Yes Is for Bringing Australia Together and Moving Forward

Youths and children wave the Australian aboriginal flag as protesters take part in an "Invasion Day" demonstration on Australia Day in Sydney on Jan. 26, 2022. (Steven Saphore/AFP via Getty Images)

Commentary

Through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, Indigenous Australian communities forged the first ever national consensus on how they want to be constitutionally recognised—they asked for a constitutionally guaranteed Voice in their affairs.

Not a veto, just a better say in decisions impacting their communities.

This was a simple yet profound request. It was an invitation to the Australian people to work in partnership for a better future, to talk more and listen to each other, and to improve practical outcomes in Indigenous communities.

What’s remarkable is the generosity of Indigenous people’s offer to non-Indigenous Australians, given the history.

Indigenous people were excluded from the constitutional conventions that created Australia.

They were excluded from the Constitution of 1901 under a clause that said they should not be counted.

They were subject to decades of unjust and ineffective policies. Laws which denied them the vote in some jurisdictions—equal voting rights across the board were not achieved until the 1960s. Policies that withheld their wages. Policies removing children from their families, banning their languages, dictating who they could marry, where they could live, whether they could buy a car, and of course denying their property rights.

Unlike their white counterparts, Indigenous soldiers who circumvented the various “colour bars” and fought for Australia were not treated equally by the country they defended, let alone recognised or honoured for their contributions.

Indigenous veterans generally couldn’t apply for land under the soldier settlement schemes. Many were barred from RSL clubs, except on ANZAC Day. They were still treated like second class citizens.

Indigenous people could be forgiven for wanting no part of the Australia that shunned them.

Local children play stick ball on a street in Aurukun, far North Queensland, Cape York, on July 19, 2022. (AAP Image/Jono Searle)

No wonder far-left activists reject constitutional recognition in favour of separatism, resistance, and perpetual protest. Can we really blame them?

The remarkable thing is that, despite the history of exclusion, the pragmatic majority of Indigenous Australians—80 percent according to current polls—want to be included in the Australian Constitution through a Voice in their affairs.

Despite everything, they are saying: We want in. We want to be recognised in the founding document of this land, formally and permanently. We want to be part of Australia. And all we ask is that this recognition occurs through an advisory voice in laws and policies made about us.

Who are we, if we refuse this generous offer of reconciliation?

That the far-right rejects the offer, just like the far-left, is telling.

The political fringes have everything to gain from continued division and discontent, while most pragmatic Australians want peace, healing, and national unity.

Indigenous constitutional recognition through a Voice speaks to that sentiment. It speaks to the majority of ordinary Australians who just want to get on with making things better.

It’s Time Australia Caught Up

Some argue that giving Indigenous peoples a guaranteed Voice would repudiate a central tenet of liberalism—the idea that we should be treated equally.

That is rich, given the history of unequal treatment suffered by Indigenous people.

Such opponents present an ideological and unrealistic conception of liberal democracy.

Liberal democracies don’t choose between equality on the one hand and recognition of Indigenous peoples on the other. The constitutional arrangements of many great democracies incorporate principles of equality and Indigenous recognition as two sides of the same coin.

Successful democracies are pragmatic and inclusive. They find ways to “perfect their unions,” to paraphrase the U.S. preamble, by including historically marginalised peoples.

Australia is the only Western democracy that doesn’t recognise Indigenous peoples or give them any voice in their affairs.

For example, the U.S. constitutionally recognises Indigenous peoples, and accords them “domestic dependent sovereignty.” Maine has reserved seats for tribal representatives, and there is also the Congress of American Indians. The U.S. is still a successful liberal democracy.

Women dressed in American Indian uniforms participate in the Veterans Day parade in New York City on Nov. 11, 2015. (Benjamin Chasteen/Epoch Times)

Canada’s Constitution has strong recognition of Aboriginal and Treaty rights. There is a duty to consult Indigenous peoples, and the Assembly of First Nations partners with government on policy development. Canada is still a successful liberal democracy.

New Zealand has reserved Maori seats in Parliament and the Maori Council which makes “representations” to government on Maori affairs. New Zealand is still a successful liberal democracy.

Indigenous recognition is not about race: we are one human race.

Unfortunately, however, the defunct concept of race has been in the Constitution since 1901. Indigenous Australians have suffered because they were considered an inferior race.

This referendum is about fixing that problem. It is about moving from negative exclusion of Indigenous people to positive inclusion. It is about recognising the Indigenous peoples of this continent and giving them a better say in their own affairs, to prevent repeat of past wrongs and improve practical outcomes.

Australians are fair and pragmatic people. We are not ideologues. We want things to be better.

We know Indigenous Australians have had a rough deal. And we know their request for an advisory Voice is a small ask, given the history.

We will vote “yes” because we want unity, progress, and peace.

Shireen Morris is the director of the Radical Centre Reform Lab at Macquarie University Law School.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.