Voice ‘can be refined’, Noel Pearson tells Indigenous No groups

Noel Pearson has urged Indigenous groups not to oppose the voice out of concern its size or voting system would disenfranchise them, as its final form is yet to be decided.

Former Tasmanian Liberal Premier Peter Gutwein joins leading Yes campaigner Noel Pearson at Elizabeth Street Mall, Hobart, on Monday. Picture: Chris Kidd

Local Aboriginal groups should not assume their state will have only two representatives on the voice to parliament, with “ample opportunity” to “refine” its design, says Indigenous leader Noel Pearson.

The prominent Yes campaigner on Monday urged Indigenous groups not to oppose the voice out of concern its size or voting system would disenfranchise them, as its final form was yet to be decided.

“I would just urge our people to not put the cart in front of the horse – there will be ample opportunity to get the design right after the referendum,” the Cape York leader said, as he rallied the Yes campaign in Tasmania.

“There’s concern all over the country that the process of generating the legalisation (to create the voice) gives people the opportunity to build an optimal design for the voice.

“I believe there’ll be great opportunity to do that. We’ll be able to refine the design of the voice following the referendum. Ultimately, it’s parliament that settles the design of the voice.”

Several Indigenous groups in Tasmania – which Mr Pearson said was “absolutely key” to a national Yes vote - oppose the voice largely out of fear they will be outvoted by others and lose the ear of governments.

The Tom Calma-Marcia Langton national voice model has as few as two voice representatives per state.

As well as stressing the chance to “refine” this model, Mr Pearson urged local Indigenous groups to consider the opportunity for a series of local voices at the state or regional level.

“I’m concerned about Cape York and that our communities in Cape York are properly represented at the community level to get their issues addressed,” he said.

“Some of the issues need to be taken to Brisbane and some of the issues need to be taken to Canberra. Same here (in Tasmania).

“Footprints of local voices are crucial to get people to understand ‘oh, that is how I fit into this opportunity’. It’s not just the two people who go to the national voice in Canberra.”

Uluru Dialogue campaigner Geoff Scott, a Wiradjuri man from Narromine, said he could see a scenario in which hundreds of Indigenous people were part of the voice or consulted about its work at regular forums.

“We had 1300 people contribute to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and I don‘t think we should be afraid of that number,” Mr Scott said. ”It’s about ensuring local voices get heard in the corridors of power.”

Mr Scott also backed local and regional voices, as well as a national voice, similar to the Calma-Langton proposal, presented to the Morrison government in 2021.

“In some respects the hard work starts after the people give us the mandate,” he said. ”We all have to come up with something that suits the needs of communities.”

Constitutional lawyer Gabrielle Appleby acknowledged concerns among Indigenous Australians about how the voice would represent them.

Professor Appleby, whose work on the voice has included presenting to Anthony Albanese‘s expert constitutional panel, described the lack of detail about the voice as a “very deliberate constitutional choice“.

“There are many sound reasons for constitutional brevity,” she said. These included decreasing the likelihood of judicial reviews, as well as” preserving flexibility for changing circumstances”.

“For First Nations people for example, this issue is raised acutely with respect to the determination of membership of those who serve on the voice, and the genuine concerns that some hold that the membership must be selected by and represent local communities,” she said.