Maher is the first Aboriginal man to be attorney-general in the state and has overseen the legislation establishing the South Australia First Nations Voice to the state government. It is a very interesting legislative model that piqued my interest after my last column discussing Te Pāti Māori’s call for a Māori parliament.
Some disclaimers first. There is more to understand about the critique of the model from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. While the legislation has been widely applauded, it is not a sovereignty model. It does not give back the land stolen.
It does not make reparations for the dispossession, injury and death caused by colonisation, or establish an independent, self-determining sovereign body for those whose territory the state government occupies.
It does, however, provide a way for that government to engage with the indigenous community in a structural dialogue and the model has some interesting features for all of us parliamentary geeks.
The model is a representative one, consisting of six Local First Nations Voices and one State First Nations Voice. The six Local First Nations Voices are representative committees whose members are elected by the First Nations people who live in the area.
All but one of the Local Voices have seven members, while the metropolitan central region has 11
The Voices are gender balanced and elected by the First Nations people registered to vote in those areas, similar to our Māori electoral roll.
The legislation defines a First Nations person fairly loosely. They can be a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent, regard themselves as such, or someone who is accepted as such by the relevant Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community. While not legislated, this is similar to our criteria for voters who opt to vote on the Māori electoral role.
Two people, a man and a woman, are appointed by each of the Local Voices to the State First Nations Voice. The State Voice will hear and represent the views of local people through the Local Voices, but also has an important role with the state government.
This is where their structure diverges from our Māori electorate process. If it was a Venn diagram, one circle would be the the Māori seats, one would be a select committee and one would be local government. The State Voice sits at the intersection of all three.
The State Voice has the statewide representation of First Nations people and is tasked with representing their views to the two houses of the state government. Unlike the Māori seats, the members of the State Voice are tasked solely with representing their people’s interest and, even if party politics has an influence on individuals, those individuals are not bound to party policy or political positions.
Each year, the presiding members of the State Voice will address a joint sitting of both houses of the parliament. This report includes an annual report of the work of the Voice, but also any matters that are important to their people.
That means the scope of that report is quite broad, more like a state of nation speech or the annual opening speeches delivered by the party leaders. This means the agenda of the First Nations people can help frame the debates of the state politicians. This is close to the role that Te Pāti Māori in our Parliament, except that the Voice does not have a vote and so is not part of the decision-making.
Both houses of parliament are required to give the State Voice notice of all proposed legislation and the Voice can assess any parliamentary matters considered relevant to its people. This is similar to the select committee process here, but how the Voice goes about that assessment is determined by Voice members rather than by the standing orders of the parliament.
Following that assessment, the Voice has the right to address either of the relevant houses on their view of the impact of the proposed legislation on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people.
Having access to parliament in this way is important because it means that the views, impacts and recommendations are not mediated by representatives or through party political priorities.
It is also unusual, at least in New Zealand terms. The House of Representatives closely guards the floor of the Chamber and few people ever get the opportunity to address them there. Look at how the Speaker shut down a kaumatua from Whakatōhea who stood in the gallery to deliver a karakia after their settlement.
The First Nations Voice is an interesting model of representation of indigenous people to a western parliamentary political structure. It has many failings but also advances a hard-fought-for political voice for the indigenous people in the South Australian state.
■Metiria Stanton-Turei is a law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
