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.
Candidatos con discapacidad de la zona central firman decálogo de derechos a defender en la Nueva Constitución elmostrador.cl - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from elmostrador.cl Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
The government earlier this year released a discussion paper exploring how an Indigenous Voice to government might work.
The Voice to government is not the same as the Voice to parliament that the Uluru Statement from the Heart proposed in 2017. This is because the government doesn’t support the Uluru idea of a distinctive Indigenous body enshrined in the constitution.
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.
A Voice established under the constitution, meanwhile, would have the authority of the Australian people. This idea has attracted majority support in public opinion polls.
Date Time
An Indigenous ‘Voice’ must be enshrined in our Constitution. Here’s why
As a ‘Voice’ that would allow Indigenous Australians to have a say in parliamentary and government decisions that affect them takes shape, it is vital it be enshrined in our Constitution.
Photo: AAP/Dan Peled
This year has already seen significant progress in the government’s commitment to establish a body – a “Voice” – that would allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have a say when the government and parliament make decisions and laws that affect them.
However, concerns have emerged from those involved in the co-design process and public law experts that the Uluru Statement’s call for constitutional enshrinement – or protection – of the Voice, is going unheeded.