morrison has had talks with Anthony Albanese to pursue bipartisanship on Indigenous issues and the Labor leader was optimistic on Thursday that a successful recognition referendum in the next three years was “absolutely realistic and doable”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/constitutional-reform-made-easy-how-to-achieve-the-uluru-statement-and-a-first-nations-voice-116141">Constitutional reform made easy: how to achieve the Uluru statement and a First Nations voice</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, a member of the review panel Abbott set up to examine possible pathways to constitutional recognition, says that while he’s sympathetic to what Wyatt is undertaking,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>finding the necessary national unity to avoid hurt and disappointment will be far from easy. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>One huge problem, Anderson believes, will be getting Aboriginal people to come together on an agreed model.</p>
<p>Those in the Coalition party room and in the right wing commentariat who are critical of the move for recognition will use the spectre of the voice as a scare tactic.</p>
<p>The recognition issue will be one test of whether the right, though tamed since <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-government-says-no-to-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-86421">Malcolm Turnbull’s overthrow</a>, will seriously arc up within the Liberal party in this term.</p>
<p>But Wyatt has attracted enthusiasm from some colleagues. NSW Liberal John Alexander was quick to declare </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I’m with Ken on this, he has my full support for the process he has initiated and I hope it can conclude with a successful referendum vote and form of voice we can all be proud of.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of particular importance, many big corporations, including mining companies, <a href="https://www.iag.com.au/australian-organisations-welcome-federal-government-referendum-pledge">now have progressive positions</a> on Indigenous affairs and will swing in behind the move. Wyatt has indicated he would be looking to them to help carry the debate, particularly in his home state of Western Australia, where a referendum would potentially be a hard sell.</p>
<p>He’d be encouraged by sentiments such as from Woodside, which said the company was </p>
<blockquote>
<p>proud to give our support to this process as we continue to walk together with courage towards a reconciled Australia.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-ken-wyatt-on-constitutional-recognition-for-indigenous-australians-120167">Politics with Michelle Grattan: Ken Wyatt on constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As with same-sex marriage, indeed probably more so, the corporate world is talking up an important social issue and prodding the politicians to act.</p>
<p>If Morrison has to retreat on Indigenous recognition, it is unlikely to make a great amount of difference to him. It won’t affect the outcome of the next election.</p>
<p>For Wyatt the issue has quite another dimension. This is a fight for his people. The stakes are personal, and must feel frightening high.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120230/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It would be another miracle if the Morrison government managed to have a referendum passed to give Australia’s Indigenous people constitutional recognition.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1201672019-07-11T03:07:50Z2019-07-11T03:07:50ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Ken Wyatt on constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians<p>The first Indigenous minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, says on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-morrison-government-proposes-an-indigenous-recognition-referendum-this-term-119998">government’s proposal</a> to constitutionally recognise Indigenous Australians: “I’m optimistic about achieving the outcome because if the words are simple, but meaningful, then Australians will generally accept an opportunity to include Aboriginal people in the Constitution.”</p>
<p>But he concedes Indigenous leaders would not take the same minimalist approach he is advocating for, but says it is “pragmatic”. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>What I want is to see us make some gains. Later on as we mature as a nation, then we can have another debate of what the next phase is.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He admits getting support for the constitutional referendum in his home state of Western Australia would be difficult but he would be looking to the big mining companies – which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/31/bhp-and-rio-tinto-to-join-push-for-indigenous-voice-to-parliament">have been supportive</a> of the Uluru Statement of the Heart – to help make the case there. </p>
<p>As for issues affecting Indigenous communities, such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-we-losing-so-many-indigenous-children-to-suicide-114284">high youth suicide rates</a>, he says there is “a sense of futility for some young people. The issue of broken relationships. The way in which young people have expressed the need for their culture to be valued”.</p>
<p>On the way forward, he is looking into “support structures that need to go into place on the ground” and thinks “there is a way that we can have some of this with existing resources”.</p>
<h2>New to podcasts?</h2>
<p>Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click <a href="http://pca.st/BVa3#t=3m34s">here</a> to listen to Politics with Michelle Grattan on Pocket Casts).</p>
<p>You can also hear it on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Politics with Michelle Grattan.</p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/id703425900?mt=2"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2F1L3BvZGNhc3RzL3BvbGl0aWNzLXdpdGgtbWljaGVsbGUtZ3JhdHRhbi5yc3M"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png" alt="" width="268" height="68"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-conversation-4/politics-with-michelle-grattan"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233716/original/file-20180827-75981-pdp50i.png" alt="Stitcher" width="300" height="88"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Politics-with-Michelle-Grattan-p227852/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="318" height="125"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://radiopublic.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-WRElBZ"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-152" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="268" height="87"></a> <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/5NkaSQoUERalaLBQAqUOcC"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237984/original/file-20180925-149976-1ks72uy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" width="268" height="82"></a> </p>
<h2>Additional audio</h2>
<p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score/Lee_Rosevere_-_The_Big_Loop_-_FML_original_podcast_score_-_10_A_List_of_Ways_to_Die">A List of Ways to Die</a>, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.</p>
<p><strong>Image:</strong></p>
<p>Rohan Thomson/AAP</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120167/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ken Wyatt says he is "optimistic about achieving [constitutional recognition] because...Australians will generally accept an opportunity to include Aboriginal people" and that he will work with "naysayers".Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1199982019-07-10T03:28:39Z2019-07-10T03:28:39ZThe Morrison government proposes an Indigenous recognition referendum this term<p>The Morrison government <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/ken-wyatt-pledges-to-hold-indigenous-recognition-referendum-within-three-years-20190710-p525rg.html">plans to hold a referendum</a> in the next three years on whether to enshrine constitutional recognition of Australia’s Indigenous people.</p>
<p>Announcing the proposal on Wednesday, the minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, said he would: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>develop and bring forward a consensus option for constitutional recognition to be put to a referendum during the current parliamentary term.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He said he had begun seeking the counsel of Indigenous leaders on the best way forward. But Wyatt made it clear that the final decision on whether the referendum goes ahead this term will depend on achieving a high degree of consensus and the prospect of it having a very strong chance of success.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Constitutional recognition is too important to get wrong, and too important to rush. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wyatt stressed the importance of bipartisanship, and will establish a cross-party parliamentary working group to assist with engagement to develop a “community model” for the referendum.</p>
<p>Labor’s shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, Linda Burney “will be integral to this process”, Wyatt told the National Press Club in a major speech outlining the Morrison government’s approach to Indigenous affairs. Both Wyatt and Burney are Indigenous.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ken-wyatt-faces-challenges-and-opportunities-as-minister-for-indigenous-australians-117896">Ken Wyatt faces challenges – and opportunities – as minister for Indigenous Australians</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Wyatt did not indicate how he envisioned changing the constitution, which has been highly controversial in the last few years.</p>
<p>The May 2017 <a href="https://www.1voiceuluru.org/the-statement">“Uluru Statement from the Heart”</a> called for “the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the constitution”.</p>
<p>The Referendum Council proposed a national Indigenous representative assembly be added to the constitution, but this was <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-government-says-no-to-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-86421">rejected by the Turnbull government</a>. </p>
<p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison has recently shifted course and begun speaking with Labor leader Anthony Albanese about a bipartisan approach to constitutional recognition. Without bipartisanship, any referendum is doomed to failure; passage is difficult enough even with agreement of the major parties. The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1977/1976bd081">last successful referendum</a> of any sort was in 1977.</p>
<p>Changing the constitution through a referendum requires an overall majority of votes and a majority in a majority of states. When Prime Minister Tony Abbott wanted to hold a referendum on Indigenous recognition, the plan slipped away amid arguments over its content and doubts about getting the necessary support.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/listening-but-not-hearing-process-has-trumped-substance-in-indigenous-affairs-55161">Listening but not hearing: process has trumped substance in Indigenous affairs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Wyatt also promised the development of “a local, regional and national voice”. He did not spell out the detail of a national “voice”.</p>
<p>He said the concept of the “voice” in the Uluru Statement from the Heart “is not a singular voice”.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is a cry to all tiers of government to stop and listen to the voices of Indigenous Australians at all levels.</p>
<p>All they want is for governments to hear their issues, stories of their land and their local history.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He said Indigenous communities are asking the three tiers of government to stop and take the time to listen to their voices.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The national interest requires a new relationship with Indigenous Australians based on their participation and establishing entrenched partnerships at the community and regional levels.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wyatt also said he would work on “progressing how we address truth telling.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Without the truth of the past, there can be no agreement on where and who we are in the present, how we arrived here and where we want to go in the future.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/treaty-talk-is-only-one-problem-for-indigenous-recognition-referendum-61036">Treaty talk is only one problem for Indigenous recognition referendum</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>On the treaty issue, he said it was important for states and territories to take the lead.</p>
<p>Wyatt said the significance of symbolism must never be forgotten but "it must be balanced with pragmatism that results in change for Indigenous Australians”. He highlighted the <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/news-centre/indigenous-affairs/prime-minister-announces-new-national-indigenous-australians-agency">new National Indigenous Australians Agency</a>, which was set up by Morrison to oversee Indigenous affairs policy.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>With the establishment of the agency on 1 July, we began a new era for the government to work in partnership with Indigenous Australians. It will provide opportunities for growth and advancement in education, employment, suicide prevention, community safety, health and constitutional recognition.</p>
<p>The most important thing that I and the agency will do is to listen – with our ears and with our eyes.</p>
<p>I intend to have genuine conversations, not only with Indigenous leaders and peak bodies, but with families, individuals and community organisations so that I can hear their voices and work together to agree to a way forward for a better future for our children.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He also wanted businesses “to sit with me around boardroom tables – and around campfires – and discuss how they can contribute”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119998/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ken Wyatt, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, announced plans to hold a referendum to enshrine constitutional recognition of Australia’s Indigenous peoples during this parliamentary term.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.