No, 109 Aboriginal ‘agencies’ are not equivalent to the Voice

^{By Renee Davidson}

A list of more than 100 purported Aboriginal agencies is circulating online as evidence that the proposed Voice to Parliament is unjustified because Indigenous peoples already have enough representation. 

The Wikipedia list, last edited in 2016, was published on a website on March 13, 2023, under the title: “Why do we need Albanese's voice? Aren't 109 separate Aboriginal agencies enough?” The list has since been shared by several Facebook users. 

According to the Australian government, the Indigenous Voice to Parliament “will be an independent, representative advisory body for First Nations peoples. It will provide a permanent means to advise the Australian Parliament and Government on the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on matters that affect them.”

But according to experts, none of the agencies on the list advise Parliament on matters specifically affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, nor are any constitutionally enshrined. 

In fact, of the 109 agencies, at least 24 no longer exist. For example, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission dissolved in 2005, while the Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association disbanded almost 100 years ago in 1927. 

There are 17 bodies listed that relate to the arts industry, including Indigenous-led dance and theatre companies and the NAIDOC cultural festival, as well an Indigenous football and netball club and an Australian rules team - none of which are representative advisory bodies.

The list also features numerous non-profit organisations that work in various parts of the country to deliver services such as housing, health, and education to Indigenous Australians. 

Moreover, many are not agencies at all. Some are merely reports or lists. Among them are a 1934 and a 1987 royal commission, a list of artist award winners, and a Scottish doctor who died in 1986. 

Constitutional law experts consulted by RMIT FactLab rejected the idea that the groups fulfilled the role of the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament. 

Constitutional law expert Cheryl Saunders, Laureate Professor Emeritus at the University of Melbourne, told FactLab in an email that none of the entities on the list constitute the proposed Voice. 

“It’s a pretty incoherent list, without obvious criteria for inclusion,” Professor Saunders said. 

She said many of the bodies were general, such as Save the Children and the Fred Hollows Foundation, while others had a variety of functions with no bearing on government decision making, such as the Bangarra Dance Theatre. 

“In any event, none performs the role envisaged for the Voice; and none are in the constitution,” she said. 

Professor Gabrielle Appleby of the Law Faculty at the University of New South Wales said in an email that the proposed Voice would perform a distinct role that is lacking in the Australian system. 

“The Voice will fill an important gap in Australia’s constitutional and governance system,” she said. “There is currently no national representative body that is selected by and accountable back to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, with the specific role of providing advice to the national government and parliament in relation to making decisions, developing policies and laws, relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

“Not one of the existing government – or private – agencies or organisations fulfils this role,” she said, adding that the list published online was a “grab-bag” of organisations that related to First Nations. 

“It is not a list of ‘government agencies’, but, rather, a list that includes a wide-ranging, although incomplete, grouping that includes private agencies, regional bodies, and government bodies,” she said. 

Luke Beck, Professor of Constitutional Law at Monash University, said that the proposed Voice differed from existing organisations and agencies in terms of its power and advisory functions. 

“A constitutionally entrenched Voice to Parliament is a very different thing to the various advisory committees that exist within particular government departments and agencies and also a very different thing to various Aboriginal community-controlled organisations that engage in advocacy,” Professor Beck said via email. 

He said the Voice would have its existence and status guaranteed in the constitution. “This is very different to other advisory committees which can be abolished at will,” he said.

A constitutionally enshrined Voice would also have different advisory functions, he said. “Its function would be to provide advice to Parliament about all matters specifically affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”

FactLab has also found other Facebook posts that similarly claim that Indigenous Australians already have a Voice to Parliament in the form of the National Indigenous Australians Agency. FactLab found those claims to be false.