Listen to this Article as an Audio File
When it comes to the proposed Aboriginal Voice to Parliament Referendum, there are so many things to consider.
First, we are so completely unaware of what The Voice will actually look like. Some might say this is a good thing, a blank canvas, and they could be right. Others are wary of the potential for things to go wrong. And I guess wrong will be based on how things are viewed.
There are some Questions I have.
First, The British settled on Sydney Cove in 1788. 11 ships and 1400 people, over 750 of whom were prisoners coming here against their will). This arose following the discovery of the East Coast of Australia by James Cook. If he had sailed up the west coast, like Hartog and Dampier, he may well have snubbed his nose and sailed on. But he didn’t.
But let’s ask what might have happened if Cook did dismiss the place and keep sailing. How long would it have been, in this expanding world, that another nation would have arrived here. It was inevitable. What would have happened if the Spanish arrived first?
Perhaps the real offender is the first inventor of the sailing ship.
Human beings are explorers by nature. Sooner or later another explorer would have arrived in this country and opened the door for a different culture to “move in”.
I guess you could argue that the first Aborigines who arrived here were explorers.
We know that during the Second World War, the Japanese had their eye on this great continent and its abundance of natural resources. If there were no Europeans here at the time, what would have happened?
I have little doubt that at some point a different nation would have discovered Australia and decided to take it for themselves. They may have been more, or less, brutal to the Indigenous people who had been here for over 60,000 years. Nobody can know for sure.
When we explore all the different possibilities, there could be an argument that British Settlement here was a very good thing compared to the alternative possibilities.
Some Comments about The Uluru Statement from The Heart, (full 26p edition)
Following, I have highlighted sections of the 26 page Uluru Statement from the Heart and discussed them.
“We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.”
I am not sure why this will change things. Already there are many white Australians, who are fully empowered under the constitution, who live in poverty and hopelessness. At the same time, many indigenous Australians live prosperous and wealthy lives.
Every First Nation has its own word for The Law. Tjukurrpa is the Anangu word for The Law. The Meriam people of Mer refer to Malo’s Law. With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this surviving and underlying First Nation sovereignty can more effectively and powerfully shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
This term Substantive Change. What does that actually mean? We are being told the change is minimal. Minimal and Substantive are not the same.
‘Australia must acknowledge its history, its true history. Not Captain Cook. What happened all across Australia: the massacres and the wars. If that were taught in schools, we might have one nation, where we are all together.’
I agree with this. I believe that we should be bringing so much into our education system about Aboriginal Law, History, Culture and Language, to ensure it is preserved and celebrated by all Australians as a deeply rich part of our heritage.
Makarrata is another word for Treaty or agreement-making. It is the culmination of our agenda. It captures our aspirations for a fair and honest relationship with government and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
It is clear that a Treaty is the culmination of the agenda. What are the expectations of the Treaty. I wonder if there is a draft agreement already in ink. I am certainly not against a Treaty.
‘There is a potential for two sovereignties to co-exist in which both western and Indigenous values and identities are protected and given voice in policies and laws.’
Where would this leave Asian and African communities. Or is it talking about Aboriginal and non-aboriginal.
The Guiding Principles.
These principles governed our assessment of reform proposals:
1. Does not diminish Aboriginal sovereignty and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty.
2. Involves substantive, structural reform.
3. Advances self-determination and the standards established under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
4. Recognises the status and rights of First Nations.
5. Tells the truth of history.
6. Does not foreclose on future advancement.
7. Does not waste the opportunity of reform.
8. Provides a mechanism for First Nations agreement-making.
9. Has the support of First Nations.
10. Does not interfere with positive legal arrangements.
I’d be interested to hear what point 2 means. In relation to point 3, I am wondering which part of the Australian Constitution or Australin Law limits self-determination for Indigenous people. And finally, I wonder who defines “positive legal arrangements”.
In relation to point 2 above, further writings expand on the point.
‘any reform must involve substantive changes to the Australian Constitution. A minimalist approach, that provides preambular recognition, removes section 25 and moderates the races power, does not go far enough and would not be acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’
I am seeking to understand what substantive means. Wording is powerful and, when in a document like the constitution, enduring. Will we get to see the full wording that will appear in the constitution for The Voice if the country votes yes, before October 14th. If not, why not?
Under point 3 above, it states:
‘One of the fundamental principles underpinning ATSIC’s report on the Social Justice Package was ‘self-determination to decide within the broad context of Australian society the priorities and the directions of their own lives, and to freely determine their own affairs.’
Is there something I am missing here. I thought the only people without such stated freedoms in Australia are prisoners in custody, and minors under the control of their parents.
Under Point 4 above, the following is written.
‘One of the fundamental principles underpinning ATSIC’s report on the Social Justice Package was ‘recognition of Indigenous peoples as the original owners of this land, and of the particular rights that are associated with that status.’
I am wondering if, before white settlement, ownership of land was even a concept for any of the 250 plus Aboriginal Nations. If not, how can it become a concept now. I do not deny Indigenous claims to land. I agree with Native Title. Already more than 32% of Australia has been handed back under Native Title claims.
Regarding Point 5 above, I’d love to see an entire curriculum developed and built into the schooling system to allow our children to learn about the full history of this country. I personally believe this is urgent and have felt this way since my kids began their schooling.
Under Point 6 above, it is written.
Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues stated that they did not want constitutional reform to foreclose on future advancement. Constitutional reform must not prevent the pursuit of other beneficial reforms in the future, whether this be through beneficial changes to legislation, policy, or moving towards statehood (in the Northern Territory) or towards Territory status (in the Torres Strait).
I am just interested to know if there are any ideas in place already for “other beneficial reforms in the future”.
In point number 8 above, it outlines the following:
‘The obligation of the state to provide agreement-making mechanisms is reflected in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 37 proclaims, ‘Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such Treaties, Agreements and other Constructive Arrangements’.
I am interested to know if there are any potential agreements on the table waiting to be put forward and ratified, and if so what are they. Onder the new wording of the constitution, it says in item iii, the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
Mr Albanese has clearly stated that he will be enacting all of the recommendations of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. These things are all part of it. There are so many unanswered questions.
In relation to point 9 above, I believe that through all the different Aboriginal bodies, consultation with Government over issues affecting First Nations peoples are a going concern. The NIAA, with a budget of over $3.5Billion annually, is an advisory body that sits within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Voice to Parliament:
This section is very interesting as it outlines some of the points raised in dialogue as to what the Voice “should be able to do”, i.e., what powers it should be granted.
Hobart: Supported a powerful representative body with the consensus that a body must be stronger than just an advisory body to Parliament.
Broome: Someone suggested that the Parliament would need to be compelled to respond to the advice of the Body, and there was discussion of giving the body the right to address the Parliament.
Dubbo: There was a strong view that the Indigenous body must have real power: a power of veto and the power to make a difference.
Melbourne: There was a concern that the body could become a tokenistic process. Hence, it must be more than advisory and consultative. It needs powers of compliance and to be able to hold Parliament on account against the standards of the UNDRIP.
Brisbane: The body needs to be more than just advisory. It needs to be able to provide free, prior and informed consent that is binding on government.
Melbourne: Support was also given for the statement that would underpin and strengthen a Voice to Parliament to enable it to progress and protect a treaty process. This should be a statement of ‘intent’ and a statement of the ‘inherent rights of the First Peoples’. The statement could refer to Australia’s international obligation (e.g. UNDRIP) and acknowledge the sovereign position of Australia’s First Peoples and the crimes committed against the humanity.
There are some powerful statement in these lists of “suggestions”. The use of terms like binding and consent when referring to the Voice’s position are strong and should be taken seriously. They reflect an intention that may or may not manifest.
Another suggestion listed from the Cairns dialogues states:
A number of groups suggested the body could be drawn from an Assembly of First Nations which could be established through a series of treaties among nations.
This is an open admission that there is not perfect harmony between the Aboriginal Nations in Australia. In fact, many have been in conflict for generations with deep hatreds dating back to well before white settlement.
The Section on Treaty.
Treaty
The pursuit of Treaty and treaties was strongly supported across the Dialogues.167 Treaty was seen as a pathway to recognition of sovereignty and for achieving future meaningful reform for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Treaty would be the vehicle to achieve self-determination, autonomy and self-government.
The Dialogues discussed who would be the parties to Treaty, as well as the process, content and enforcement questions that pursuing Treaty raises. In relation to process, these questions included whether a Treaty should be negotiated first as a national framework agreement under which regional and local treaties are made. In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. In relation to enforcement, the issues raised were about the legal force the Treaty should have, and particularly whether it should be backed by legislation or given constitutional force.
Reparations and Financial Settlement? Those are both potentially bottomless pits. A percentage of GDP? How much money is being sought. And why money. Was money something that existed in Aboriginal Culture before white settlement. If not, why has it become so important now. I was of the view that Aboriginals were seeking respect, genuine acknowledgement, and the genuine support, celebration, and preservation of their culture.
Truth-telling
The need for the truth to be told as part of the process of reform emerged from many of the Dialogues. The Dialogues emphasised that the true history of colonisation must be told: the genocides, the massacres, the wars and the ongoing injustices and discrimination. This truth also needed to include the stories of how First Nations Peoples have contributed to protecting and building this country.176 A truth commission could be established as part of any reform, for example, prior to a constitutional reform or as part of a Treaty negotiation.
I am in full agreement with this. But I do not see why we need to change the constitution to do this. It is brilliant to see films like “Higher Ground” giving insights into the brutal murder of Aborigines by despotic white settlers.
But I ask another question on this. Are the Aborigine people going to be honest about what they did to each other prior to white settlement. I am not saying they should, but if we want to heal by revealing the truth, then the whole truth will probably take us closer to genuine healing.
Throughout the dialogues in this section, there are multiple mentions of “truth and justice”. I am not sure what justice would look like given that the perpetrators are long dead. Will there be a reach to claim land or other assets from the descendants of the perpetrators. This gets into murky waters as knowledge of a crime is very different to proof of a crime.
The Road Map
Following the Steps of the Road map is super interesting. I am wondering if we would be in this position of ATSIC and the NIAA and other significant bodies were established with this amount of care, inclusion and planning. The proposed Makarrata Commission feels powerful.
Note Step 19
The Bill establishing the Makarrata Commission should confer all necessary powers and functions to facilitate the settlement of a National Makarrata Framework Agreement between Australian Governments and First Peoples, as well as subsequent First People Agreements at the local level (named in the relevant ancestral language of the First Nation, representing for example the Meriam, Yorta Yorta, Anangu, Wiradjuri and the many First Nations of Australia). The role of the National Native Title Tribunal should be subsumed by the Makarrata Commission, which should have as one of its functions the role of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to enable all Australians to face the truth of the past and to embrace a common hope for the future.
I wonder if it could also take over the role of the NIAA and make one significant Aboriginal body. If this were to be established and given the reverence and consecration it should, then it could become a lighthouse to a safe and prosperous future.
My Thoughts:
Through all that I explored in this document, I still could not discover a compelling reason why a change to the constitution is necessary. I agree that if the current parliament and all the political parties concerned were not sincere about this pathway to reconciliation, then I can understand why the Aborigine people would want to see a change to the constitution.
If future Governments are not sincere or experience an ideology backflip, it could be catastrophic. But this is where the electorate in the democracy gets to temper radical ideas by governments.
If we are to proceed and make constitutional change, the proposed wording is a concern.
The Wording in the Constitution
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
As per item iii above, a radical government, for example an extreme left leaning or right leaning government, can create new laws and give new powers to The Voice that we may not have considered when we answered the referendum.
You may scoff at such, but who would have predicted the actions of the Queensland, WA and Victorian Governments during the pandemic, or the actions of the WA Government in the enacting of the despised Aboriginal Heritage Act.
A Case against the Voice.
In this country, Aboriginal People have equal rights to every other person. In fact, many have even more rights as their Aboriginality gives them privileges that I do not have. Am I concerned about that? Not at all.
I agree that many are caught up in terrible circumstances. The same can be said for many whites too, and people’s from other cultures. Just about every country has regions where people struggle to escape poverty.
What happened to many Aboriginal People in the past here in Australia was barbaric, cruel, and disgusting. But no more so that what happened to the Jews in Germany, the Tootsies in Rwanda, the American and Canadian Indians and many others over Millenia.
We can argue about why these things occurred. Perhaps the guilty party is the inventor of the first sailing ships that facilitated people leaving their shorts to explore the world.
We can look back and feel guilt and shame for the actions of some of our forebears. But how long must we do this before enough is enough. At some point, we need to move forward.
My grandfather of four or five generations back may well have killed your grandfather. But I am no more guilty of that act than you are dead from that attack. It is the role of current generations to recognise, accept and respect the truth of the past. I cannot pay for my grandfather’s sins.
But, I can seek to do what I can to repair the damage, build trust and to ensure such things never happen again, to seek to make the world safe for my fellow citizens so that they can live, enjoy their freedoms and thrive.
However, I cannot treat people as victims. That is the opposite of empowering them. We have all chosen to play the victim in our lives. I know I have done it. It is a strategy to take away another person’s power to get them to do something for you. We learn it as kids to manipulate our parents.
It is the opposite of being personally responsible. And perhaps the only genuine path to self realisation is through learning to become fully personally responsible for our own lives. Sooner or later the young bird must leave the nest and fly on its own.
Every Aborigine person in Australia has the freedom to run for parliament, state or federal, or to run for council. Many do! Others aspire to significant positions in corporations, government departments or NFPs.
But I fear that if we feel we need to change legislation to create a special consideration to give Aboriginal People a sense of having a more authoritative say, or a stronger voice, then we are treating them as victims and they will remain as such for generations to come.
That is not healing.
It feels harsh to compel someone to stand on their own two feet. It may be devilishly hard and painful for them, but the rewards are great. Physiotherapists do it every day with physically injured people.
We do not empower our children by wrapping them in cotton wool and protecting them from their world. We empower them by supporting them to stand on their own two feet and to work hard for and fight for the life they want to live.
There are people across Australia living in retched circumstances, indigenous and white. We must double our efforts to help them move out of that place and live life. Because of the failings of the past, it cannot be white people intervening in Aboriginal communities. This work must be done by members of that same community.
I have a question for those Aborigine people who have participated in this entire process. Did you walk this path as a person who has felt victimized and is a victim of white Australia? If so, I fear your intentions will trap your people in victimhood for hundreds of years to come.
I would like to see our Indigenous brothers and sisters stand proud, celebrate their culture, share it with us, forgive those who hurt their ancestors, and step into the creation of a beautiful future, side by side, creating a great nation fueled by love, compassion, understanding, shared values, togetherness and friendship.
I do not believe we need to change the constitution to achieve that.
the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
This raises alarm bells for me, and as you mentioned already John, with good reason considering the overstep we have witnessed in the recent years. And I very much doubt that the intention / agenda has changed, but we the people are continuing to awaken 🙏💚
The part of the new wording for the constitution that I am wondering about is where it says Parliament can pass laws related to “its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”
If it’s just an advisory body, I can understand laws being made about its composition, functions and procedures. But I don’t understand what is meant by “powers”. Why does an advisory body need powers? What could those powers be?
Seems to me to open the door to future radical governments (which we get from time to time) passing laws that go beyond the notion of it being just an advisory body.