Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples I present the committee's Interim reporttogether with a corrigendum to the report.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I take note of the interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, which was tabled out of session.

In March this year the parliament appointed this committee to build on the work of the 2015 joint select committee, the 2012 expert panel, the 2017 Referendum Council and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It tasked us with finding a way to advance the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples able to be supported by Australians from all walks of life and contribute to a more unified and reconciled nation.

It is important that any proposals have the support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and also, as our terms of reference indicate, broad parliamentary and political support as well as the support of all Australians. The joint select committee on constitutional recognition acknowledges the long history of advocacy for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

My co-chair, Senator Dodson, and I have understood the requirement for this committee to find common ground and seek a way forward on the options and issues considered and reflected in the work of those previous committees. I support the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as part of a broader project of reconciliation and recognition of their unique status in our nation.

We as a committee understand the frustration many have about the length of time taken to advance these issues. However, we also note that the Uluru Statement from the Heart represents a major change in the direction of the debate about constitutional recognition, with its proposals for a voice, agreement-making and truth-telling. While the Uluru Statement gave us a direction, it didn't provide much detail as to what proposals for a voice would actually look like. Therefore the primary task of this committee is to consider and develop proposals for constitutional recognition, including the voice.

The range of views about what the voice might look like means that this is not a simple task. We've listened closely to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, legal experts and other Australians. The committee has put forward a range of principles and models and has asked for responses to a series of questions.

In the Interim report the committee has outlined a non-exhaustive list of 15 different models of consultative bodies, which we are seeking comment on.

Past models

These include past bodies like the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, the National Aboriginal Conference and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.

Current Models

Models that are presently operating in the public policy sphere include the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, the Torres Strait Regional Authority, the Murdi Paaki Regional Assembly, the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council, the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, prescribed body corporates and Aboriginal land councils.

Indicative proposals for a First Nations Voice

We have also received indicative proposals for how a First Nations voice might work from organisations like Uphold & Recognise, the Cape York Institute and Mr Eric Sidoti.

The committee has also highlighted a non-exhaustive list of nine principles, which have come through the initial consultations we have conducted.

We have noted that there is strong support for the concept of the voice.

Most significant is the strong support for local and regional structures.

The members of the voice, whether local, regional or national, should be chosen by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples rather than appointed by government, as this will provide legitimacy and authenticity for the voice.

The design of local voices should reflect the varying practices of different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. A Canberra-designed one-size-fits-all model would not be supported.

We believe that there should be equal gender representation on the voice.

The voice at the local, regional and national level should be used by state, territory and local governments as well as the federal government. It seems logical that, if the voice is to have a role regarding federal legislation policy and services, it should have the same or similar functions in relation to state and local government policies, laws and services.

The voices, whether local, regional or national, should provide oversight, advice and plans but not necessarily administer programs or money.

The voices should provide a forum for people to bring ideas or problems to government, and government should be able to use the voices to road test and evaluate policy. This process should work as a dialogue where the appropriateness of policy and its possible need for change should be negotiable.

Consideration must be given to the interplay of any voice body with existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations at both the local and national level in such areas as health, education and law, and how such organisations might work together with the voice.

Evidence presented to the committee and broader discussions have highlighted that the majority of day-to-day challenges facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples do not fall within the ambit of this parliament. Many of the solutions to these challenges are both local and regional.

These solutions need to be found through close political and fiscal cooperation between the Commonwealth, state, territory and regional bodies. Consequently, to be effective, any voice proposal will need to have local, regional and national elements.

Throughout our inquiry, we have asked for people's proposals and ideas on what the voice might look like and how it might best work with the Commonwealth parliament, the Australian government, the states and territories, local authorities and existing organisations.

This Interim report indicates our progress to date and outlines what we as a committee will be doing next. It sets out key areas of inquiry, asking specific questions, some 100 questions, on what a voice might strive for and how it could be designed.

It acknowledges that, whatever form future proposals might take, a voice must be legitimate, representative and agreed upon between the parliament and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Design questions regarding constitutional and/or legislative change remain before us. The committee recognises that the Australian public and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples may have differing views on the need for a voice and, indeed, whether the voice should be given a constitutional guarantee.

We have also considered in the report suggestions for agreement-making and truth-telling. We look to further comment on the appropriateness of the term 'Makarrata' and how culturally this process might help us achieve reconciliation.

We encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the broader community to make submissions examining the principles and models outlined in chapters 3 and 4 and addressing the questions we pose in chapter 7 by 17 September this year.

But, as we foreshadowed, this report will not be the end of the process. We hope that the next round of consultations might help the committee to refine models which might form the basis for a process of deep consultation and co-design between the Australian government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in every community across Australia in order to ensure that the detail of the voice and related proposals are authentic for each community in the country.

I want to thank the members of the committee and record my particular thanks and appreciation to Senator Dodson. He and I have a approached this task with goodwill, acknowledging the difficulty of the task but also focusing on the things which we can agree on.

I want to acknowledge the members of the committee: Senator Duniam, Senator McCarthy, Senator Siewert and Senator Stoker and the members for Barton, Farrer, Lingiari, Indi and Wide Bay. I note that the member for Barton is here. Many of those members, including the member for Barton, bring with them a lifetime of experience in Indigenous policy and they have been very generous with sharing their insights and experience with other members of the committee, and for that I'm very grateful.

I would also like to thank and acknowledge the secretariat for the work they have done, as well as the office of Senator Dodson and my own office.

On behalf of the committee, we would like to acknowledge and thank members of the public who have worked with us to this point, and we look forward to their ongoing input as we continue this important journey.

I commend the Interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to the House.

See this speech in context