Legal experts have begun "stress testing" the plan for a First Nations' Voice to Parliament, hoping to head off any unforeseen pitfalls in the proposal.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has pledged to hold a referendum on a Voice in this term of Parliament, in July unveiling a question which could be put to voters.
On Wednesday evening, the UNSW's Indigenous Law Centre, which works closely with the Uluru Dialogue, embarked on a consultation process with leading legal experts in each state and territory.
The talks, set to explore the foreseen and unforeseen legal challenges in making the Voice a reality, will continue over September and October, before handing a report to government by the end of the year.
Constitutional law expert Gabrielle Appleby, from the UNSW Indigenous Law Centre, said the consultation groups would be "small, focused, but highly-expert".
Professor Appleby insisted legal experts' input was vital to ensuring the amendment was a "strong acceptance" of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and stood "the best chance of success".
"It's a really important next step for the work towards a referendum on the First Nations Voice," she told ACM.
"This next step is now to go out to a wider group of legal professionals across Australia ... and stress test this amendment, to make sure that the amendment that goes to the Australian people is the best it possibly can be."
The Voice, called for in the 2017 Uluru Statement, would provide representations to government on policies impacting First Nations Australians.
Professor Appleby spent years working with the regional dialogues which produced the Uluru Statement, and said her role was to ensure the aspirations of First Nations delegates who took part were reflected.
"I have concerns that any watered down reform really might set it up for failure," she said.
Conversations will centre on the level of detail provided, the scope of the Voice's jurisdiction, and whether and how a national Voice would interact with the states and territories.
"I'm hoping to that there'll [also] be issues that we haven't considered," Professor Appleby said.
"That's the point of going to this wider group within the legal profession: to see whether there are issues, angles, and perspectives that we haven't already seen arise in the other conversations, and in the public debate."
Coalition leader Peter Dutton was yet to back the Voice referendum, arguing the government had not made sufficient detail public.
While Professor Appleby accepted it was necessary for voters to "have a sense of what will happen" if they voted for a constitutional amendment, she warned there were "dangers" in overloading on detail.
"That implies people are having a referendum on the exact bill that the Parliament might pass, and that's not what is happening," she said.
"It risks de facto enshrining, if not legally enshrining, the detail ... [but] the whole intention is that the legislation will be able to change, adapt, evolve."
The former Coalition government was open to using legislation, rather than a referendum, to implement a Voice. But critics argued that would leave the body vulnerable to the whims of the government of the day.
Implementing the Voice via a referendum would give the Voice "authority, legitimacy, and status".
"We want to recognise First Nations people, and we want to do it through structural change that gives them a voice in the political process," she said.
"That's a huge endorsement that politicians can't ignore."
