Noel Pearson adamant an Indigenous voice to parliament to executive government is ‘crucial, perfect’

Noel Pearson and Shireen Morris are adamant an Indigenous voice to executive government could have stopped destruction of the Juukan Gorge in their submission to a parliamentary committee.

Former ultra-marathon runner and Liberal MP Pat Farmer starts the six-month Run for the Voice campaign at Town Hall, Hobart, on Monday. Picture: Chris Kidd

Noel Pearson and Shireen Morris have launched a staunch defence of the Indigenous voice’s “crucial” ability to consult executive government, saying it could have prevented the destruction of Juukan Gorge in Western Australia or stopped the winding back of ­alcohol bans in the Northern Territory.

Mr Pearson and Dr Morris, key architects of an Indigenous voice enshrined in the Constitution, also rejected a minimalist model put forward by Liberal MP Julian Leeser, saying it was “not sensible”.

In a submission to the parliamentary committee scrutinising the government’s proposed constitutional amendment, the two said the model was “legally sound and balanced” and had been perfected.

They warned it “should not be watered down to appease spurious or exaggerated concerns” and provided three practical examples for why the voice should keep the ability to advise executive government – stopping the destruction of the Juukan Gorge, keeping NT alcohol bans in place to protect Indigenous Australians and changing the “longstanding mess around remote employment services”.

“Keeping the voice’s constitutionally mandated ability to advise the executive is crucial,” Mr Pearson and Dr Morris write.

“The destruction of 43,000 years of heritage could have been prevented if (former) minister Sussan Ley had carried out her statutory responsibility to issue an emergency declaration that would have protected Juukan Gorge.

Instead, the minister failed in her responsibility even as representatives from the local Indigenous communities tried to warn her and her department of the impending destruction of the site.

“A constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous voice to the executive could have changed the political culture so that Indigenous communities might have been heard.”

A spokesman for Ms Ley, now the deputy Liberal leader, said the claim the voice could have intervened was serious and needed to be backed up with a detailed explanation.

“In what can only be described as a significant expansion of the voice’s remit, they seem to be suggesting the body will be able to intervene in the statutory decisions of ministers regarding Indigenous heritage as well as the approval of mines and major infrastructure projects,” the spokesman said.

Anthony Albanese on Monday also built the case for the voice to be able to consult the executive, saying it would give the advisory body the ability to make early representations to government.

The Prime Minister declared the voice was “now over to the Australian people”, just as federal parliament started public hearings looking at the government’s proposed referendum question and constitutional amendment.

Many Liberal MPs believe the government will not move on its suggested wording, which was worked on by the referendum working group for months.

The second clause says the voice “may make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

“In Australia, the executive derives its power from the parliament,” Mr Albanese told ABC radio. “We have a Westminster system of government in this country, and what the reference to parliament and executive government is about is making sure you can get early representation made.”

Noel Pearson. Picture: Katje Ford

Mr Leeser, who quit the Liberal frontbench to campaign Yes for the voice, has suggested removing the second clause so parliament could legislate everything about the advisory body – including to whom in the executive government it could talk and about what.

Mr Pearson and Dr Morris said the result of such a model “would be a constitutional amendment requiring parliament to establish a body with no specified function or purpose”.

“Parliament in future could create a body whose main function is selling artwork, or baking cookies, or providing karaoke facilities as the name ‘voice’ might suggest, absent any further constitutional guidance. This would defeat the whole purpose of this constitutional reform, which intends to constitutional guarantee Indigenous peoples an advisory voice in their affairs,” they write.

Victorian Liberal MP Keith Wolahan, deputy chair of the voice parliamentary committee, said there had been compelling evidence about the advisory body’s scope and risk of an obligation to consult.

“How can the voice make a representation regarding an executive decision if it does not know that a decision exists to be heard about? This is not about veto or endless litigation. This is a narrow risk of an obligation that goes to delay and red tape,” Mr Wolahan said. “Even legal experts who dismiss the likelihood of that risk eventuating nonetheless acknowledge that the wording could be tightened. That is a window for compromise that is open to the government.”

Liberal MPs meanwhile are split on whether Country Liberal Party senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who sits in the Nationals partyroom, should take on the Indigenous affairs portfolio, a week after Mr Leeser‘s resignation.

Senator Nampijinpa Price has emerged as the frontrunner to hold the portfolio but there’s also speculation within the Liberal Party she could become a special envoy to prosecute the case against the voice.

Some Liberals are pushing for their South Australian Senate colleague Kerryne Liddle – who, like Senator Nampijinpa Price, is Indigenous and has been in federal parliament for less than a year – to be given a promotion.

Frontbencher Michaelia Cash, a former attorney-general, is the Liberal most mentioned to take on legal affairs, while Paul Fletcher and Michael Sukkar are also named as possibilities.