Time to give all people choice on Indigenous Voice

The Constitution determines the lines of power in our society, the legitimacy of people and our shared values.

Constitutional change could have broad, positive effects that extend far beyond the law and a referendum could unite Australians around a sense of pride in their shared history. Picture: Melanie Faith Dove

Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution has attracted national attention for decades. For most of this time, a key question lay unanswered: How do Indigenous peoples want to be recognised in the Constitution?

This was finally resolved at a historic gathering of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at Uluru in 2017. A statement was issued on May 26 that year on what constitutional recognition should include.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart invited all Australians to join with Indigenous peoples to achieve a First Nations “Voice” to parliament protected by the Constitution and a subsequent process of agreement-making and truth-telling. This law reform proposal is popularly referred to as Voice, Treaty, Truth.

This call for constitutional reform has a long history in Indigenous communities.

One example is Cherbourg in southwestern Queensland. Cherbourg was set up by the Salvation Army in 1899 and became a settlement in 1904 under Queensland’s Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897.

Over recent years Cherbourg has conducted discussions on the Constitution on the veranda of the old Ration Shed, the dwelling where small rations of tea, salt, sugar, peas, porridge and flour were given out weekly until 1968.

The symbolism was obvious. In 1901, as Australia embarked on its journey as a new nation with a new Constitution, Aboriginal people were forcibly removed from their country and placed on reserves and missions.

Federation meant a loss of rights and freedom for Aboriginal people as they bore the burden of discrimination imposed by law. They were denied the vote, had their children removed, were prevented from marrying, were told where they could live and had their wages confiscated.

But a year after a campaign led by many voices from within Cherbourg led to the 1967 referendum that deleted discriminatory references to Aboriginal people from the Constitution, the Ration Shed was closed. To Cherbourg residents, this illustrated the power of the Constitution.

Aunty Beryl Gambrill – who was arrested for protesting in 1967 in support of the referendum – participated again in 2011 at age 80 in national discussions about constitutional change. She made a submission on the veranda of the Ration Shed, handwritten in pencil, that recognition is “important to us” and that it should happen “as soon as possible”.

One year later she passed away. Her contribution to equal rights and the community at large was so significant that a condolence motion was passed in the Queensland parliament.

Some say urgent things are needed in the area of Aboriginal policy and disadvantage, so why focus on constitutional change?

Aunty Beryl is an excellent example of why; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have themselves identified the need for this reform. They have argued for change since the early years after Federation, in response to their first-hand experience of how the Constitution has impacted negatively on their lives.

They have done so because the Constitution excluded them from the political settlement that brought about the new Australian nation.

Rather than being treated as equal citizens, they were cast as a “dying race” not expected to survive British settlement.

They were described as a “problem” and as a people lacking any future in the nation. This was reflected in the fact that they were immediately denied the vote in federal elections and the Constitution said they could not be included in counts of the Australian population.

The Constitution can seem distant from people’s lives, but it is always there, in the background, shaping the work of parliaments, governments and courts. It has a long-term, profound effect on the direction of the nation and its laws. As the rule book for the nation, the Constitution determines the lines of power in our society, the legitimacy of people and institutions, and informs our values and national aspirations.

The advocacy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples culminated in a successful referendum in 1967. Since then, many people – including a long list of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders and successive prime ministers from Paul Keating and John Howard onwards – have agitated for further change. These calls emerged as it became clear that the 1967 referendum had left unfinished business.

The 1967 referendum deleted discriminatory references to Aboriginal people but put nothing in their place. Torres Strait Islanders have never been referred to in the Constitution at all. As a result, rather than recognising Indigenous people, the referendum left a silence at the heart of the Constitution. Today, the document reflects Australia’s history of British settlement but fails to acknowledge the much longer occupation of the continent by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It is as if this history does not matter and is not part of the nation’s story.

The 1967 referendum also did not deal with other issues of importance to Indigenous peoples.

These include the settlement of differences through the making of treaties and the need to have a say on laws that affect Indigenous peoples by way of a Voice to Parliament. In bypassing these and other issues, the 1967 referendum failed to make structural changes to improve the relationship between the state and Indigenous peoples.

Overcoming disadvantage requires multiple approaches.

Recognition and ensuring an Indigenous Voice to Parliament are some of the things that could accelerate improvement.

Constitutional change of this kind could have broad, positive effects that extend far beyond the law. The referendum could unite Australians around a sense of pride in their shared history.

Constitutional recognition could also have positive health effects. Research on the social determinants of health shows how legal discrimination and exclusion can affect mental and physical wellbeing. As the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists has said: “The lack of acknowledgment of a people’s existence in a country’s constitution has a major impact on their sense of identity and value within the community, and perpetuates discrimination and prejudice which further erodes the hope of Indigenous people.”

This in turn has an association with “socio-economic disadvantage and subsequent higher rates of mental illness, physical illness and incarceration”.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples spoke in the Uluru Statement about how the Constitution must be changed.

Four years later, it is time we respected this call by committing to a referendum of the Australian people on a First Nations Voice to Parliament.

This is an extract from Everything You Need to Know About the Uluru Statement from the Heart, by Megan Davis and George Williams, published by UNSW Press.