Login
LCA offers input on Indigenous voice to parliament consultation
The Law Council of Australia (LCA) has responded to a recent announcement made by minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt AM which proposed a co-design process for an “Indigenous voice to government”.
Emma Musgrave
Last week, Mr Wyatt said a senior advisory group will be established with an aim of enhancing local and regional decision-making and ensuring Indigenous voices were heard as “equally as any other Australian voice” by all levels of government.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
LCA president Arthur Moses SC said it was unfortunate the roadmap laid out by the Uluru Statement for a “constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament" had not been understood, let alone adopted by the Morrison government, noting that “a voice for Indigenous Australians must be heard by parliament, not just by the government if it is to have a meaningful impact on our laws and the administration of justice”.
“Let me be clear these criticisms are not directed towards minister Wyatt, but those within the government who unfairly and in a pre-emptive manner dismissed the concept of a voice to parliament without properly understanding it,” Mr Moses said.
“The Uluru Statement from the Heart was conceived from one of the most comprehensive consultations of Indigenous Australians in our nation’s history.
“The whole point of the voice to parliament is to ensure that our First Nations peoples have an opportunity to propose bills, be consulted on bills, and to express their views on bills before they are enacted as laws of the Commonwealth which may impact upon First Nations peoples. This includes bills about fundamental issues which matter on the ground to First Nations peoples, such as health, welfare and education.”
Mr Moses reiterated that what is being proposed is a voice to government, rather than a voice to parliament.
“If it is not constitutionally enshrined but legislated it could be abolished at any time if the government does not like what it was saying,” he added.
“A voice to parliament has some degree of public accountability on the part of the parliament while a voice to government does not, something that is of great potential significance if the government has closed ears.”
