Ken Wyatt and the Coalition say they will put forward a model in this term of parliament – but what will it be?

Indigenous recognition: what, if anything, will Australians be asked to vote on?

It has been more than two years since Indigenous leaders resolved to push for a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice in parliament. Last week the Indigenous affairs minister, Ken Wyatt, said he would put forward a model for a referendum on constitutional recognition within this term of parliament. But it remains unclear what that model will look like, and what, if anything, the Australian public will ultimately be asked to vote on. Here’s what we know about the government’s current position.

Does Wyatt’s statement mean the Morrison government will enact the Uluru statement?

It doesn’t appear so. Wyatt told the press club in his Naidoc week address on Wednesday that he would develop a “consensus option” for referendum within three years.

The Uluru statement from the heart proposed a referendum to introduce a constitutionally enshrined first nations voice to parliament, as well as a national process of truth-telling and treaty-making through a Makarrata commission.

Wyatt told the press club “the development of a local, regional and national voice will be achieved”, but that it would be based on strengthening existing jurisdictional organisations and advisory structures, with a focus on those at state and territory level.

Treaties, he said, were best progressed there, rather than federally.

Our constitution is already racist, but the politics around the voice have been craven and nauseous | Paul Daley Read more

He told the ABC that he interpreted the idea of a voice as “not just a singular voice, it was voices from every level”.

Enshrining a first nations voice to parliament is not the only option for constitutional recognition – we have been debating options for some time – but it was the only one put forward in the Uluru statement.

In case there was any doubt about the government’s position, the Australian reported on Saturday that “senior government sources” said a constitutionally enshrined voice to parliament was “not going to happen on [Scott Morrison’s] watch”.

Morrison has previously joined his predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, in describing the idea of a voice as a “third chamber” of parliament, a line repeated in the past week by Peter Dutton, Barnaby Joyce and Craig Kelly.

Is an Indigenous voice a third chamber of parliament?

No.

Isn’t that debatable?

No. Politicians who say the voice to parliament would be a third chamber are knowingly incorrect.

So what is a voice to parliament?

The structure has not been finalised and the report of the referendum council said parliament should design the voice in consultation with Aboriginal people.

But a third chamber of parliament is outside the scope. When asked to describe the kind of body they were talking about, delegates at the Uluru dialogues spoke of wanting something similar to the disbanded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, but with constitutional protection so it could not be unilaterally abolished, and more robust governance structures.

Atsic was also accused of being a third chamber of parliament by John Howard, who went on to abolish the organisation when he was prime minister. He told parliament in 1989 that Atsic would “create a black nation within the Australian nation”.

But politicians do not need to look backwards for how the voice could work, they just need to look at Victoria.

What’s happening in Victoria?

Enrolment is under way for Aboriginal people in Victoria to vote in the First People’s Assembly, a representative body of 21 elected representatives drawn from five voting regions, and 12 nominated representatives, one from each of the 12 formally recognised traditional owner groups in the state.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Treaty advancement commissioner Jill Gallagher has described the First People’s Assembly as a ‘voice to parliament to Victoria’.

That body is tasked with working with the state government to set up an independent treaty authority, creating a treaty negotiation framework, and creating and administering a self-determination fund. Treaty commissioner Jill Gallagher has described it as “a voice to parliament to Victoria”.

Enrolment is open to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 16 and over who have lived in Victoria for at least three years, and all Victorian traditional owners. Any Victorian traditional owner who is eligible to be a director of a corporation can stand as a candidate, and there are quotas for female or non-male representation.

The assembly is also creating a separate Aboriginal electoral roll to manage its elections, which will be independent from government.

Voting will run from 16 September to 20 October, with the first meeting expected to be held in late October.

What are other states doing?

The Queensland government announced on Sunday that it would begin a treaty process, led by a panel co-chaired by Bidjara and Birri-Gubba Juru academic Jackie Huggins. The deputy premier, Jackie Trad, said it would be a community-led process with no preordained outcome that could take a number of years.

Former Australian of the year and Yawuru man Mick Dodson was appointed treaty commissioner in the Northern Territory in February, eight months after the Territory government signed the historic Barunga agreement. He has been given just over two years to consult Aboriginal people, determine the best model for a treaty or treaties in the NT, develop a framework for treaty negotiations with government, and recommend the best model for Aboriginal representation in the process.

Western Australia launched a community consultation process in September to help design a new independent statutory office to advocate and provide accountability for Aboriginal people in government policy and actions. The proposal is for one appointed official, not a representative body, but one of the consultation questions asked how Aboriginal people should be involved in the selection of that person.

Indigenous referendum won't be held if it looks like failing, Ken Wyatt says Read more

The Labor party in South Australia has pledged to enact the Uluru statement on a state level, with the creation of a voice to parliament and a treaty and truth-telling commission similar to the First Peoples Assembly in Victoria if it is elected in 2022. The Weatherill government had begun negotiating clan-based treaties before it lost the 2018 election. The Marshall Liberal government is honouring preliminary agreements struck through that process but does not support treaties.

The NSW Labor party promised to establish a treaty following the 2019 election, which it lost.

All these initiatives have been put forward by Labor governments or oppositions, echoing the national commitment from Labor to enact a voice to parliament and put the question to referendum, before it lost the May federal election.

Shouldn’t we focus on practical reconciliation?

That is the standard response of conservative politicians who oppose overt moves toward self-determination.

It’s also a false dichotomy. The voice to parliament emerged from the constitutional dialogues as the preferred model because it was not symbolic and offered, according to the Uluru statement, “substantive constitutional change and structural reform”.

Creating a representative body that would have direct input into policy that overwhelmingly affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is not a symbolic nicety. If it were, it might be more acceptable to government.