A human rights advocate says she wants every Australian to understand that the heart of the voice proposal will empower Indigenous people to have a say on matters that affect them.
Uluru Dialogues co-chair Pat Anderson has told federal MPs the message from Indigenous people across the country has been consistent in the dozens of dialogues she has joined on constitutional recognition.
“The voice is about getting grassroots voices amplified and feeding into Canberra, representing the views and voices of their communities,” she told the parliamentary committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice referendum in Canberra on Friday.
“The really important message from the dialogues was that there is no voice that exists now that represents who we are and what we want.
“That’s a really powerful message.”
Professors Megan Davis, Marcia Langton and Tom Calma also addressed the committee, as did Uluru statement campaigner Thomas Mayor and retired journalist Kerry O’Brien, who have co-written a book about the voice.
And while their areas of expertise differ, they all agreed on one point: the status quo for Indigenous Australians is not acceptable.
Prof Davis, co-chair of the Uluru Dialogues, said the bill was the culmination of a 16-year national discussion of constitutional recognition.
“This bill has deep roots in generations of advocacy by First Nations people concerned about Indigenous disempowerment, structural powerlessness and a constitution that makes no reference to the polities that have occupied Australia for more than 60,000 years,” she said.
“The dialogues advocated for substantive constitutional change that would alter the status quo. They called for empowerment through voice that could speak to both parliament and the government but one that could also evolve and change over the decades to come.”
Prof Calma pointed out a million people walked across bridges in Australia in the name of reconciliation in the year 2000.
“The population was getting to understand Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,” he said.
“In 2008, we had the national apology to the Stolen Generations. Kevin Rudd said at the time and subsequent prime ministers and another ministers have said since that we cannot keep on doing things for and to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, we need to do it with them.
“We’ve had successive attempts but no real tangible outcomes.
“This process is the opportunity to now work with and partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be able to achieve reconciliation, to be able to achieve equality.”
The inquiry also heard from legal experts, former judges and practising barristers.
One, Bret Walker SC, was scathing when asked about the suggestion the voice would delay effective governance by having to be consulted on every decision by the public service or government.
“I regard it as double backflip with pike,” he said.
“As an advocate in the High Court, I don’t think I would get half a sentence out if I was advancing an argument like that.
“It just seems to me that this notion that there is an implication threatened … whereby the validity of executive action, decisions great, small and middle by officials, will somehow jam up the process as a result of this enactment is too silly for words.
“I personally don’t think it would be responsible for any constitutionalist to say so.”
The inquiry is only looking at the legislation needed for a referendum and will also hold public hearings in Orange on Monday and Cairns on Wednesday.
© AAP 2023
