Jeff Kennett: Why I’m supporting the Indigenous Voice to Parliament

So much of what is being said about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament is simply wrong — and designed to ensure it does not occur.

I am very worried about the way in which the public debate about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament is being conducted. It is becoming divisive among many within both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous community.

So much of what is being said is simply wrong, mischievous and designed to ensure The Voice does not occur.

It was an extraordinary honour to have been asked as one of only three non-Indigenous individuals to join Indigenous women and men from all over Australia and the Torres Strait Islands to design The Voice and submit the final report to the then Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Ken Wyatt.

The purpose of The Voice is to establish a body of Indigenous men and women to offer advice to the Australian government and Parliament on matters, concerns and opportunities for our Indigenous community.

The Voice would also be a body that the Australian government and Parliament could consult to seek advice on the impact of legislation which the government and Parliament might pass.

It was to be established by legislation, to convene outside of the Parliament, with its fundamental purpose to be advisory.

I fully support the establishment of The Voice to the Parliament.

It was never suggested it would be part of the Parliament, a third chamber in effect.

It was never intended to have powers over the parliament or the government.

The federal parliament has 11 parliamentarians who identify as Indigenous persons. They of course owe their allegiance to their electorate, and their country. But clearly they bring their living experiences and culture as First Peoples to the parliament.

It was never my understanding that The Voice was to be enshrined within the Australian Constitution, though I accept that that may not have been the view of others who served on the working groups.

The Constitution was developed through the debates of the 1890s and after the referendum that led the states and territories to come together in 1901.

The Constitution was not perfect. There have been eight occasions on which changes have been made to the Constitution through successful referendums.

The Constitution discriminated against our Indigenous community through Sections 51 and 127, which excluded our First Peoples from being recognised as being part of the community.

That was correctly and thankfully changed by referendum in 1967.

Victorian Greens senator Lidia Thorpe is one of the Indigenous parliamentarians in Canberra.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is also an Indigenous senator, but opposes the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

The Voice to Parliament is now being talked about as being established through a change to the Constitution via a referendum.

It is my view that the body of the Constitution should treat all peoples equally, and we should not make the mistake of our forefathers.

Recognition within the Constitution is one thing, but the establishment of an organisation for one group of Australians within the Constitution would only repeat the mistakes of the past.

Please don’t anyone accuse me of taking a conservative view. This is not an issue of partisan politics.

While I might be conservative on financial matters, I am socially liberal, and have been working with and for the Indigenous community since 1980.

The Indigenous community is special. I want its existence and history recognised, and we could do so generously in the Preamble to the Constitution.

But I believe it is inappropriate that a body such as The Voice should be established within the Constitution.

The Prime Minister is talking about a simple Yes/No vote at a referendum. About what? Recognition of our First People, the establishment of The Voice?

I have no idea and I am concerned the community is equally confused about what is the substance and intention of the referendum being debated.

Anthony Albanese must be clear about what the government intends to put to Australians via a referendum. Picture: Getty Images

Without detail, it is a bit like being asked to sign a contract we don’t understand. This could be enormously damaging if the message it sends to our Indigenous community is that the reconciliation progress is being wound back.

We overwhelmingly voted “Yes” for legislation which recognised Same Sex marriages because the proposition was clear and easily explained.

The Constitution is not easily amended. It should treat and respect all people equally. Any proposed change should be explained in detail.

That said I repeat I fully support the establishment of The Voice to Parliament by federal legislation, as an advisory body for the more than 800,000 people who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart has become almost like the Magna Carta for our First Peoples. A statement of fact, and a desire for understanding and recognition.

I ask the Prime Minister to detail what the government intends to put to the Australian people via a referendum.

I fear a Yes/No referendum without clarification will fail and cause enormous harm. Broadly, the Australian public does not trust politicians. It will not agree to change the Constitution without knowing the details and ramifications of such change.

Our wider community needs clarity to unite us rather than divide us, and to demonstrate the bipartisanship our First People deserve.

Have a good day.

Jeff Kennett is a former premier of Victoria

Originally published as Jeff Kennett: Why I’m supporting the Indigenous Voice to Parliament