1. Historical Context: Let’s not forget that past government policies have often been detrimental to our communities. From the Stolen Generations to land dispossession, we’ve seen how government actions can have lasting, negative impacts.

2. Conflict of Interest: If the government is choosing who sits on this committee, how can we be sure that these representatives will prioritise our needs over political considerations?

3. Accountability: Who will these government-appointed representatives answer to? If it’s the government, we have effectively lost our independent voice.

4. Loss of Authenticity: There’s a real risk that our ‘Voice’ becomes a government echo chamber, parroting their agenda rather than representing our communities’ genuine needs and concerns.

5. Potential for Manipulation: Experienced politicians know how to navigate the system in ways many don’t. How can we ensure that our representatives won’t be outmaneuvered in political negotiations, potentially signing off on agreements that harm us in the long run?

6. Transparency: Will the operations of this Voice be transparent? If the government controls it, they might withhold critical information from us, limiting our ability to make informed decisions.

7. Public Perception: If the government says they’ve ‘solved’ the Indigenous issue by creating this Voice but don’t listen, we risk losing public support for genuine change.

8. Checks and Balances: What safeguards are there? Without rigorous checks, such as independent oversight or community consultation, there’s potential abuse of power.

   The key issue seems to be the level of control the Australian government has over the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Specifically, point (iii) gives the Parliament considerable latitude to define the structure and the scope and powers of the Voice. This could include who gets to be part of the group, what issues they can address, and how they can interact with the government and Parliament.

9. Control Over Composition: The government could potentially appoint members who are more aligned with its political agenda rather than being unbiased advocates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
10. Scope and Function: If the government has the authority to define what the Voice can do, it might limit its functions in a way that makes it less effective as an advocate for Indigenous rights.
11. Legal and Policy Constraints: With the power to define procedures, the government could set up bureaucratic hurdles that make it difficult for the Voice to act swiftly or decisively.
12. Accountability: If Parliament has the final say on how the Voice operates, who is the Voice ultimately accountable to? Ideally, it should be accountable to the communities it represents, but point (iii) could be interpreted to mean it’s more accountable to Parliament
13. This governmental control over the Voice’s operation could fundamentally alter its efficacy and role as a representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Given these potential risks, my concerns about point (iii) are quite understandable. This level of governmental control over the Voice’s operation could fundamentally alter its efficacy and its role as a representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

We must ask ourselves: Can we trust a system that has historically marginalised us to act in our best interests now? I argue that we should approach this proposal with extreme caution, critically evaluate all its aspects, and, most importantly, insist on structures that ensure our communities have the final say on who represents us and how. 

I have seen too many YES people in parliament, and this could be just another YES MOB to join

Thank you.

Jeffrey Lawson (Director)

Djerriwarrh Te Moana Nui A Kiwa Aboriginal Corporation