The Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney addressed the National Press Club this afternoon and used the opportunity to outline what she says will ...
Leading legal and constitutional experts have rejected the claim that the proposed Voice to Parliament will provide “special rights” to one race of people.
Professor Anne Twomey, a member of the Constitutional Expert Group that provides the government with legal support on constitutional matters relating to the referendum, told RMIT FactLab that “the proposed constitutional amendment does not confer any special rights”.
Professor Twomey added: “It just requires the establishment of a body with the function of making representations to parliament.”
She said that any individual or organisation can make representations to parliament by way of petitions, which are tabled in parliament, or by making representations to their local member of parliament.
Bodies with collective interests, such as unions, community groups, charities and business organisations, can also make submissions to parliamentary committees to point out problems or propose changes to bills being debated in parliament, she said.
“People with similar interests often band together in groups in their hope that their collective voice will be more influential than their individual submissions,” she said. “The Voice would be one such group.”
Professor Twomey likened the Voice to other statutory bodies that can make representations to parliament through reports, reviews or recommendations, such as the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Productivity Commission.
“The fact that the majority of people appointed to those bodies are lawyers and economists cannot be treated as giving members of those bodies ‘special rights’ and discriminating against doctors and plumbers,” she said.
The reason particular professionals dominate those bodies is due to their expertise and relevant experience, she said.
“The same can be said of a group of Indigenous Australians who have expertise and experience in how laws directed towards them are likely to affect them,” she said.
Professor Twomey said it was up to parliament to decide how the Voice would be composed and what its powers, procedures and other functions would be.
In an article published on December 14 in The Conversation, a website that publishes commentary, research and analysis from Australian universities and the CSIRO, Professor Twomey wrote that the Constitutional Expert Group were “unanimously of the view” that the Voice would not confer “special rights” to anyone.
The expert group comprises leading legal and constitutional experts, including Professor Greg Craven GCSG, Professor Megan Davis, Mr Kenneth Hayne KC, Mr Noel Pearson, Professor Cheryl Saunders, Professor Anne Twomey, Scientia Professor George Williams and Professor Asmi Wood. It is chaired by the Attorney-General of Australia, Mark Dreyfus.
In their advice to the First Nations Referendum Working Group, the constitutional experts said the Voice would not change or take away any rights of non-Indigenous people. A summary of their advice was published in a communique on December 13 by the Referendum Working Group.
“The Voice does not confer ‘rights’, much less ‘special rights’, on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,” the communique states. “Nor would the Voice change or take away any right, power or privilege of anyone who is not Indigenous.”
RMIT FactLab also consulted a legal expert outside of the Constitutional Expert Group - Professor Gabrielle Appleby of the Law Faculty at the University New South Wales.
Professor Appleby agreed that the Voice to Parliament would not provide “special rights” to one race of people.
“The Voice does not itself grant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people rights, such as land rights or cultural rights, which are still granted, amended and even repealed by the parliament, as with all other laws,” Professor Appleby said.
The Voice provides an additional opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people input in the decision-making processes of government and parliament, she said.
“It does not change or reduce the rights of any other Australian,” she said.
Notice how they continually refer to “rights” as if they are careful to only address that word specifically. I wonder what their response would be if the question was whether the Voice would be giving unfair representation to Australian citizens of a particular background.
As they point out, other bodies makes representations to Parliament, but none of those required a constitutional amendment yet they seem sufficiently represented.
They’re sufficiently represented because those bodies are resourced by companies and NGOs. Indigenous people don’t have those same resources, and simply allocating them through normal government process (as has happened in the past) can simply be undone by successive governments for political/ideological reasons.
Constitutional amendment prevents that from happening. It guarantees they always have a voice.
Notice how they continually refer to “rights” as if they are careful to only address that word specifically. I wonder what their response would be if the question was whether the Voice would be giving unfair representation to Australian citizens of a particular background.
As they point out, other bodies makes representations to Parliament, but none of those required a constitutional amendment yet they seem sufficiently represented.
It’s almost as if the claim they were debunking was literally about “special rights”.
They’re sufficiently represented because those bodies are resourced by companies and NGOs. Indigenous people don’t have those same resources, and simply allocating them through normal government process (as has happened in the past) can simply be undone by successive governments for political/ideological reasons.
Constitutional amendment prevents that from happening. It guarantees they always have a voice.