In the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders invited all Australians to walk with them on a journey of reconciliation.
They asked for understanding, empowerment and a future where there was hope, inclusion and justice for all. They called for First Nations people to be given a voice in the lawmaking that governs this continent.
The statement called for recognition and a practical mechanism to achieve structural reform: a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution and a Makarrata commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and truth-telling about our shared past as the basis for lasting reconciliation.
Five years on from the National Constitutional Convention that gave all Australians this generous and unifying statement, there is widespread support from Australians of all walks of life and the critical backing of business, trade unions, churches and faith groups, charitable and civic organisations, and the legal community. It now requires the political will to achieve it.
Anthony Albanese pledged to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, with the priority being the First Nations voice to parliament. This was a firm commitment made by Labor during the recent election campaign and now, having won a majority of seats in the House of Representatives and a majority of the two-party vote, it has a mandate to deliver it.
The Albanese government is committed to working across the political divide with all parties to gain maximum support for a referendum to be held this parliamentary term. The government is also working with Indigenous Australians, including the Coalition of Peaks, to design the model and referendum question.
Last week the Prime Minister told me he would put a referendum to enshrine the voice to parliament in the Constitution even if the Liberal and National parties did not formally support it. This is not to downplay his wish for genuine bipartisanship but a clear statement that he will not allow a “right of veto” to be exercised by the opposition.
“You don’t need a consensus but you need a broad agreement, firstly, amongst First Nations leaders and then, secondly, you would seek to get as broad a political agreement as possible for a referendum,” he said. “So that doesn’t mean that any group would have veto power because my concern is that unless there is a referendum in the foreseeable future, then the momentum will be lost.”
This is the right approach but challenges the prevailing orthodoxy about what is needed to amend the Constitution successfully. The conventional wisdom is that a referendum is carried only when Labor and the Coalition support it. The standout example is the 1967 referendum to include Aboriginal Australians in the census and allow the federal government to make laws for their benefit, which was adopted with 90.77 per cent voter support and the backing of all states.
Since 1901, only eight out of 44 referendums have been carried. Labor’s track record of achieving constitutional change is not good. Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke both put six referendums and failed. The last successful referendum proposed by Labor was on social services during the Chifley government in 1946.
It is highly unlikely the Liberal and National parties will formally support a referendum to enshrine the voice to parliament in the Constitution. So, holding up a referendum until there is bipartisan support makes no sense. It is, however, likely that some Liberal MPs will support a referendum but it is almost certain that it will not be a party-wide position.
The last three Liberal PMs have strongly opposed the voice to parliament. Moreover, it was Malcolm Turnbull who wrongly and shamefully characterised it as “a third chamber”. Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison also have perpetuated this characterisation. So has Peter Dutton, although he now says he is open to supporting the referendum.
The voice to parliament is not a third chamber. It would only advise the parliament, which could accept or reject its advice. The voice would not be able to propose, amend or reject legislation, nor would it scrutinise every bill or motion. The voice would only strengthen parliament’s mandate to make laws.
It is a conservative idea in that it would create an institution, constitutionally enshrined, to channel practical advice to politicians. It would be an act of recognition and reconciliation whereby the parliament listened to Indigenous Australians, the first sovereign nations of this continent, and empowered them to advise how to close the gap on health, housing, education, employment, justice and safety.
There is more work to be done on the structure of the voice, the appointment of its members and the head of power in the Constitution to bring it into force. The federal parliament is likely to be able to determine the design of the voice but enshrining it in the Constitution means there must be a voice. State, regional and local voices are worthwhile initiatives and may link to a national voice.
It is, of course, better to have Liberals and Nationals supporting the referendum on the voice. The appointment of Julian Leeser, a constitutional conservative and supporter of the voice, as opposition legal affairs and Indigenous affairs spokesman is welcome and encouraging. But Albanese is right: the voice cannot be held hostage to a political party. It is too important.
The old certainties of politics are changing, as the recent election showed. Referendums were once viewed as viable only if the two major parties supported it. But a First Nations voice to parliament is one that transcends politics and already has the support of a wide and diverse range of Australians. It has every prospect of success, with or without the Coalition’s support.
Risk that puberty blockers are a trap, not a release, for children
We need a national inquiry into the use of puberty blockers in children.
We need better tech to meet the threat of terrorism
All of the civil agencies who need to play a part in fighting the anti-Semitism and Islamophobic threat are not properly funded to undertake modernisation rapidly.