HISTORY IS CALLING; IT’S TIME WE PICK UP THE PHONE.

BY TIFFANY ZWANINK

For the past 60,000 years, First Nations communities across Australia have been sharing stories, creating memories and shaping long-standing cultural traditions. Their voices have been spoken in 363 different languages, yet, they often go unheard in policy and legal decision-making processes.

In 2017, the Uluru Statement from the Heart advocated for constitutional reforms that would ultimately empower

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders by recognising their past, present and future contributions to Australia’s history, paving a path for self-determination. The statement called for the “establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution”1, and now Australia has the chance to make this a reality.

WHAT IS ‘THE VOICE TO PARLIAMENT’ AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

The Voice to Parliament (‘the Voice’) is intended to act as a bridge between existing government practices and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, ensuring that Parliament can make better and more informed decisions on matters relating to First Nations people. In line with this overarching principle, the role of the Voice is to make representations about how various laws and policies will ultimately impact Indigenous communities, with the ability to suggest how they could be made more suitable for all of the people. Academics such as Elisa Arcioni also recognise the importance of implementing such a mechanism, identifying that First Nations are incredibly underrepresented in our government and proposed the establishment of the Voice as a necessary first step in remedying this issue. 2

WHAT WILL THE VOICE LOOK LIKE?

In some ways, this proposed mechanism will reflect existing systems in other jurisdictions. Many parallels have been drawn between the proposed Voice in Australia and Māori representation in New Zealand. Many have debated whether New Zealand’s Parliament has become “second fiddle” to the Māori Voice, raising concerns that a similar pattern would be embedded in Australia.3 Even though Australia can observe the practical implications of implementing such a body in Australia, some key distinctions between these two models exist. Firstly, in New Zealand, Māori representation is achieved through designated seats in parliament, creating a voice in parliament as opposed to a voice to parliament.4 The seat in parliament creates a direct power to make decisions. Whilst this may be an appropriate model to achieve its intended purposes, Australia’s Voice will operate through a different framework.

Another key distinction is that the Voice will not have a veto power as it will not be able to directly determine new laws and policies. Instead, Australia’s proposed model is grounded in the fundamental idea that First Nations people have the opportunity to help inform and contribute new perspectives to decisions that impact them and their communities. Accordingly, the Voice is still likely to provide a mechanism that guarantees First Nations perspectives are appropriately considered in planning policies directly impacting First Nations peoples.5