On 30 July 2022, Anthony Albanese took the first step in actioning his commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart; a commitment he made on the very night of his election. Accordingly, the Prime Minister has now unveiled a plan to enshrine an Indigenous Voice to Parliament into Australia’s Constitution. The proposal will provide Australians of all backgrounds with an opportunity to influence what may be one of the most important steps toward reconciliation in recent times. With the clock now ticking toward a historic referendum, unpacking the proposal and getting behind this momentous call to action is a responsibility that all Australians bear, including us as South Asians, who have made our home on Indigenous land.
What is the Uluru Statement from the Heart?
The proposed referendum has arisen from what is known as the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Uluru Statement is a document endorsed by Indigenous leaders from across Australia inviting all Australians to support significant constitutional and structural reforms that confront the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians as well as to recognise the history & sovereignty of Indigenous Australia.
What is the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and What Does the Proposed Reform Mean?
The Prime Minister’s announcement in the Northern Territory two weeks ago intends to implement the first of two key reforms proposed by the Uluru Statement; an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
In short, the proposal seeks to enshrine a constitutional body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Voice (Voice) that will be dedicated to advising and making recommendations to the government on issues impacting Indigenous Australians.
Of course, technically speaking, the government already has the power to establish Voice through ordinary legislation by passing its proposal through the lower and upper houses of parliament without having to amend the constitution. So why bother with the arduous process of constitutional reform?
Primarily, it is because where legislation can easily be changed by the government of the day, the Constitution cannot. That is, if Voice was established by legislation only, a subsequent government could just as easily scrap it completely. In comparison, if Voice is enshrined in the Constitution, its existence will remain an enduring part of Australia’s governing structure and give it certainty and stability - irrespective of who is in power. As a result, it would mean that the Voice could more fearlessly scrutinise and call-out government action or inaction, even if it risks upsetting the government of the day.
What’s the point?
Indigenous advocates & allies for Voice have argued that the constitutional enshrinement Voice would finally recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution and, at the same time, finally provide a meaningful platform for Indigenous voices within parliament. Legislation impacting Indigenous Australians has all too often been passed without providing a meaningful voice to the very people bearing the brunt of those policies.
Indeed, it goes without saying that the invasion by the British, massacres of Indigenous Australians and policies resulting in the Stolen Generations massively reduced the number of First Nations people in Australia to what is now approximately just 3% of the total population. Furthermore, intergenerational trauma and enduring government failures have seen continuing mass disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia in terms of education, health, law & justice. In that context, achieving meaningful representation for Indigenous voices in parliament through elected officials has been and continues to be extremely difficult. A constitutionally enshrined Voice would go some way to improving those structural barriers and ensuring that Indigenous Voices are given a national platform to advise and advocate for Indigenous issues as opposed to continually being dictated to.
However, the call for Voice has not been unanimous and is facing some resistance.
Criticisms
Country Liberal Senator Jacinta Nampijnpa Price has argued that the campaign for Voice is another symbolic and tokenistic gesture that will not resolve the issues facing Indigenous Australians and that there is a need to be debating “real solutions” to domestic violence and alcoholism in Indigenous communities. It’s an argument that’s been heard time and again, including in Kevin Rudd’s historic apology to Indigenous Peoples speech.
However, the idea that establishing Voice comes at the cost of resolving real grassroots issues is a misnomer. The establishment of Voice is not intended to be, nor should it be, the only tool in correcting the structural barriers facing Indigenous Australians. Indeed, the ‘real solutions’ Senator Price calls for will be far more effective when those solutions are made in consultation with a body that is actually representative of Indigenous communities.
There have been further criticisms that Albanese’s proposal lacks sufficient detail. Respectfully, it’s not a very convincing critique. The government has already announced that an exposure document will be released with key elements of the Voice’s fundamental structure. In any case, whilst the specific wording of Albanese’s proposal may change over time with negotiations across the political spectrum, the outcome of the proposal is already clear – the creation of a constitutional body that will advise and make representations on Indigenous issues. The point of the referendum is not to have the minute details of the everyday running of Voice ingrained in the Constitution, but to demand that such a body can exist with constitutional protection.
Finally, there has been the more ridiculous assertion that the creation of Voice is in fact racist in that it prioritises the voice of one race over another. No prizes for guessing who published that (ding ding ding - Sky News). Whilst there are an array of underrepresented voices in parliament, the context of Indigenous Australia is inherently different. First Nations people never ceded sovereignty and the land which we all call home was, whether we like it or not, stolen from them. After systematically oppressing Indigenous Australians for generations, a Voice to our Parliament is a measure implemented to restore some justice and begin a path of righting the many wrongs of the past. As people who live on stolen land it is incumbent on us, non-Indigenous Australians of all backgrounds and ethnicities, to participate and get behind that road to justice & reconciliation.
But taking this next step will not be without its challenges. Amending the constitution requires not only a majority of people across the nation to vote in favour, but also a majority of voters in a majority of the states. The difficulty of changing the constitution is underlined by the fact that out of 44 proposed changes to the Constitution, only 8 have ever been successful.
In that context, it’s especially here where we must listen to the Uluru Statement’s call to action:
We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.
Let’s take up that invitation.
Khushaal Vyas is a lawyer, freelance journalist and the COO of the Australia India Film Council. His character flaw is continuing to upload Insta travel photos three years after the fact.
