This piece is part 1 of an exploration of the Voice to Parliament proposal that will be voted on by the Australian people on 14th October 2023. In this exploration, I aim to locate and share as much accurate information as I can about the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. The goal of this is to provide educational information that will help Australian readers to make a more informed voting decision on referendum day, rather than to persuade you to vote one way or another. I will endeavour to be as fair and unbiased as possible in presenting this information, as I think this is important for readers to have confidence in its veracity. I do have my own view about the model and the referendum, which it is possible will evolve over the coming weeks, and which I will comment on in a later piece. I welcome any corrections or additional information that I may have missed.
Where does the Voice to Parliament proposal come from?
The idea of a Voice to Parliament was first put forward by Cape York Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson in a Quarterly Essay article in 2014. In 2015 the federal government appointed a 16-member Referendum Council comprising both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal leaders and public figures, which supported this proposal in its Discussion Paper on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, released in 2016. This proposal was taken to a First Nations Constitutional Convention in 2017, which endorsed it by consensus as part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, as part of a three-part reform program which would include a treaty between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians and a truth and reconciliation process . 7 out of the 250 delegates walked out of the convention and did not participate in the final vote. The then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull rejected the proposal, however following the election of a Labor government in 2022, new prime minister Anthony Albanese committed to moving forward with a referendum to enshrine a Voice to Parliament in the Australian constitution.
The Regional Dialogues, Constitutional Convention and consultative process
In 2015, with bipartisan political endorsement, the Referendum Council was established and began planning a consultative process with Australia’s First Nations peoples to determine what form of constitutional reform would be supported by them. The framework for this process was developed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members of the council in consultation with a group of around 150 First Nations community leaders. This meeting broadly endorsed the framework proposals, further stating that the constitutional process should not be rushed, and must involve meaningful reform that was supported by First Nations peoples. The first stage of the process involved 12 regional consultations in Hobart, Broome, Dubbo, Darwin, Perth, Sydney, Melbourne, Cairns, Ross River, Adelaide, Brisbane and the Torres Strait. Around 100 participants were invited from local communities in those regions, following the formula of 60% from traditional owner groups, 20% from community organisations and 20% from key individuals. Each dialogue was held over 2 ½ days and followed a structured agenda.
A range of proposals for constitutional reform were brought to these dialogues for consideration. Out of all of the options considered, constitutional recognition through a statement of acknowledgement was rejected by 7 out of 12 dialogues and only supported by one, while agreement making through a treaty (which does not require constitutional reform) was explicitly supported by 11 out of 12 dialogues. A truth telling process was out of the scope of the dialogues, but was explicitly supported by all 12 dialogues. The Voice to Parliament proposal was supported by all 12 dialogues, making it the most supported option for constitutional reform.
Table 1: Support for each reform proposal from the 12 regional dialogues (and Canberra information session). Referendum Council Final Report
Each of the 12 dialogues elected a number of delegates to attend the national constitutional convention at Uluru, which met in May 2017. There was some criticism at the time that the dialogues had been by invitation, and therefore not all interested First Nations peoples were able to attend. The Referendum Council responded that the process had been designed to have a capped number of participants so it could be deliberative and reach a consensus decision, and stated that the invitations had been chosen in consultation with host organisations at each location ‘to ensure the local community was appropriately represented in the process.’
There were several additional methods used for consulting with the broader Australian community, including First Nations, on constitutional reform:
· An online submission process, resulting in 1,111 submissions, of whom 14% (156) identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
· Facebook and Twitter channels
· Telephone and online surveys of 5300 Australians, including 100 identifying as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
93% of submissions supported the Voice to Parliament model, however unfortunately the analysis of submissions did not indicate how many ATSI submissions were in support. However based on the comparative support levels in the telephone and online surveys, it is likely that the level of support among ATSI submissions would have been at least the same or greater than the total percentage. Of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who participated in telephone surveys, 80% were supportive of the Voice to Parliament proposal.
250 delegates met at the Uluru Constitutional Convention in May 2017 to deliberate on the proposals for constitutional reform in light of feedback from the regional dialogues. After an intensive 4-day process, a joint statement (the Uluru Statement from the Heart) was passed by unanimous acclamation. Several delegates (around 7) walked out during the convention and did not return to vote on the statement. The statement rejected the proposal for symbolic recognition of First Nations peoples in the constitution, instead calling for a 3-step process involving a Voice to Parliament, Treaty and Truth telling process.
In part 2, I will look at how accurately the constitutional reform consultation process captured the input of First Nations peoples, and more broadly at the question of how much support the referendum proposal has amongst First Nations communities. If any readers have any research information or direct experience that could inform these questions, I would be grateful if you could contact me.
References:
Thanks for this overview Keppel. Its good to get an impartial summary of the context and background.