Committee powers proposed for Indigenous voice

The Indigenous voice to parliament could operate in the same way as a federal parliamentary committee under a proposal from a leading conservative think tank.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Julian Leeser called on the government to ‘correct course’ on the voice. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The Indigenous voice to parliament could operate in the same way as a federal parliamentary committee; holding public hearings, taking submissions and eventually providing a report with recommendations to government about any given issue, under a proposal from a leading conservative think tank.

Uphold and Recognise on Tuesday released a paper laying out suggestions for the architecture of the national voice, which would be advised by regional and local voices on the ground as part of a “bottom-up” model.

“The national voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people could draw upon some of the operating principles used by parliamentary committees – providing advice to the government and relevant departments about public policy effects on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,” the paper says.

“Committees provide an ­opportunity for organisations and individuals to participate in policymaking and to have their views placed on the public record and considered as part of the decision-making process.”

The key difference would be that membership of the voice would be determined through “a democratic election process amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”, the paper says. And, unlike parliamentary committees, the “nature of the advice” sought from the voice could not be easily changed by government, nor could the body be dissolved.

“Constitution for the voice would ensure that, irrespective of changes of government or policy priorities, the mechanism remains focused on hearing the voices of local and regional community members in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait ­Islander issues,” the paper says.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Julian Leeser called on the government to “correct course” on the voice, with clearer processes and more information on how it would work. “We must get this right because the prospect of failure is unthinkable,” he said.

Former Indigenous minister Ken Wyatt, who on Tuesday ­attended the forum to launch the paper, said the question of how the voice would “influence legislation” was critical.

“If there is a successful referendum and there is an outcome that supports the voice, then it’s about how it functions and operates. It’s about how issues will be represented to government,” he told The Australian. “One of the challenges always will be: How do you influence legislation? And that’s a critical thing.”

While ensuring the voice had a say in legislation in areas such as health, education and training, Mr Wyatt warned “the national interest” must come first when it came to legislation in areas such as defence and foreign affairs.

In a departure from his former Liberal colleagues, Mr Wyatt said his preference would be for the reference to “executive government” to remain in the constitutional amendment. “There has to be a way in which executive government is influenced in the processes of creating legislation. My preference is to have a consideration … in the Constitution, but if that’s problematic in terms of High Court challenges … then it needs to be done legislatively and with strong conviction.”

But legal experts at the event, including Louise Clegg and ­Father Frank Brennan, insisted the wording of the draft constitutional amendment be changed.

“This vision of a big, powerful voice embedded both constitutionally and in practice in all aspects of national law and policymaking is surely a recipe for endless political disputation,” Ms Clegg said.

Father Brennan, who has proposed his own amendment, said “the voice’s constitutional function should be restricted to being a voice to parliament”.