There’s plenty of debate around Uluru Statement from the Heart. Here’s all you need to know

Vote now in our poll: Should Australia enshrine a Voice in the Constitution?

THE election of Anthony Albanese as Prime Minister signalled many things to Australian voters but it was clear from his first speech there was at least one priority - enacting the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

A month-long debate about the Uluru Statement from the Heart has plagued public discourse.

What is the Uluru Statement?

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a document signed by more than 250 First Nations leaders that calls for ‘structural reform’.

It was first issued to the Australian people on May 26, 2017.

Structural reform means establishing a new relationship between First Nations and the Australian nation based on justice and self-determination.

The signatories sought to clearly detail three core ideas; sovereignty has and never was ceded, constitutional recognition and a Makarrata Commission.

These three reforms are encompassed in Voice (constitutional recognition), Treaty (sovereignty) and Truth (Makarrata Commission).

“We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country,” the statement reads.

“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.”

Notably, the signatories made a conscious decision to address the public, not a government or institution.

How was the Uluru Statement developed?

The Uluru Statement builds on the strong history of Indigenous advocacy and a series of previous calls for change including the 1963 Yirrkala Bark Petitions and the 1988 Barunga Statement.

In December 2015, then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull announced the establishment of the Referendum Council that would oversee a deliberative process designed and led by First Nations people.

At a meeting at Sydney’s Kirribilli House in July 2015 First Nations leaders told federal politicians that constitutional change required substantive reform and it would have practical change.

From December 2016 to May 2017 12 dialogues (town hall style meetings) and one regional meeting were held to consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across Australia.

Joining each town hall were about 100 Indigenous people drawn from local Traditional Owners, Indigenous community-based organisations and Indigenous leaders.

In total, more than 1200 people provided input and feedback on the Statement’s development. These regional dialogues then selected their own representatives to attend the First Nations Constitutional Convention at Uluru where delegates spent four days establishing the final 12-paragraph statement that is now known as the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

What has been the political journey?

Historically, many conflate the achievements of the 1967 referendum with progress that the Uluru Statement from the Heart aims to achieve.

The 1967 constitutional amendments included two technical changes, one of which was Aboriginal people were now counted as people of the Commonwealth.

In the Uluru Statement it clarifies a new position by saying ‘in 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard’.

At the First Nations Constitutional Convention there was an overwhelming consensus from delegates that led to the document including more than 250 signatories.

Notably a small contingent of delegates, including Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe, opposed the order to which the Uluru Statement aimed to achieve things.

Ms Thorpe later told media she believed that the “Uluru process was hijacked by Aboriginal corporations … and (it) did not reflect the aspirations of ordinary Indigenous people”.

The signatories’ call for a referendum and constitutionally enshrined Voice to parliament was rejected by the Turnbull government.

In a joint statement with then attorney-general George Brandis, Mr Turnbull said the Statement was “neither desirable nor capable” of winning a referendum.

However, in 2021 the Statement won The Sydney Peace Prize.

Most recently in 2022 Federal Labor ran their election campaign on the promise of fully implementing the Statement.

It was then endorsed and signed in a memorandum of understanding by all religious leaders during Reconciliation week.

Rachel Perkins join individual members from peak religious institutions calling on Australian political leaders to take action on a First Nations Voice Referendum, as advocated by the Uluru Statement from the Heart at The Cutaway in Barangaroo, Sydney. Photo Jeremy Piper

What is an Indigenous Voice?

The Statement itself does not directly detail what a Voice is but it is thought to potentially be elected First Nations leaders who together would form a representative body.

The form of a Voice was detailed in a report commissioned by the Morrison Government in 2019.

Indigenous leaders Professor Marcia Langton and Tom Calma AO authored the report that backed a federally developed Voice alongside local and regional advisory Voice committees.

The elected groups would then advise governments at all levels on issues that directly impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly those where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are over represented in, including incarceration rates and child protection.

The Statement refers to both these issues as “dimensions of crisis” that explicitly display “the structural nature” of historical governance.

“This is the torment of our powerlessness,” the Statement said.

Through the Statement it calls for the Voice to be constitutionally enshrined - only possible through a referendum - ensuring the longevity of the governance structure and hopefully preventing policy or legislation that treats First Nations people with paternalism.

“With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood,” the Statement reads.

According to the Uluru Statement from the Heart website several countries have already achieved similar ideas, including Norway, Sweden, Finland and New Zealand.

What is a Makarrata Commission?

Makarrata is a Yolgnu word meaning ‘a coming together after a struggle’.

The Makarrata Commission would have two roles: supervising a process of agreement-making and overseeing a process of truth-telling.

Agreements between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and Australian governments have been negotiated for many years in Australia, for example under the Native Title and Land Rights Acts.

However, the Commission would allow these processes to be struck at a national level by facilitating consultation.

Another function of a Makarrata Commission would be to supervise a process of ‘truth-telling’: a process that allows the full extent of the past injustices experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be uncovered and revealed.

Such a process would allow all Australians to understand the impact of past governance and colonial history, with a hope of creating genuine reconciliation.