The South Australian government looks likely to be the first jurisdiction in Australia to establish an Indigenous Voice to Parliament at a state level, and supporters are hoping it will serve as an example for the national Voice ahead of the referendum.
The SA government is hoping to pass legislation to create a state-based Indigenous Voice by Easter, with a view to getting the body up and running before the national referendum.
Premier Peter Malinauskas believes the state Voice could be a helpful example of what an Indigenous Voice is and how it works in the lead-up to the national vote.
"I do think that the timing of the South Australian Voice coming into effect hopefully serves as a powerful demonstration to the rest of the country that this is a good thing to do," Mr Malinauskas said.
"That could be a very good thing that hopefully elevates the prospects of success for the national referendum."
Those advising the federal government on the path to a successful referendum are also hopeful the SA Voice will allay some concerns among the public about how a Voice would work.
Dale Agius, who is the South Australian Commissioner for a First Nations Voice, and also sits on the national referendum working group, said the SA Voice could be an example for the rest of the country on how the body would work with parliament.
"This model is something that could potentially [become] a potential design or architecture or modelling for things down the track — what might happen post a referendum," Mr Agius said.
"It's an exciting opportunity for South Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have their voices heard in the state parliament and have a model that could connect to the federal model, [hopefully after] a successful referendum."
The referendum to determine whether a national Indigenous Voice will be established will be held before the end of the year.
Differences between state and national Voice plans
There are some significant differences between the Voice model the South Australian government is pursuing and the national Voice, should it pass at a referendum.
The federal government is still yet to formally announce a model for the national Voice, but the Indigenous Voice Co-Design report from professors Tom Calma and Marcia Langton has put forward a potential framework.
The report suggests a 24-person body covering 35 regions, with local and regional Voice groups feeding into a national Voice.
However, the federal government is yet to indicate whether it will pursue that model.
The SA Voice will be legislated, not enshrined in the state's constitution, meaning the public will not vote on whether or not the body should exist, and it will be able to be changed or abolished by future governments.
Currently, the South Australian model would divide the state into six regions and elect 12 members, with an equal split between men and women.
After a one-off round this year to establish the body, elections for representatives for the Voice would be held at the same time as state elections.
$10 million over four years has been budgeted for setting up the Voice and ongoing funding.
Mr Malinauskas wants the SA Voice to play a key role in informing policy decisions, but he has considered what will happen if the Voice delivers advice that the government does not agree with.
"It will create a moment of difficulty for whoever that government is, whenever that may occur," Mr Malinauskas said.
"I don't think governments should fear a Voice expressing a view to parliament, or to government itself, that is different from its own position.
"We should hear those views, we should consider those views."
Support for SA model not unanimous
There is some opposition from Indigenous leaders about the process leading to the state Voice, with some concerned it will override the position of existing organisations.
South Australian Native Title Services (SANTS) chief executive Keith Thomas is a supporter of a national Voice, but when it comes to the state model he has some concerns.
"I wouldn't be surprised that there are eyes on South Australia about this," he said.
"We support the principle of a Voice to [the South Australian] parliament, but we don't agree with the structure that is behind that and how they're going to create the body."
Mr Thomas was a signatory to a letter to Peter Malinauskas and Attorney-General and Indigenous Affairs Minister Kyam Maher, calling on the government to consult with existing organisations, including the native title prescribed bodies corporate (PBCs) on how the Voice would work.
He said he never received a reply to that letter.
"You've already got an existing structure of governance out there which hasn't been consulted with. I think it's really important," Mr Thomas said.
"They did do consultations around the state and that, but they haven't engaged specifically with First Nations groups in that process.
"What will happen in South Australia is we will have two voices, a Voice that is served by the government, for the government, supported by the government, and a Voice by the people, for the people, supported by lore and custom, by Aboriginal people at a grassroots level," Mr Thomas said.
Mr Malinauskas says the government has adopted some recommendations as a result of Mr Thomas's advocacy, but the Voice has to have a "broader" reach than native title PBCs.
The SA government has also included a review process, so in three to five years the legislation for the Voice can be assessed and changed if it is not working effectively.
Mr Thomas says it is better to get something right from the beginning than pursue changes down the track.
"Sometimes it can be too little, too late," he said.
"Once something's in place and it started, it's very hard to make changes."
The model also faces some political opposition, though the path for the government to pass the legislation is relatively clear.
The state Liberal Party has opted to oppose the bill, saying it is "rushed" and "impractical" because the government only did six months of consultation to inform its legislation.
The Liberals do not have the numbers to block the legislation, however, and the state Greens have said they will back the bill.
Mr Malinauskas says some people who oppose the Voice are not being genuine about their motivations.
"My frustration, to be frank, is that I think there are a lot of people that cite process as a reason for opposition when in actual fact they're just opposed to the principle," he said.
"I've got far more regard for people who are opposed to the Voice, who cite matters of principle that they might genuinely believe in, than people who use the mask of process to try and disguise their in-principle opposition."
