[Theme Music starts]

ANGE:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ange McCormack. This is 7am.

A Voice to parliament would be a first for Australia… but it’s not the first of its kind in the world. Norway has had an Indigenous-led Parliament for more than three decades, with local representatives advising on issues that impact their people. Closer to home, New Zealand has a Maori voice in Parliament, with specially established seats for Indigenous MPs. So, what impact have these bodies had? And could they offer a glimpse at life in Australia if we vote Yes?

Today, author and contributor to The Saturday Paper Andrew Wear on what we can learn from other countries who have given Indigenous people a Voice.

It’s Monday August 28.

[Theme Music ends]

ANGE:

Andrew, you've written a book about how other countries have cracked the world's biggest problems. And one of the issues you've been looking at is Indigenous voices to Parliament. Can you tell me why that issue caught your interest?

ANDREW:

Well, I'm really passionate about looking around the world and taking inspiration from what other countries are doing. I think that's really important because it expands the range of possibility that informs our own policy and it also takes it out of the realm of the ideological and the theoretical into the practical. It answers that fundamental question: what works? And I really wanted to get to the bottom of the First Nations voice to Parliament question and ask myself, who else in the world has done something similar to what's being proposed in Australia and what can we learn from them?

ANGE:

And what countries did you look at when you were assessing other options around the world?

ANDREW:

Well, certainly the Scandinavian countries, Norway, Sweden, Finland have all got equivalence of voices to Parliament for their indigenous people, the Sámi people of northern Scandinavia. And I did a deep dive into the Sámi parliament in Norway and similarly in New Zealand, for a long time the Maori people of New Zealand are well-represented in decision making and this great forum for discussion between Maori and Non-Maori people in New Zealand.

ANGE:

Yeah, right. And can you tell me a bit more about Norway specifically and the indigenous population? The Sámi?

ANDREW:

Sure. The Sámi people are the indigenous people of northern Norway and northern Scandinavia more generally. They live in Finland, Sweden and parts of Russia and that makes up their traditional territory called Sápmi. They’re the descendants of nomadic people who have lived in northern Scandinavia for thousands of years. They're the only indigenous people in the European Union and one of Europe's oldest surviving cultures. They're reindeer herders…It's a big part of their culture. Nomadic reindeer herding across grazing lands.

Audio Excerpt — Mikkel Eskil Mikkelson:

“I’ve grown up as a Sámi speaker from kindergarten age.”

ANDREW:

So one of the people I spoke to was Mikkel Eskil Mikkelson. He's an indigenous Sámi politician.

Audio Excerpt — Mikkel Eskil Mikkelson:

“I was one of the first few who were taught one of the Sámi languages from kindergarten all the way through school…”

ANDREW:

He’s 34 and he’s been in politics since he was 27. He’s a member of the Sámi parliament.

Audio Excerpt — Mikkel Eskil Mikkelson:

“I started went into music at music school but in music school I decided, okay, music is all about making me excel, playing an instrument, but I wanted to do something more that contributed, give back to my community, to the people. So that’s how I started writing upon yeah, culture, history, Sámi musical traditions. And that led to me going into politics.”

ANGE:

So how does this Sámi Parliament work? How is it different from the conventional, more traditional parliament in Norway?

ANDREW:

Yeah, so the Sámi parliament was established in 1989. It's been in operation for quite some time. The building that it operates in is really quite striking. It's in a small Norwegian town called Kárášjohka. The building’s amongst trees and snow, when it's constructed in quite a beautiful shape, a cone shape. I'm inspired by the lavvu, which is a temporary shelter that Sámi people traditionally used, and it's not a parliament in the traditional sense. It doesn't have any legislative function. It's there principally to serve as a clearinghouse for Sámi issues and to act as the voice of the Sámi people to the Norwegian government and Norwegian parliament. It has, however, over the years accumulated some responsibilities, particularly in the area of language, education and culture. So practically what that looks like, for example, is the Sámi people are involved in informing policy decisions over the teaching of the Sámi language or education delivered to Sámi communities in remote parts of Norway. They're involved in governance over the grazing lands, the reindeer grazing lands in northern Norway called Finn Mark. That's led to much better outcomes and much more constructive dialogue between Sámi and non Sámi populations in Norway.

ANGE:

And so this is an Indigenous Sámi voice and I guess I'm wondering what establishing this voice was like, whether it was contentious or controversial at all. Was there any debate around it? What was that like when it was getting up?

ANDREW:

Yeah, so back in the 1980s it was controversial. The debate in Norway was really quite hot. It was around a proposed hydroelectric dam that was being constructed that was going to flood a Sámi village. And the establishment of the Sámi voice was proposed. It itself was not a controversial thing. It was a mechanism in a way to lead to more constructive dialogue between Sámi people and the Norwegian government. But over the 30, more than 30 years that Sámi parliaments existed, it really hasn't been controversial. It's contributed to quite a shift in thinking about the Sámi people in Norway. And you now hear the Sámi voice in public debates. Sámi voice has got more leverage than it ever has before.

ANGE:

And what did the Sámi people you spoke to say about how much the voice has changed Norway or changed their lives practically?

ANDREW:

The Sámi people now feel listened to. They feel respected.

Audio Excerpt — Mikkel Eskil Mikkelson:

“We never had a possibility to negotiate at the views of the Sámi people before this. And that is something remarkable.”

ANDREW:

They feel like they've got an avenue to contribute to policy settings that impact their own communities. Like I said earlier, the teaching of education of the Sámi language, cultural institutions such as museums and things like that, they feel a real pride in their ability. Either influence decisions that impact their lives.

Audio Excerpt — Mikkel Eskil Mikkelson:

“Every legislation that goes through the Norwegian government, the Norwegian parliament, if there's a if it might inflict on the Sámi people, we are consulted. And that and that is a big part of my daily work…”

ANDREW:

But more broadly, the Sámi voice in the Norwegian community has more prominence and they feel like a respected part of the Norwegian community.

ANGE:

So the Parliament itself, when that was established, was that something that was legislated or was that established in the Constitution?

ANDREW:

The Sámi Parliament itself is established in legislation. It's not it's not in the Constitution, but it's been going for so long now. It's so embedded in the fabric of Norway, and I don't think any political party would dream of changing it. It's not been a source of great conflict.

ANGE:

Right. It's not at risk of being changed or amended in any way.

ANDREW:

No. And in fact, in May this year, the Norwegian Parliament voted to amend their constitution to establish the Sámi people as an indigenous group to Norway. And the Sámi themselves expected that to be controversial but in fact it sailed through the Norwegian parliament with an overwhelming majority and it really wasn't that controversial at all. Quite different to the situation we find ourselves in in Australia.

ANGE:

We’ll be back after this.

[ADVERTISEMENT]

ANGE:

Andrew, we've been looking at the Indigenous voice to Parliament in Norway, the Sámi parliament, and how it operates. Are there any other similar bodies or models elsewhere in the world to look at?

ANDREW:

Yeah, a little closer to home. New Zealand's Maori population has not so much a voice to Parliament as a voice in Parliament. How it works in New Zealand is there are two electoral rolls, there's the general electoral roll and there's a Maori electoral roll and Maori people are able to choose which role they go on and they split roughly half, half between the two. Those on the Maori electoral roll are able to vote in one of seven Maori seats in New Zealand and those seats sit in Parliament alongside other seats and it means there's effectively a guaranteed Maori voice in the New Zealand Parliament.

ANGE:

And what has the impact been in New Zealand to have that Maori voice? What kinds of things are we seeing in New Zealand because of it?

ANDREW:

There's been some really significant pieces of legislation passed in New Zealand and I was talking recently with the Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament and a Maori seat holder, Adrian Rurawhe, he says you can't overestimate the significance and how profound the impact of the Maori seats has been.

Audio Excerpt — Adrian Rurawhe:

“It has made an incredible impact on the lives of our people. Far, more than I think people realise.”

ANDREW:

There's been some big legislative changes as a result, everything from the confirmation of the Maori language as an official language of New Zealand through to the establishment of the Maori Health Authority.

Audio Excerpt — Adrian Rurawhe:

“Everything so far had failed to deliver equity and health outcomes. So this is what was being proposed, you know, basically setting up an entity to sit next to what used to be the Ministry of Health and forcing both sides to work with each other to improve health outcomes for Maori.”

ANDREW:

And he says these have all come about as a direct result of both Maori seats and Maori representation in Parliament.

ANGE:

And I guess again to this idea of opposition or how the non-Indigenous population might react to that, how did New Zealanders respond to this idea of having a dedicated Maori voice in Parliament?

ANDREW:

The really interesting thing about New Zealand and what sets it apart from Australia is that it's foundation document back to 1840 is the Treaty of Waitangi, which provides that the British could rule over their own colonies while the Maori retained control and governance over their own land, water, forests and other things that were precious to them. And that's a foundational document, has shaped everything else that's come in New Zealand since. And Maori seat holders, they have a special responsibility that comes with them to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi, and that shapes everything they do. And New Zealand itself has been on a journey of working through the implications of the treaty settlement process, and it's enabled those conversations to take place. These are tricky conversations and whatever we can do to create the platform that enables Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to come and have dialogue and work through tricky issues together, that leads to much more constructive outcomes. And we've seen that whether that's in New Zealand or whether that's in Norway or in any other situation in the world where Indigenous and non-Indigenous people need to come together to work through issues.

ANGE:

And Andrew, some of the claims of the no campaign here in Australia that there's no comparable body to the voice anywhere in the world and that, you know, such a body would be really divisive. Do you think what's happening in these other countries like New Zealand and Norway, says anything about those claims?

ANDREW:

Well, I think it's clear that the claim that there is no comparable body anywhere else in the world to the Voice, that's clearly a misrepresentation. There are a number of comparable bodies elsewhere in the world, the the Sámi parliaments in northern Scandinavia, the Maori representation in New Zealand parliament, they're all comparable. And what they demonstrate is that over time they've not been controversial and they haven't divided the country as is often feared. They've actually led to a more constructive environment for positive conversations to take place.

ANGE:

And I suppose there's an argument that for the people that the voice won't affect materially, you know, it's not going to have a huge difference on their lives. But for the people that it does affect, it's going to have a profound impact.

ANDREW:

Indeed. For the most part, the Sámi parliament in Norway, for example, has no impact whatsoever on the non-Indigenous population of Norway. And everyone I spoke to, whether in Norway or in New Zealand, what they told me about Australia's circumstances was that what we were proposing was extremely modest in an international context and that it would as a positive step forward, that would create a platform for Australia to progress some very important conversations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. And that modest step forward was one that we should embrace and take. And in their experience it had only been a positive thing.

ANGE:

And these voices are set up differently for different countries in different contexts. But is there a common lesson that can be taken from them in how we approach the voice here in Australia?

ANDREW:

There is, I think, one of the things that comes through really clearly from the number of people that I spoke to in those parliaments around the world is that when you engage with First Nations people, with indigenous people, it leads to better outcomes, particularly in areas that directly impact them. In health, education, language, culture – those Indigenous communities are able to better influence and design and develop policies that have better outcomes in ways that impact them. It also takes time, though governments do have to be prepared to engage deeply when it comes to working through these issues, and it's only as effective as the preparedness of governments to do that engagement. But when it's done well, it yields better policy outcomes and yields more constructive conversations. And it's in the interests of everyone, really.

ANGE:

Andrew, thanks so much for your time today.

ANDREW:

A pleasure. Thanks for having me.

[Theme Music starts]

ANGE:

Also in the news today...

Sea temperatures in Australia’s south east could get so high this summer that they will literally be off the scale, according to the Bureau of Meteorology. An area of the Tasman sea off the coast of Tasmania and Victoria is likely to be at least 2.5 degrees warmer than average from September to February, and could warm more than 3 degrees above average. The Bureau’s scale for measuring sea temperature anomalies stops at 2.5 degrees.

And…

Jim Chalmers says he has ‘substantial’ concerns over the weakening Chinese economy. The Treasurer said on Sunday that the economic downturn in China has “obvious implications for us” but believes it won’t cause a recession in Australia.

I’m Ange McCormack, this is 7am. We’ll be back again tomorrow.

[Theme Music ends]