First Nations people shouldn’t have to wait for a referendum to get a Voice to Parliament (June 2022)
Confused polling distorts the debate on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament (January 2022)
Changing the Australian Constitution is not easy. But we need to stop thinking it’s impossible (May 2022)
The way we talk about First Nations issues is striking, as our analysis of 82 million words of Australian news and opinion shows (May 2022)
Non-Indigenous Australians shouldn’t fear a First Nations Voice to Parliament (February 2022)
We keep hearing about a First Nations Voice to parliament, but what would it actually look like in practice? (May 2022)
The Uluru Statement must be core to promises made by all parties in the lead-up to the federal election (May 2022)

Adam Bandt needs to google the Uluru Statement from the Heart

The Greens leader has insulted First Nations peoples by putting a Voice last after truth and a treaty — disregarding the statement's wishes. April 2022

Thomas Mayor, a Torres Strait Islander man born on Larrakia country in Darwin, is signatory to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and the national Indigenous officer and Northern Territory branch deputy secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia. He is the author of Finding the Heart of the Nation: The Journey of the Uluru Statement towards Voice, Treaty and Truth.

Could it be that the Greens may join Pauline Hanson to oppose the Uluru Statement’s call for a First Nations Voice?

Alarm bells are ringing for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people — and for Greens supporters.

At the National Press Club two weeks ago, Greens leader Adam Bandt’s responses to questions about the Uluru Statement — and in particular a question about if his party will oppose a referendum bill to establish a First Nations Voice — were very different from his clear and direct “google it mate” moment.

He said “We support the [Uluru] Statement from the Heart”, which was all well and good. But then he deviated to explain the Greens’ policy: “Our view is that we need to tell the truth first.”

Bandt laid out a sequence of reforms that departs from the Uluru Statement: truth, then treaty, and finally a constitutionally enshrined Voice: “We genuinely think that is the best order to make it happen.”

And therein lies the problem.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart called for a specific sequence of reforms: step one, the establishment of a First Nations Voice — an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative body — enshrined in the constitution; step two, the representative body negotiates the establishment of a Makarrata commission: to supervise a process of agreement making (including treaties) between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.

I know this sequence well. I spoke to it at the Uluru National Constitutional Convention on the morning the Uluru Statement was endorsed.

The sequence is important. It is logical. It is strategic. The roadmap we set at Uluru was written by thousands of Indigenous people, representing their families, communities and First Nations. It is the culmination of our many perspectives and experiences; it follows decades of advocacy and hard work.

The Greens’ reversal of the sequence — to put a First Nations Voice rigidly last — not only disrespects the First Nations consensus, it is a nonsense that serves only those who are already heard.

After all, don’t the politicians in Parliament — the mostly white men who decide the laws and policies that are harming First Nations people — already know the truth?

The Parliament has had royal commission reports into deaths in custody, Stolen Generations and youth in detention and many other reports that are chock-full of truth-telling. Yet still it ignores the recommendations. Politicians hear the prime minister’s Closing the Gap report each year, a report that always announces failure. And at each sitting, Australia’s decision-makers acknowledge Country, then go about trashing our bodies, lands and waters. Politicians already know the truth. Ignorance is bliss.

Most Australians already know the truth too. Most of us celebrated the national apology, delivered in 2008 by Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd. Most Australians support reconciliation — more than 90% according to the Reconciliation Australia barometer.

From various research reports and polling we know that most Australians are willing to vote in favour of a constitutionally enshrined Voice — more than 60% in some polls — and this is without running a well-resourced campaign.

A clear majority of Australians know the truth. They will translate that knowledge into a successful referendum at our request. All they need now is a prime minister and Indigenous affairs minister with the courage, determination and moral fortitude to provide us with the opportunity to answer the invitation.

There has been excellent truth-telling work, and it should continue. But truth-telling should not be a detour off the path we are already walking. Nor should a treaty.

Appallingly, as if to justify relegating our efforts to achieve a First Nations Voice, the Greens have been purporting to know what will be in a treaty, as if they — a mostly non-Indigenous political party — can determine a First Nations log of claims. As if they will negotiate for us.

Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe claims on her party’s website that once we have a treaty, we will “have a platform to bring peace to this country” and that a “treaty-first approach is essential to ensure that sovereignty is recognised”. Peace and recognition of sovereignty could be great outcomes in a treaty. But geez, the Commonwealth hasn’t even agreed to negotiate. The Commonwealth doesn’t even recognise our existence in the constitution.

Looking overseas, we know that treaty does not necessarily mean peace. Treaties were how colonisers legitimised their sovereignty over stolen lands. With treaty comes continuous legal and political wrangling. Political power — constitutional recognition and a right to choose our representation — is more important than rushing a half-baked treaty settlement.

While treaty talks have commenced at the state and territory level, research indicates far less support for treaty compared with support for a constitutionally enshrined Voice. Less than 50% of Australians support a treaty. Start laying some solid claims down and the numbers are likely to plummet. This is one of the reasons First Nations treaty experts predict that treaties may take decades to reach in this country — such is the complexity of negotiations more than 200 years after first contact.

First Nations people do not want to wait decades for governments to agree to treaty terms while our women and children are increasingly incarcerated. We need to reform the justice system now. We need housing, clean water, jobs and community services — and while we are not heard, our people are dying.

The Uluru Statement has proposed a First Nations Voice to Parliament, not a Blak Green Voice. First Nations people do not want to be Greensplained.

It would be a pity if those who vote Green for a wide range of reasons find they are also voting for a party that might side with One Nation on this crucial issue for First Nations peoples.

The Age, June 2022

Indigenous Voice a chance to change Australia for the better

Few would claim that the recent federal election campaign was replete with big ideas. Many including this masthead were critical of small-target politics during the campaign, but as the prime minister made clear in the opening remarks of his acceptance speech, Labor did support a big idea about Australia’s First Nations people.

It is now five years since a large and representative body of Indigenous leaders issued the Uluru Statement from the Heart calling for a Voice to parliament entrenched in the Constitution and a Makarrata Commission to oversee treaty-making and truth-telling.

While treaty and truth-telling are on Labor’s agenda, it has made the Voice to parliament its highest priority. Anthony Albanese has committed to holding a referendum in his first term. That is no small task. Since 1901, there have been 19 referendums, proposing 44 changes to the Constitution, of which only eight have managed to get the green light.

That poor strike rate has made governments hesitant to back referendums. The vote in 1999 on Australia becoming a republic, which did not pass in any state, has been the only one in more than 30 years.

But it should also be remembered that the referendum in 1967 that enabled the Commonwealth to enact laws for Indigenous Australians and to remove the prohibition against counting them in population counts in the Commonwealth or a state passed with the backing of more than 90 per cent of Australians, the highest level of support for any referendum since Federation.

However, there is little doubt that without the support of most sides of politics, a referendum on a Voice to parliament will have little chance of passing. In a split from his predecessor, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has left the door open to supporting a referendum, but he is waiting to see the detail and wants “the symbolic … to be accompanied by practical responses”. To some degree, Dutton’s thinking would be guided by his regret, which he has publicly stated, about leaving the parliament during former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s apology in 2008 for past government policies that forced the removal of Indigenous children from their families.

But over the weekend, the Coalition’s sole Aboriginal MP, Northern Territory senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, again urged her colleagues to prioritise education and tackling family violence in First Nations communities over pursuing constitutional change. This view was echoed recently by new Nationals leader David Littleproud.

One of the major sticking points is that Labor has yet to put much detail on the table outlining how an Indigenous Voice would work. Labor’s support was largely an in-principle endorsement of the Uluru Statement and not a detailed working model. That will largely come from negotiations led by the new Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney. In a hopeful sign, she has committed to working with the Coalition on the process of providing the specifics for a Voice to parliament.

With a significant presence in parliament, particularly in the Senate, the Greens must also be brought into the tent. While they have committed to not blocking its progress, Greens leader Adam Bandt has expressed his preference for a truth-telling and treaty process before a Voice is enshrined in the Constitution.

Burney has her work cut out for her. Finding a model that has the backing of not only her political opponents but the broad sweep of Indigenous society is a daunting task. But as she told The Age recently, reconciliation doesn’t have to be a linear process. The Voice, treaty and grassroots assistance in communities can progress simultaneously. If enacted effectively, an Indigenous Voice to parliament is a big idea that could reshape Australia symbolically and practically for the betterment of First Nations people. It is an idea that we fully endorse.

by The Age's View, June 2022

Push towards republic can afford no mistakes

This masthead has long supported Australia becoming a republic. It makes no sense that a modern democratic nation that governs itself remains beholden to a non-elected ruler who lives on the other side of the globe.

Yet since the failed referendum of 1999, interest in actually doing something about it has flagged. Other more urgent or divisive issues have claimed the spotlight since, among them climate change, transgender rights, gender discrimination, the First Nations Voice to Parliament, and, more recently, interest rates, house prices, the war in Ukraine, the looming gas shortage, the cost of living and inflation.

Polling has revealed what can only be described as ambivalence towards a republic, with more than a third of respondents in a recent poll neutral or unsure on the issue. An Ipsos poll last year found support for a republic was lowest among 18 to 24-year-olds, with only 26 per cent in favour.

With the change of government, though, the push for self-rule has gently been put back on the agenda.

Not only does Labor have a long-standing policy to sever ties with the monarchy, its appointment of Matt Thistlethwaite in the little-known role of “assistant minister for the republic” signals it is beginning the work to mount another referendum in the not-too-distant future.

Thistlethwaite has wisely signalled there would be no movement until the second term of an Albanese government, leaving clear air for the planned referendum on the Voice to Parliament, but the timing is certainly apposite. While the republic may not yet be front of mind for many Australians, it nevertheless dovetails with activist concerns, both here and globally, including race, the legacy of colonialism and national self-determination.

In the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, visits earlier this year to the Caribbean by Prince Edward and Sophie, the Countess of Wessex and Prince William and Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge met with protests linked to their family’s role in slavery.

Australia, meanwhile, is increasingly becoming an outlier among Commonwealth countries, only 15 of which remain beholden to the Crown. Barbados became a republic in November last year; Mauritius in 1992; Belize, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, and St Kitts and Nevis have all indicated they intend to follow suit.

 

Opinion

Why a First Nations Voice will meet Dutton’s demand for practical change

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has indicated he may be open to supporting a referendum on a First Nations Voice to parliament, but he wants “the symbolic … to be accompanied by practical responses”. He wants a Voice to “reduce the incidence of child abuse within those communities” and to improve education, employment and “many other indicators”.

Dutton is correct to insist on practical impact: Indigenous recognition would be meaningless without it. Importantly, a practical focus will enable Dutton to find common ground with many Indigenous leaders, such as Noel Pearson and others, who have championed Indigenous responsibility in their affairs.

Such leaders want practical action to close the gap, not empty symbolic gestures. The vast majority of Indigenous Australians agree. That is why they want a Voice, not a tokenistic preamble.

Five years ago, Indigenous peoples from all over Australia gathered to produce a consensus statement on how they wish to be constitutionally recognised. The Uluru Statement from the Heart acknowledged that Indigenous people “are the most incarcerated people on the planet”, their “children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates” and their “youth languish in detention in obscene numbers”.

They proffered a practical solution – a constitutionally guaranteed First Nations Voice. While initially scuttled by misrepresentations of it amounting to a third chamber of the parliament, five years on, political support has been achieved. In 2018, a bipartisan joint select committee headed by Julian Leeser and Patrick Dodson acknowledged that a Voice is the only way forward in the Indigenous recognition debate.

Since then, a co-design process is now completed. It is encouraging that the Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney has said she will build on the work of the former minister, Ken Wyatt, and pursue bipartisanship. Dutton’s comments give cause for further optimism.

Vote Compass data suggests 73 per cent of Australians agree, not only with the creation of a Voice, but that it should be guaranteed by constitutional change. There is clear appetite for a Voice referendum.

The Uluru Statement called for “the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution”. If the intention of a Voice is to genuinely back Indigenous people to tackle the real problems they face, then the constitutional enshrinement they call for, which is supported by broad public opinion, should be respected.

The practical necessity for a constitutionally guaranteed Voice could not be more apparent than right now. Take the problem of alcohol access in Indigenous communities. Alcohol has been restricted in the Northern Territory since the 2007 Howard government intervention. Under legislation set to expire on June 30, restrictions will be lifted.

Despite a coalition of community organisations calling for a moratorium on takeaway alcohol sales, the Northern Territory government amended the Liquor Act to allow alcohol sales in remote communities. North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency CEO Priscilla Atkins said “the impact this will have on Territorians will be absolutely devastating. We already have so many problems related to alcohol. Our hospitals are full, our domestic violence rates are the highest in the nation and rising, and the justice system is clogging up.”

Atkins said the government’s option for individual communities to extend the alcohol ban for another two years simply cannot work as “most remote communities are unaware this is happening because there has been no consultation”.

NT Council of Social Services chief executive CEO Deborah Di Natale similarly called the amendments “rushed through” without “adequate consultation with Aboriginal communities and against the advice of Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations”.

Central Australian Aboriginal Congress CEO Donna Ah Chee called out “the NT and
Commonwealth governments [which] have failed to ensure Aboriginal people are properly
protected from the harm that we know alcohol causes”.

It may seem counterintuitive for many Australians, who recoil from government intrusion into
our lives, that some Indigenous communities up north might wish to remain dry under the law, but this demonstrates why a Voice is so critical.

The Dan Murphy’s saga in Darwin provides another salient example. The proposal for a new liquor store had previously been rejected by the Northern Territory’s Liquor Commission because of likely community harm. Causing anger among Indigenous health groups, the Labor government circumvented the commission’s decision by rushing through legislation that gave the final say to a bureaucrat, the director of Liquor Licensing, who did not have to consider community impact.

Legislative commitments to consultation are too easily overturned. The practical imperative for a constitutional requirement for Indigenous communities to be heard in decisions made about them is clear.

Governments, no matter how well-meaning, should not presume to know what is best for each of Australia’s many and distinct Indigenous nations unless they first hear their voices. That is what a constitutionally guaranteed First Nations Voice will ensure, simultaneously upholding the Constitution and respecting parliamentary supremacy, by leaving the detail for elected politicians to determine.

Dutton is right to insist that a First Nations constitutional Voice must deliver practical results.
That is what Indigenous people want. And that is what Australians want.

Karina Okotel is a former federal vice president of the Liberal Party.

June 2022

Anything but democratic, the constitution excluded my people

The outcome of the federal election gives some cause for optimism that the dark clouds of continuous disappointment in Australia’s reconciliation journey may be lifting. We are at a time when change feels inevitable.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the welcome comments from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese regarding the Uluru Statement from the Heart and constitutional recognition for First Nations Australians. The new government has not only committed to implementing the Uluru Statement in full; it has made this commitment a major theme of its forthcoming term.

But at this critical point in history, First Nations Australians must carefully and strategically plan for the statement’s implementation. We cannot allow this process to belong only to the Albanese government. While we embrace its election for providing the opportunity to embark on the final journey of reconciliation, we must see it as an opportunity – not a pathway.

First Nations Australians must take control. It is our statement. We developed and endorsed it at Uluru five years ago. We advocated it to the Australian people, who have responded with huge support and have given Albanese a mandate for its implementation. We must own the opportunity but also the risk if we fail to achieve the desired outcomes.

We know what the case against us will be. The central argument will be that of former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s claim in rejecting the Uluru Statement: that it would contradict a principle of liberal democracy if one defined group should have a constitutional role in the workings of parliament.

But to suggest that the Australian constitution was founded on democratic principles is a perversion of history. The constitution that federated the Australian nation was anything but democratic. It expressly excluded us. We were not to be counted in the census. It was founded on racism. It empowered the national parliament to keep non-Europeans from living in Australia. It was a founding document for the governing of white-settler Australia.

It explicitly stopped the national parliament from making laws for First Nations Australians. The Australian constitution did not allow the Commonwealth government to undermine the laws and practices of colonial state governments that were premised on our disappearance as a people.

The Uluru Statement’s proposed First Nations Voice in the constitution is a fundamental part of Australia’s reckoning with that history. And Australia will be a more inclusive and democratic country because of it.

The three tenets of the statement – Voice, Treaty, Truth – are drawn from fundamental principles of self-determination that First Nations Australians have articulated over countless decades. But this is not another government policy direction. We are talking about settling our historic grievance of dispossession and colonisation. We are talking about a treaty. We are talking about our nation reconciled.

We can’t allow government, with its imbedded practice of incremental management, to control the process. We cannot allow the statement’s first tenet – constitutional recognition – to be achieved without a clear pathway for settlement and truth-telling.

In the absence of comprehensive First Nations support for the Uluru Statement’s implementation, the referendum on constitutional recognition will fail. And if that happens the historic opportunity for reconciliation will be lost and may never happen again. An informed and unified First Nations community will be able to rebut the arguments that will inevitably grow as the nation moves forward on Uluru.

In the 1967 referendum, Australians voted overwhelmingly to change the constitution so First Nations people, like all other Australians, would be counted as part of the population and the federal parliament would be able to make laws for them. Now we prepare for another historic referendum, this one based on the Uluru Statement. Should it succeed in establishing a constitutionally enshrined Voice to parliament, it will enhance the power delivered to the parliament in 1967. The Voice will provide a level of parliamentary accountability to First Nations Australians. While not being a third chamber of parliament, it will be a mechanism to promote collaboration and partnership, to give First Nations a say in the making of the laws and decisions that affect them.

Most importantly, the Voice can provide an institutional framework to formalise a settlement or treaty between First Nations Australians and the nation state, underpinned by a truth-telling process.

And, as I say, we will be a better country for it.

This is an edited version of Professor Peter Yu’s keynote address this week at Reconciliation Australia’s 2022 National Reconciliation Action Plan Conference.

Thomas Mayor, May 2022

Our people have never enjoyed a vantage point quite like this: the Uluru Statement, five years on

When the Uluru Statement from the Heart was presented to the Turnbull government, it tried to toss it into the wide-rimmed bin of political neglect. But the bin was already full – filled with silenced First Nations voices, Indigenous statements and petitions from the past: hopes, dreams and promises denied for political expediency. Is it any wonder the campaign continues? We couldn’t take no for an answer.

Thursday is the fifth anniversary of the Uluru Statement. And what a wonderful birthday we are having for the most sacred spiritual and political document in Australia’s history. For the first time my people find ourselves looking forward to constitutional inclusion and political self-determination, with a prime minister standing beside us and an Aboriginal woman, Linda Burney, leading us as the minister of Indigenous Australians. Our people have never enjoyed a vantage point quite like this.

Before assessing the way forward, let us briefly reflect on how we came to be here. How is it that we have a government who is as passionate about the Uluru Statement as Indigenous delegates were in the heart of the nation five years ago?

The Uluru Statement’s invitation to walk with us has been accepted by many Australian individuals and organisations, including this masthead. Moving politicians has been a collective effort. A nation-wide effort. A trade unions and big business effort. A Blackfulla and Whitefulla effort. An effort that has cut out the far extremes and included the vast centre of Australian politics. And we have come so far with barely a campaign budget to do it.

From all our efforts, the scene is almost set for a successful referendum, so that our culture is shared with all Australians, and so our voices are guaranteed to be heard in the centre of all decision-making.

True to its word, the Albanese Labor government has already begun discussions with First Nations leaders. Referendums in this country are not for the faint-hearted or ideologue contrarians. We have work to do and a movement to build. And Albanese has proven to be capable of bringing people together.

Many Australians are still unaware of or are misinformed about the Uluru Statement. This includes Indigenous people. The immediate work ahead is to engage with and educate the Australian public and my own people about both the practical and symbolic benefits of the constitutional change proposed. I know from experience – from traversing the continent for five years now, speaking about the Uluru Statement with thousands of Australians from many different backgrounds – that when people are taught the truth of how unifying, fair and practical a Voice to the federal parliament will be, support correspondingly grows.

During the election, grassroots First Nations people clashed with the Greens on the matter of how the work should be sequenced. Strangely, the Greens decided that truth-telling and a treaty with the Crown should exclusively precede the establishment of a Voice in the constitution.

When, during the election campaign, Greens leader Adam Bandt failed to rule out blocking a Voice referendum if truth-telling and treaties were not already completed, alarm bells started ringing. The campaign research showed that more than 70 per cent of Greens voters support a Voice referendum. And we will need them walking with us to win a yes campaign. To Bandt’s credit, he listened to the outcry. On the ABC’s Insiders, he said the Greens would not block progress on a Voice if Labor gained government. For this we are thankful.

Treaties will take decades to reach a settlement with which both the Crown and First Nations people can truly be satisfied. A Voice to parliament can only help reach a settlement sooner by providing us greater power at the negotiation table. And there’s so much more than Treaty that we need to do, such as justice reform and gaining greater services in remote communities. Treaty, after all, is the “culmination of our agenda”, to quote the Uluru Statement, “the coming together after a struggle”.

At the time of writing this, it is uncertain who will lead the opposition. Though what matters is that minister Burney has already offered the hand of bipartisanship. It was relieving to hear her say that the hand won’t be held out forever, should the Coalition lurch further to the right. The urgency of this reform is the difference between life and death – between closing the gap or widening it – and if the Coalition chooses to be on the wrong side of history, it can knock itself out.

Surprises are nice on birthdays. And Penny Wong, now the foreign affairs minister, delivered a welcome announcement right before the final week of the election campaign. She reaffirmed it on election night. And it was like the icing on an anniversary cake that is made of hopeful promises.

She said: “Labor will deliver a First Nations foreign policy – that weaves the voices and practices of the world’s oldest continuing culture into the way we talk to the world and the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.”

“We will appoint an ambassador for First Nations peoples and we will ensure First Nations peoples have a stronger voice in our engagement with the world and deepening their long-held ties across countries in the Indo-Pacific.”

On this fifth anniversary of the Uluru Statement, I am more excited than ever about the future. I hope we can work together – all of us – to see it isn’t discarded as our hopes and dreams have been so many times before.

Greens choose division over Uluru unity

James Blackwell

26 April 2022

Blink and you’ll miss it. At his National Press Club address before Easter, Greens leader Adam Bandt said something that left me and many First Nations people aghast.

Calling the push to enshrine a First Nations Voice to Parliament through a referendum in the next term of parliament a ‘‘mistake’’, if not led by a truth and justice commission and treaty, Bandt has effectively severed his party from the Uluru Statement from the Heart. And by refusing to commit to supporting a referendum if one was held in the next parliamentary term, the Greens have given up the pretence of supporting meaningful consensus change for me or my community.

The Greens may talk a big talk about their support for the Uluru Statement, but their actions have shown the opposite. In 2020, the party changed its platform, which at that point matched the deliberately designed sequence of Voice, Treaty and Truth, and instead advocated for Truth, Treaty and Voice.

While this change might seem like some meaningless semantics, it is one of great importance.

The Referendum Council from 2016-17 led 13 regional dialogues of First Nations people, which deliberated over what form constitutional recognition of First Nations should take. This process culminated at Uluru in May 2017, where more than 250 First Nations delegates arrived at the consensus position that is the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It calls for the establishment of a First Nations Voice, enshrined in the constitution, giving us a say on policy and legislation that can’t be repealed or taken away. After the Voice, a Makarrata Commission would oversee treaty-making and truth-telling. Voice, Treaty, Truth – in that order.

The enshrined Voice leading the reforms first was a decision by delegates at Uluru, designed to deliver the most structural change first, and give us the power to negotiate Treaty on fair terms.

The Greens process, meanwhile, was far from consensus, or representative. A limited number of First Nations Greens, led mainly by Senator Lidia Thorpe, pushed for the party to change position in 2020. First Nations people who disagreed were not included in the process, and it did not include consultation with those in the community, many of whom support the sequence as found in the Uluru Statement.

The change left many of us in the First Nations community dissatisfied and some even unaware such a change had occurred.

It has also led to a situation in the Greens where support for the Uluru Statement is untenable, and almost unwelcome. The bullying, harassment and abuse I have received from people in the Greens, including from party officials and preselected federal candidates, over my support for Voice, Treaty, Truth, got to the point where I decided to resign my party membership.

Compare this behaviour of the Greens these past few weeks with what happened at Yarrabah the weekend before Easter. The largest gathering of First Nations leaders since 2017 at Uluru met at Yarrabah in Queensland to recommit ourselves to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and plan how we wish to pursue a referendum on a First Nations Voice. We issued the Yarrabah Affirmation, which shows the continued support from most First Nations peoples for the Uluru Statement, as well as support for a referendum on May 27, 2023.

We are aware we do not represent all First Nations people, and there are some who will never embrace the idea of a Voice to Parliament, or support the Uluru Statement. Uluru is a consensus position, not the position of all of us.

What differentiates our movement from those who don’t support it, including the Blackfellas who have taken over the Greens, is that we seek a movement of unity and welcoming. The Uluru Statement was an invitation to all Australians to walk with us on a journey for change. The Greens decided to abandon that two years ago, but only this year have they chosen bullying and division as the replacement for unity.

James Blackwell is a proud Wiradyuri man and research fellow in Indigenous diplomacy at ANU’s Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs.

Indigenous voice first step to change

It is understandable that Jacinta Nampijinpa Price wants desperately needed action on First Nations issues before a Voice to Parliament is embedded in the Constitution (‘‘Price wants ‘critical issues’ first’’, June 5), but I think this is misguided. Only with a Voice will it be impossible for Parliament to ignore the wishes of First Nations peoples. Only then will the actions flow to address Indigenous needs. Only then will First Nations children flourish and walk in two worlds, as the Uluru Statement from the Heart says.

Achieving the Voice through a referendum to amend the constitution will not be easy. To get a majority overall and majorities in at least four states is a very high bar. But if all who seek a lasting reconciliation throw their weight behind it, it can be done.

Andrew Macintosh, Cromer

While the Liberal Party senator might make a reasonable point, could her actions be counterproductive in the longer term? Sure, the issues she has raised, such as addressing domestic violence and improving educational opportunities, are no doubt relevant. However, achieving a scintilla of bipartisanship would unquestionably represent an important step forward for her own First Nations people. Her ‘‘outspoken views’’ could otherwise be interrupted by voters as diversionary, disruptive and divisive. Haven’t we seen more than enough of that kind of contrary partisan politics practised in parliament in the past nine years?

Cleveland Rose, Dee Why

Prioritising education and tackling family violence is what First Nations communities need to improve the future for Aboriginal youths, rather than endeavouring to influence history by amending the Constitution. All courage to you, Jacinta.

Mervyn Cross, Mosman

 

Constitution excluded my people

Peter Yu.  June 2022

Anything but democratic, our founding document was for white settlers. Let’s fix this, Australia.

The outcome of the federal election gives some cause for optimism that the dark clouds of continuous disappointment in Australia’s reconciliation journey may be lifting. We are at a time when change feels inevitable.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the welcome comments from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese regarding the Uluru Statement from the Heart and constitutional recognition for First Nations Australians. The new government has not only committed to implementing the Uluru Statement in full; it has made this commitment a major theme of its forthcoming term.

But at this critical point in history, First Nations Australians must carefully and strategically plan for the statement’s implementation. We cannot allow this process to belong only to the Albanese government. While we embrace its election for providing the opportunity to embark on the final journey of reconciliation, we must see it as an opportunity – not a pathway.

First Nations Australians must take control. It is our statement. We developed and endorsed it at Uluru five years ago. We advocated it to the Australian people, who have responded with huge support and have given Albanese a mandate for its implementation. We must own the opportunity but also the risk if we fail to achieve the desired outcomes.

We know what the case against us will be. The central argument will be that of former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s claim in rejecting the Uluru Statement: that it would contradict a principle of liberal democracy if one defined group should have a constitutional role in the workings of parliament.

But to suggest that the Australian Constitution was founded on democratic principles is a perversion of history. The Constitution that federated the Australian nation was anything but democratic. It expressly excluded us. We were not to be counted in the census. It was founded on racism. It empowered the national parliament to keep non-Europeans from living in Australia. It was a founding document for the governing of white-settler Australia.

It explicitly stopped the national parliament from making laws for First Nations Australians. The Constitution did not allow the Commonwealth government to undermine the laws and practices of colonial state governments that were premised on our disappearance as a people. The Uluru Statement’s proposed First Nations Voice in the Constitution is a fundamental part of Australia’s reckoning with that history. And Australia will be a more inclusive and democratic country because of it.

The three tenets of the statement – Voice, Treaty, Truth – are drawn from fundamental principles of self-determination that First Nations Australians have articulated over countless decades. But this is not another government policy direction. We are talking about settling our historical grievance of dispossession and colonisation. We are talking about a treaty. We are talking about our nation reconciled. We can’t allow government, with its imbedded practice of incremental management, to control the process. We cannot allow the statement’s first tenet – constitutional recognition – to be achieved without a clear pathway for settlement and truth-telling.

In the absence of comprehensive First Nations support for the Uluru Statement’s implementation, the referendum on constitutional recognition will fail. And if that happens the historic opportunity for reconciliation will be lost and may never happen again. An informed and unified First Nations community will be able to rebut the arguments that will inevitably grow as the nation moves forward on Uluru.

In the 1967 referendum, Australians voted overwhelmingly to change the Constitution so First Nations people, like all other Australians, would be counted as part of the population and the federal parliament would be able to make laws for them. Now we prepare for another historic referendum, this one based on the Uluru Statement. Should it succeed in establishing a constitutionally enshrined Voice to parliament, it will enhance the power delivered to the parliament in 1967. The Voice will provide a level of parliamentary accountability to First Nations Australians. While not being a third chamber of parliament, it will be a mechanism to promote collaboration and partnership, to give First Nations a say in the making of the laws and decisions that affect them.

Most importantly, the Voice can provide an institutional framework to formalise a settlement or treaty between First Nations Australians and the nation state, underpinned by a truth-telling process.

And, as I say, we will be a better country for it.

Professor Peter Yu is vice-president (First Nations) at the Australian National University. This is an extract of his keynote address at Reconciliation Australia’s 2022 National Reconciliation Action Plan Conference this week.

Indigenous campaign intensifies Voice call

Cameron Gooley
Indigenous affairs reporter.  May 2022

Megan Davis, Pat Anderson and Noel Pearson with the Statement.

Influential First Nations leaders are launching an advertising blitz to encourage Australians to support a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous Voice to parliament, urging them to follow their hearts.

The History is Calling education campaign, created by leaders of the Uluru Dialogue, will begin this month and will eventually feature ads in television, print, radio and online. The advertisements aim to restart a conversation about parts of the landmark Uluru Statement from the Heart, issued five years ago, and to encourage people to visit a website to learn more about the process, so they can better understand why leaders are agitating for a referendum.

High-profile constitutional lawyer and co-chair of the Uluru Dialogue Professor Megan Davis said the timing of the campaign was to remind Australians that the Uluru Statement was directed to them and not to politicians.

‘‘The only way to change the Australian Constitution is through the Australian people, and if they activate that agency, then we can actually change the direction in terms of Aboriginal political empowerment,’’ she said. ‘‘Politicians are our representatives. Aboriginal people are no different to non-Indigenous Australians: we all feel a sense that parliament is very detached from the big issues.’’

An Indigenous Voice to parliament would be a body that allows First Nations people to provide advice to the government and MPs about policies that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Advocates for a constitutionally enshrined Voice want a referendum to ensure the body could not be dismantled by government, pointing to organisations such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, which was abolished under the Howard government in 2005.

The Voice is just one of three major reforms called for in the Uluru Statement. It also calls for a Makarrata Commission to oversee truthtelling and agreement-making exercises. Collectively the process is known as Voice, Treaty, Truth.

Republican push hits mute on Indigenous Voice

Shireen Morris,   January 2022

The Australian Republican Movement’s latest push for a republic is ill-timed, tone-deaf and strategically misguided. There can be no Australian republic before a referendum to constitutionally guarantee Indigenous peoples a voice in their affairs.

How can Australia hope to resolve our relationship with Britain before we resolve our domestic relationship with the First Nations? Indigenous constitutional recognition as advocated by the Uluru Statement from the Heart must be the first priority.

That the ARM announcement is silent on this priority is deeply disappointing. It demonstrates lack of awareness of, or care about, the broader political landscape – including the priorities for constitutional reform so clearly and consistently expressed by Indigenous Australians.

Since the Uluru Statement in 2017, Indigenous Australians and many non-Indigenous supporters across the country have been pushing for a referendum on a First Nations constitutional voice. This reasonable request builds on decades of Indigenous advocacy for constitutional empowerment.

The proposal has support across the political spectrum, including from prominent constitutional conservatives – and many monarchists. Successive polls indicate strong support for a First Nations constitutional voice.

So why did the ARM announce its republic model now, without even mentioning Indigenous calls for a constitutionally guaranteed voice? The strategy is difficult to interpret.

If the ARM is proposing the republic and Indigenous recognition issues should be prosecuted simultaneously, this is a bad idea: it would confuse the public, eat up airtime and diffuse political pressure and momentum for constitutional reform that should be singularly focused on a First Nations voice.

If they are suggesting the Indigenous recognition referendum has to wait so the republic can go first, this is unfair. A republic referendum was held already held in 1999 – it lost badly. Republicans had their chance; they should let Indigenous Australians have theirs.

In the 1990s, lack of internal consensus meant republicans confused voters by publicly arguing about their preferred model, rather than prosecuting a united campaign. That argument continues two decades later: leading republicans like former prime minister Paul Keating and lawyer and academic Greg Craven have already slammed the ARM’s proposal, demonstrating that genuine republican consensus has not yet developed.

By contrast, Indigenous Australians have consolidated strong consensus. Led by leaders like Megan Davis, Noel Pearson and Pat Anderson, the Uluru Statement was the first national Indigenous consensus on how they want to be constitutionally recognised.

They asked for one constitutional reform: a constitutionally guaranteed First Nations voice. There is widespread agreement that this is the best model. A First Nations voice is a modest yet profound proposal which unites left and right and black and white.

The work Indigenous people have done and are doing deserves to be respected and supported. However, the ARM policy does not reference the Uluru Statement or Indigenous aspirations for constitutional recognition.

Strangely, the only time Indigenous people are mentioned in the policy is in relation to a preamble

– which Indigenous people have said they do not want. The policy states that ‘‘it may be appropriate to include a preamble at the beginning of the body of the Constitution’’ but they ‘‘recognise that any such preamble requires substantive consultation, especially with First Nations people about its form’’.

It is an odd statement, particularly given Indigenous advocates consistently reject a symbolic constitutional mention in favour of an empowering constitutional voice. Why should Indigenous input only be required on a preamble – shouldn’t their views be sought on the substantive republican model as well?

A republic can wait. Distracting debate about republican models should wait too. A referendum on a First Nations voice must come first.

Dr Shireen Morris is a senior lecturer at Macquarie University Law School and author of Radical Heart: Three Stories Make Us One.

Reciprocating the gift of Uluru, five years on

Thomas Mayor.   May 2022

When the Uluru Statement from the Heart was presented to the Turnbull government, it tried to toss it into the bin of political neglect. But the bin was already full – with silenced First Nations voices, statements and petitions from the past: hopes, dreams and promises denied for political expediency. Yet we couldn’t take no for an answer.

Today is the fifth anniversary of the Uluru Statement. And what a wonderful birthday we are having for the most sacred spiritual and political document in Australia’s history. For the first time my people find ourselves looking forward to constitutional inclusion and political self-determination, with a prime minister standing beside us and an Aboriginal woman, Linda Burney, leading us as the minister of Indigenous Australians. Our people have never enjoyed a vantage point quite like this.

The Uluru Statement’s invitation to walk with us has been widely accepted. Moving politicians has been a collective effort. A trade unions and big business effort. A Blackfulla and Whitefulla effort. An effort that has cut out the far extremes and included the vast centre of Australian politics. And with barely a campaign budget to do it.

The scene is almost set for a successful referendum, so our voices are guaranteed to be heard in the centre of all decision-making. True to its word, the Albanese Labor government has already begun discussions with First Nations leaders. Referendums are not for the faint-hearted or ideologue contrarians. We have work to do and a movement to build. And Albanese has proven to be capable of bringing people together.

Many Australians are still unaware of or are misinformed about the Uluru Statement. This includes Indigenous people. The immediate work is to educate the people about the practical and symbolic benefits of the constitutional change proposed. I know – after traversing the continent for five years now – that when people are taught the truth, support correspondingly grows.

During the election campaign, grassroots First Nations people clashed with the Greens on the matter of how the work should be sequenced. When Greens leader Adam Bandt failed to rule out blocking a Voice referendum if truth-telling and treaties were not completed first, alarm bells started ringing. Campaign research showed that more than 70 per cent of Greens voters support a Voice referendum. We will need them walking with us to win a yes campaign. To Bandt’s credit, he listened and said the Greens would not block progress on a Voice if Labor won government. We are thankful.

Treaties will take decades to reach a settlement with which both the Crown and First Nations people can truly be satisfied. A Voice can only help reach a settlement sooner. Treaty, after all, is the ‘‘culmination of our agenda’’, to quote the Uluru Statement, ‘‘the coming together after a struggle’’.

Burney has offered the hand of bipartisanship. It was a relief to hear her say it won’t be held out forever, should the Coalition lurch further to the right. The urgency of this is the difference between life and death – between closing the gap or widening it. If the Coalition chooses to be on the wrong side of history, it can knock itself out.

Surprises are nice on birthdays. Penny Wong, now the foreign affairs minister, delivered one near the end of the election campaign and reaffirmed it on election night. ‘‘Labor,’’ she said, ‘‘will deliver a First Nations foreign policy – that weaves the voices and practices of the world’s oldest continuing culture into the way we talk to the world ... We will appoint an ambassador for First Nations peoples and we will ensure [they] have a stronger voice in our engagement with the world and deepening their long-held ties across countries in the Indo-Pacific.’’

On this fifth anniversary of the Uluru Statement, I am more excited than ever about the future. I hope we can work together – all of us – to see it isn’t discarded as our hopes and dreams have been so many times before.

Thomas Mayor is an author and signatory of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Narrow view of nation’s history

I was surprised to read John Howard’s hearty endorsement of the national archives given the chequered history of his government when it comes to First Nations people, refugees, weapons of mass destruction and his ‘‘agnostic’’ position on climate change (‘‘Archives vital to understanding nation’s history’’, January 13). It all fell into place at the end as he fell into lock-step with contemporary revisionists like Alan Tudge, where his government’s many failings might be hidden behind a more optimistic but less detailed reading of our records.

Colin Stokes, Camperdown

Howard rightly applauds the collection of archival material to create historical narratives. However, his mantra that Tudge should be encouraged to push the Australian achievements section of any history curriculum document is a narrow view. Howard does acknowledge the ‘‘blemishes in our history’’ which would make a great, if understated, heading in a syllabus when dealing with Aboriginal massacres, dispossession, stolen generations and other too hot to handle topics which have been sticking points for those who wish to only promote the value of democracy.

Brian Thornton, Stanmore

The man who gave us ‘‘children overboard’’ and the ‘‘never-ever GST’’ continues to display his ignorance. Howard ignores 60,000 years of First Nation people’s achievements by implying our ‘‘history’’ began with our imported democracy a century ago. Howard’s prime ministership was punctuated by many outrages with his political interference in the school curriculum being just one. And the Liberal Party tradition of a myopic vision of education continues under the current federal minister.

Don Carter, Oyster Bay

January 2022

Key question about our day off

January 2022

Would a modern Australia choose January 26 to celebrate our nation, asks Linda Burney.

Every country chooses some facts from its past to put at the middle of its national identity, just as every country chooses others to push to the side, or hide in the dark altogether. This process of listening and learning from each other’s stories informs the debate about how we celebrate and reflect on Australia Day.

Today, many Australians recognise that on January 26, 1788, when Arthur Phillip raised the Union Jack at Sydney Cove, he did so on the lands of the Gadigal people of the Eora nation – starting an invasion of land and water that rightly belonged to its traditional owners.

Today, Australians know First Nations Australians as the custodians of more than 60,000 years of continuous and living culture. From the High Court down we recognise that the land was somebody’s country, somebody’s home, and that settlement was an invasion that took it with lethal violence.

For long stretches of Australia’s postsettlement history these facts were ignored, swept under the carpet, or simply unknown to some. It’s very understandable that some Australians don’t know all the elements of our history, but we are all learning more as we listen and learn from each other.

Generations of First Nations Australians have worked patiently to shine a light on this part of our history. I am proud to be one of them.

On January 26, 1938, Indigenous Australians joined together across the country for the national Day of Mourning to mark the 150th anniversary of settlement.

The Aboriginal Tent Embassy was founded on January 26, 1972 – a powerful symbol that celebrates its 50th anniversary this year.

In January 1988, convoys of Aboriginal people from around Australia arrived in Sydney. On January 26, I was one of 40,000 who took part in the March for Freedom, Justice and Hope from Redfern Park to Belmore Park then Hyde Park.

We were joined by many thousands of non-Indigenous Australians uncomfortable with the way the bicentennial celebrations were ignoring the truth of our history. It was the largest protest Australia had seen since the Vietnam War.

I see the recent prominence of the national debate we have every year over January 26 as part of our country becoming more mature.

January 26 marks the day the Union Jack was planted at Sydney Cove to found the colony of NSW. It doesn’t mark the founding of Australia’s other states and territories, or the Commonwealth.

It’s also worth remembering that January 26 was only first proclaimed as our national public holiday less than 30 years ago.

Australia is more comfortable looking at the unjust parts of our history today than we have ever been. In 2022, if we were choosing a day to unify us as a country, would we choose January 26? I don’t think we would.

On Australia Day this year, like most years, I will take part in a citizenship ceremony welcoming new Australians to our national family. Each new citizen brings with them a full range of hopes for the future, and a commitment to Australia and its future, too. In the afternoon, I will go to the Survival Day events at the Yabun festival, the biggest annual celebration of Australia’s living Indigenous heritage.

It will be a day for both celebration and reflection. There is much to celebrate about our country, about being Australian. One thing I will celebrate is our ability to have constructive discussion, to try and see the point of view of someone we disagree with. We need to hold on to that. We can see around the world how important, and how fragile, the national ability to see another’s perspective is. Once it’s gone, it’s almost impossible to get back.

Thanks to decades of work, today most Australians can acknowledge the pain planting that flag caused, and continues to cause. Young people in particular recognise that celebrating our national day on this anniversary is painful for many.

On Australia Day this year, I will be talking to many Australians about what the day means to me, and hearing what it means to them. We will come together to acknowledge all parts of our history while recognising what it is about today’s Australia that we want to celebrate and reflect on.

As long as we do this together as a country in the spirit of open-hearted truthtelling we can continue to grow as a nation.

Linda Burney is the federal MP for Barton and shadow minister for Indigenous Australians. She was the first Indigenous woman elected to the House of Representatives.

Voice to parliament must tackle domestic violence  EDITORIAL

• 12:00AM JUNE 14, 2022

South Australia’s decision to become the first state to implement an Indigenous voice to parliament in line with the Uluru Statement from the Heart is important for the nation. SA’s first Indigenous Attorney-General, Kyam Maher, who is also Indigenous Affairs Minister, says it will help reassure wary Australians that a voice is “in no way” a third chamber that undermines democracy. As Mr Maher, a former senior lawyer with the Crown Solicitor’s Office, said: “It is hard to fathom how giving Aboriginal people a say in the decisions that affect their lives isn’t something we would all welcome.” A state-based voice in SA, or a series of voices in other jurisdictions, would be no substitute for a national Indigenous voice to federal parliament. But with the Albanese government hoping to put a referendum at the next election, the SA body would provide a preview of how a federal body would work. In SA, it would advise on proposed legislation, as envisaged in the Uluru statement.

The plan is likely to pass the SA parliament, with the Liberal opposition offering bipartisan support. While Premier Peter Malinauskas’s government supports the three elements of the Uluru statement – voice, treaty and truth – it prudently has decided to take a gradual approach by starting with the voice. As Mr Maher said, it was important that states established such voices because they were responsible for service delivery in health, housing, education and law enforcement, where the need for Indigenous input was most crucial. “One of the things that keeps coming up is that our people we want to be at the forefront of decisions that affect our lives, and that’s in areas like health, education, the justice system,” he said. The state’s model was likely to comprise a combination of elected and appointed Indigenous people.

Australians in other states will be watching not only the operation of the SA voice, which is expected to be created next year, but its effectiveness in assisting with practical reconciliation. After years of chronic failures by federal, state and territory authorities, Indigenous voices to governments hopefully will be able to guide efforts to tackle the endemic domestic violence afflicting Indigenous women and children in remote communities.

In a candid interview with The Australian on Monday, Victorian Senior Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers said resolving the Northern Territory’s family violence crisis required “profound change”. Ms Rogers is the former Central Australian prosecutor who spoke out in 2006 about horrific cases of physical and sexual abuse of Aboriginal children and women. Her revelations led to the 2007 report Little Children are Sacred, which was followed by the Howard government’s contentious NT intervention. Ms Rogers, who left the Territory nine years ago, said she was shocked by how little had changed. Remote communities could be extremely unsafe for Indigenous women.

She was responding to comments by NT Supreme Court Justice Judith Kelly, who said last week that Aboriginal women in remote communities remained trapped in an epidemic of violence caused by disadvantage and intergenerational abuse, and a culture that privileged perpetrators over victims. Some “remote communities tend to be very punitive towards a victim or someone who has helped a victim or sought help from the police”, Ms Rogers said. Domestic violence in remote communities was often intergenerational, with a father sentenced for violence and his son coming before the same judge for similar crimes 15 years later.

Operating effectively, an Indigenous voice to the South Australian and later other parliaments needs to be practical rather than symbolic. If remedies to domestic violence, substandard education and poor health are to be found it should help if they spring from grassroots experience and the people suffering the problems daily.