“Our people deserve to be recognised in the Constitution,” she said. “We deserve to have a Voice. So please vote yes. I love you all.”

This was one articulation of what this referendum means to the majority of Indigenous Australians – over 80 per cent according to polls – asking to be recognised in the Constitution through an advisory Voice in their affairs. This is the invitation Australians must answer.

Last week, the Kimberley Land Council’s “Referendum Roadshow” held community conversations at Kununurra, Hall’s Creek, Fitzroy Crossing and Derby. They were an energising reminder of both the urgent practical issues facing Indigenous communities, and the fundamental generosity of Australians.

A Yes vote would deliver two key benefits to Australia, practical and emotional.

The practical benefit comes through empowering Indigenous communities to take greater responsibility in their affairs. The constitutional change will guarantee Indigenous peoples a fairer say in laws and policies made about them, so they can develop solutions to their challenges in partnership with governments. This will improve policies and practical outcomes, to help close the gap.

The Voice’s broad scope facilitates discretion and flexibility. It is smart constitutional drafting, cognisant of practical realities.

The constitutional amendment has been guided by practicality. The Voice’s broad discretion to advise on matters relating to Indigenous peoples is sensible for practical reasons.

As Australian constitutional law specialist Professor Anne Twomey has explained, the broad scope keeps the question of what matters the Voice can advise on out of the courts. This was a deliberate choice by experts, who understood that a narrow constitutional scope requires courts to determine what is within the Voice’s remit. A broad constitutional remit makes this a political judgment. That is smart constitutional drafting.

A major practical benefit of the Voice will be its ability to alert the government to adverse or unintended impacts of laws and policies indirectly affecting Indigenous communities. Environmental laws, for example, might not directly target Indigenous people. But Indigenous communities may sensibly want to tell government about their impact on economic development on Indigenous land. The broad scope facilitates discretion and flexibility. Again, it is smart constitutional drafting, cognisant of practical realities.

Practicality will guide the Voice’s work. Representatives will be chosen by Indigenous communities, therefore its advice will be informed by local priorities. Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney this week confirmed that the Voice will prioritise health, education, jobs and housing.

Discussions in the Kimberley reiterated this practical focus. Urgent problems included unhealthy and overpriced food in local shops, contributing to poverty and health crises; youth disengagement and crime; poor educational outcomes; and inadequate housing. Their concerns underscored the absurdity of suggestions that the Voice will be advising on submarines, paper clips and parking tickets.

Generosity and forgiveness

But the discussions were not just practical. They were also emotional. There was warmth and optimism in the contributions of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

Participants discussed the need to right past wrongs, to create a fairer Australia and a better future for their children and grandchildren. Many carried historical wounds, yet they still believed in justice. They expressed love for their fellow Australians and hope for the future. They talked about the need for healing. They urged each other to choose friendship over fear, and unity over division.

The generosity Indigenous Australians have expressed through the Uluru Statement is extraordinary, considering the history.

Indigenous peoples lived on this continent for more than 60,000 years, yet they were excluded from the constitutional conventions that founded the nation. The Constitution of 1901 contained clauses explicitly excluding them. It created a top-down power relationship, putting Indigenous communities in a position of powerlessness.

The Constitution presided over extensive discrimination against Indigenous people. There were laws denying them the vote in some jurisdictions, right up until the 1960s. There were policies withholding Indigenous wages, controlling where they could live and who they could marry, banning their languages from being spoken, and denying their property rights.

The 1967 referendum did not fix this. It gave the federal parliament power to make laws about Indigenous people, but did not guarantee Indigenous communities a fair say in laws and policies made about them. The top-down dynamic continued. Today, governments still make policies in far-off Canberra that misinterpret Indigenous needs and deliver scant practical outcomes. The gap on some indicators is getting wider.

The extraordinary thing is that, despite the history of exclusion and injustice, Indigenous Australians are saying to Australians: “We want in. We want to be recognised in the Australian Constitution. We want to be part of Australia. And all we ask for is an advisory Voice in laws and policies made about us.”

The emotional pay-off of a Yes vote will be just as important as the practical benefit. A Yes vote will be a national commitment to friendship and unity, to dialogue, listening and mutual respect.

I won’t forget those words: “Please vote yes. I love you all.”

The love and warmth that infused the discussions, the staunch belief in justice despite the hardships of the past and present, and the commitment to doing the hard work to achieve to a national 'Yes' vote in the referendum.

Both Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians discussed their visions for a more united Australia. Equal parts desperation and hope, struggling local people explained how they want and need things to change. They want to close the gap. They want to right the wrongs of the past. They want a fairer and more reconciled Australia, and a better future for their children and grandchildren.

We talked about the history. The fact that Indigenous Australians have lived on this continent for over 60,000 years. However, no Indigenous representatives were included in the Constitutional Conventions that founded the nation. Indigenous people were considered a 'dying race', and the Constitution – this country's power-sharing rulebook – contained clauses explicitly excluding them. It created a top-down power relationship with Indigenous peoples.

As a result, the Constitution presided over extensive discrimination against Indigenous Australians. There were laws denying them the vote in some jurisdictions, right up until the 1960s. There were policies withholding Indigenous wages, controlling where they could live and who they could marry, banning their languages from being spoken, and of course denying their property rights.

The 1967 referendum did not fix the problem. That referendum gave the federal Parliament power to make laws about Indigenous people: the Race Power has only been used for Indigenous affairs, enabling initiatives like the Native Title Act and heritage protection laws. But the 1967 referendum did not guarantee Indigenous people a fair say in laws and policies made about them. It maintained the top-down relationship.

Top-down, ineffective policy continued. Today, governments make policies in far-off Canberra that misinterpret Indigenous needs and deliver few practical outcomes in communities. Despite good will, Australia is failing to close the gap.

This is why Indigenous advocates have for so long called for constitutional recognition to create a fairer power relationship with Australian governments. Those attending the forums recalled the long history of Indigenous advocacy for a greater voice in their affairs which stretches back at least 100 years.

In the 1930, William Cooper petitioned the British King for Indigenous representation in Parliament. Through the Yirrkala bark petitions in 1963, the Yolngu people asked to be heard in decisions made about them and their land. The 1988 Barunga Statement then asked for a treaty and an Indigenous representative body to oversee Indigenous affairs.

ATSIC was subsequently legislated under a Labor government. But it was not underpinned by any constitutional guarantee, so it was abolished under John Howard – with bipartisan support. This is why the constitutional guarantee is important: it give the Voice permanence.

In 2017, through the Uluru Statement, Indigenous Australians forged an unprecedented national consensus on how they want to be recognised in the Constitution. They asked for a constitutionally guaranteed Voice in their affairs. Not a veto, just advisory Voice.

People had questions about how the Voice would operate, and how a referendum works. What became clear is that the referendum is about the principle: it boils down to a Yes or No question.

Do we say Yes to finally recognising Indigenous peoples in the Constitution, by giving Indigenous communities a guaranteed Voice in laws and policies made about them? Or do we say no: we want things to stay the same? That is the question of principle the Australian people must answer in this referendum.

If we say Yes, the Parliament will establish the details of the Voice in consultation with Indigenous communities. Parliament can evolve and improve those details over time. But importantly, a Yes vote will mean the Voice is enduring. It will establish a constitutional guarantee – in the highest rulebook of the nation – that Indigenous communities will always have a Voice in their own affairs.

We heard how the Voice is needed because politicians in Canberra or Perth – whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous – often don't hear or understand the local needs of communities out at Kununurra, Hall's Creek, Fitzroy Crossing or Derby. The Voice is about enabling local solutions to local problems.

The Kimberley 'Referendum Roadshow' lifted my spirits. I heard how much communities want change, and are prepared to work for it. I heard the expressions of love and friendship extended by Indigenous people to their fellow Australians, and I heard the warm responses.

Of course, there are those whose responses are less generous. But what I saw in the Kimberley was ordinary Australians imagining an even better country – a country that recognises Indigenous peoples by making a national commitment to dialogue, listening and mutual respect.

That is our choice in October. Do we want to transform the top-down relationship that has characterised Indigenous affairs into a true partnership? Or do we want things to stay the same?

The time for equivocation is over. Don't be a bystander. Every vote counts, so let's do the work. The next few months will be tough, but if we stand in solidarity, the referendum will succeed.

Dr Shireen Morris is a constitutional lawyer and Director of the Radical Centre Reform Lab at Macquarie University

Signatories to the new website multiculturalforvoice.org include several Indian and Chinese community organisations, along with Sri Lankan, Italian, Irish, Iranian, Greek, Vietnamese, Filipino, Sikh, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and Pacific Islander community groups – to name just a few.

However, in a strange attempt to counterbalance the unprecedented expression of multicultural solidarity with Indigenous people, the ABC and SBS grasped at straws: they platformed Jamal Daoud, a former candidate for the United Australia Party, who claimed he had started a multicultural group to oppose the voice.

Daoud’s group does not yet appear to exist. There is no information about it online. After the publication of the news stories, a single YouTube video was posted showing Daoud with Warren Mundine. When I last checked, that video had only two views and one subscriber. Yet Daoud’s assertions were promoted. The SBS story even reported Daoud’s assertion that the voice would prompt the government to close Australia’s borders and stop immigration. Why are Australia’s public broadcasters helping spread such misinformation?

In fact, the growing multicultural support for the voice referendum is clear and unsurprising.

Many migrants and descendants of migrants feel deep empathy for Indigenous people. Many also have experienced discrimination. Some come from countries with histories of colonisation. We know what it is like to feel excluded or that we don’t belong.

My parents migrated to Australia from India via Fiji towards the end of the White Australia policy. They came from poor backgrounds, worked hard and prospered. I feel incredibly lucky to be born Australian, but we also know the history: this great democracy – and the opportunity and prosperity so many migrants enjoy – was built off the back of Indigenous losses. Most migrants have been given more of a fair go here than the original owners of the land.

Take voting rights. The Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 provided that “aboriginal natives” of Australia, Asia, Africa or the Pacific Islands were not entitled to be on an electoral roll. A Victorian Indian man, Mitta Bullosh, challenged his exclusion from voting in 1924. The commonwealth subsequently altered the act to allow Indian people to vote – but not Indigenous people, who didn’t get equal voting rights across jurisdictions until four decades later. If only Bullosh had advocated the rights of his Indigenous compatriots along with his own.

While my parents could purchase property to build our lives in Victoria, the Wik people up north in Aurukun could not. The Queensland government had a policy preventing Indigenous people from buying large tracts of land. Wik leader John Koowarta challenged it and in 1982 the High Court struck down the policy. But the government declared the land a national park, which meant it couldn’t be bought. Is it any wonder so many Indigenous families suffer intergenerational disadvantage to a far greater extent than other Australians?

A constitutional voice will not “re-racialise” the Constitution, as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton claims. Race has been in the Constitution since 1901. Indigenous people have been treated unjustly because they were considered an “inferior race”. There were race-based clauses excluding them and some race-based constitutional provisions remain.

Indigenous recognition through a voice aims to fix this discriminatory exclusion by belatedly including and recognising Indigenous people in the Constitution. Giving Indigenous communities an advisory voice in their affairs will help prevent discrimination, to improve policies and practical outcomes.

The claim that the voice will divide Australians by race has been rejected by Chin Tan, Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner, who is of Malaysian-Chinese origin – an appointee of the former LNP government. Tan says a Yes vote would be “a powerful act of national unity”.

Nor will it be the case, as some have claimed, that Indian, Chinese or Vietnamese Australians will all need a constitutional voice too, just because Indigenous Australians will have one if the referendum succeeds.

There is no Native Title Act for Indians. There is no closing the gap policy for Indians. Why? Because Indians were not dispossessed in this country.

Only one group was dispossessed of their land when the British came: Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians were the only group explicitly excluded from the Constitution of 1901, through race-based clauses singling them out.

And Indigenous Australians are still the only group for whom the federal parliament has a special constitutional power – the race power – which it uses to make laws only about Indigenous Australians.

Indigenous communities occupy a special historical place in this country. Provided with accurate information, most multicultural Australians understand this.

I urge migrants and their descendants: do not be passive bystanders in this debate. It is inspiring to see more than 120 multicultural community organisations stepping up, saying Yes and helping educate their communities – but we can and must do more.

We must fight fake news with facts. We must counter misinformation and division with truth and compassion. Let us do the hard work together. If multicultural Australians stand in solidarity with Indigenous people, the referendum will succeed.

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

Let’s examine some favourites. As Leeser pointed out, the most prolific scare of the scare campaign has been calling the voice “a third chamber of parliament”, “a fourth layer of government” or “a new House of Lords”. Leeser rejects these mischaracterisations.

“I prefer to call it what it is,” he said, “an advisory body of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, trying to better direct federal government funds to achieve better outcomes.”

The voice will be set up by parliament and evolved by parliament. Its advice will be non-binding. It will have no power to make laws or veto decisions, and there is no change to the houses of parliament whatsoever.

Some opponents argue the voice’s advice will be so compelling, it will have a de facto or virtual veto over government policy.

Leeser rejects this succinctly: “The voice is advisory,” he told parliament last week. “It won’t be Moses handing down tablets from the mountain. The parliament will still be the democratic centre of our national life. The parliament will still be supreme in matters of law and policy … And it remains with the parliament and the executive to weigh that advice, to consider and reflect on it, and sometimes to reject it.”

The voice was designed with constitutional conservatives such as Leeser in 2014 to respect parliamentary supremacy. But, importantly, the drafting has evolved since its inception from using the word advice in early iterations to now using representations. Leeser explained that representations was “much more modest” than advice. Advice implied mandatory consideration, whereas “representation only implies receipt”, he said.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will deliver a heartfelt plea for Australians to vote for change at the upcoming… Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum later this year. Speaking at an event in Adelaide, the Prime Minister will call on the country to “do one better” than the 1967 referendum.

As Anne Twomey told the parliamentary committee, using representations removed any argument that advice should be followed by convention just as advice from ministers to the Governor-General should be followed by convention.

In addition to the recent broadening of parliament’s power over the voice under subclause three, what began as a modest proposal has become over nine years even more respectful of parliamentary supremacy.

Some have claimed the voice’s representations would derail government decisions on everything from nuclear-powered submarines to lighthouses. Michaelia Cash even said the voice would interfere with parking tickets.

Leeser himself at one stage asked whether the Reserve Bank of Australia would have to consult the voice on interest rate decisions. Answering his own question, he rejected these claims on Wednesday. The voice “will advise on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”, he said. “It will have no interest in where the Department of Finance purchases its paperclips or its recycled paper, as some have claimed. It will not run programs or dish out grants, and it won’t have interest in submarines, as some No advocates suggest, as if our subs are going to be painted with Indigenous designs like the fuselage of a Qantas plane. And if the voice wants to lambaste the RBA on interest rates, I say: join the queue.”

Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister Patrick Gorman is confident Australians will see through the “scare… campaigns” opposing the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Mr Gorman stressed he has “great faith” in Australians that they will see the time has come to enshrine an Indigenous Voice into the constitution.

The voice will be busy advising on how to close the gap in Indigenous communities – a complex and involved question. Its members will not want to squander their political influence or time advising on irrelevant matters such as submarines, paperclips or parking tickets.

Silly or irrelevant advice from the voice will be ignored. And, to be clear, there is no constitutional duty for anyone to consult the voice under the proposed amendment. Any duty to consult would have to be articulated by parliament via legislation. Why would parliament require the RBA to consult the voice on interest rates? It wouldn’t.

But as Leeser says, if the voice really wants to make representations to the RBA – who cares? Anyone can do that. I put in a submission to the RBA review earlier this year.

Others have claimed the voice will stymie Australia’s national security and could even prevent Australia going to war.

Peta Credlin has provided some fantastical lines in this vein. Last month, she suggested police action on the Lindt cafe siege in Sydney could have been hampered by the voice.

“What would have happened if the terrorist in that case had been an Aboriginal man or woman?” Credlin asked. “Would the voice need to have been consulted before we deployed terror police?” She claimed a constitutional voice would be “all powerful”, so this could not be ruled out. The short answer: Credlin is wrong; such possibilities can be ruled out.

As Chris Kenny observed on Sky News, Credlin’s argument is “desperate … an over-the-top and implausible scare campaign”. There is no constitutional duty for anyone to consult the voice on any decision or action, let alone terror police having to consult the voice before saving Australians from a terror attack.

These suggestions demonstrate the tenor of the No case.

The Yes case cannot resort to lies. The case for change must deal in truth. Advocates for this change must fight fear with facts, as Leeser has done in his latest speech. And we must answer hate with love. If we do that, the Yes vote will succeed.

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

He has stood up for principle over petty politics. He stood up for what he believes in. I wish there were more in Parliament like him.

Leeser has long enjoyed close ties with the Australian-Indian community. I know that many Australian Indians – and migrants more broadly – will back him in his moral stance on the upcoming Voice referendum.

Many Australian Indians feel deep affinity with Indigenous peoples as we share many spiritual and cultural values with them. We want to see them recognised in the Constitution and better included in the country.

I migrated to Australia from India in 1974, with a master’s degree in information science and $100 in my pocket. I arrived on Australian shores to leverage the economic opportunities and create a new prosperous identity for myself. Like most first-generation migrants in Australia, I put my head down and worked hard.

I landed my first job in Coca-Cola Australia’s IT Division as a Systems Analyst and moved up from there through grit and perseverance to reap financial benefits. I built my version of the Australian-Indian Dream: I bought a house, provided for my daughters and, importantly, became a grandfather. I also continued to enjoy my culture and spirituality.  I helped establish the first Hindu Temple, Sri Mandir, in Western Sydney in 1977. In 1998, I joined the Hindu Council of Australia as its National Secretary and later became one of its Directors.

While I love Australia and the opportunity and freedom it has provided me and so many Indian Australians, I also know that the success and prosperity I have enjoyed was built off the back of Indigenous dispossession. Indigenous peoples have lost so much in Australian history, suffering discrimination, violence, and injustice. We need to make right these past wrongs.

In 1901, First Nations people were excluded from constitutional discussions in Australia’s founding legal document. In 2017, First Nations people, through the Uluru Statement from the Heart, asked to be included in the Constitution through a guaranteed Voice in their affairs. They asked Australians to walk with them towards a better future.

Multicultural Australians have an important role to play in this upcoming referendum. I call all Indian Australians to back Indigenous Australians to achieve the modest recognition they seek: a guaranteed Voice in their own affairs. The time has come for us to give back. To stand with our Indigenous countrymen.

Last year, the Hindu Council of Australia, along with eight other major faith groups, took an unprecedented stance by signing a Joint Resolution of Peak Religious Organisations in support of the Voice referendum. This demonstrated a growing community consensus across differences of belief, culture and tradition.

This year, the Hindu Council signed a joint open letter with those other faith organisations, calling on politicians across left and right to support the upcoming referendum. The Liberal and National parties have chosen to oppose the Voice. This is a deep shame. But brave and good-hearted Liberals, like Leeser among many others, are standing up for what’s right.

The time has come for all Australians of Indian heritage to stand in solidarity with Indigenous Australians. The success or failure of this referendum is up to each of us. We cannot be passive bystanders. Like Leeser, let’s commit to advocating YES and uniting the country.

These are all important components that make up the splendid mountains and rivers that make this land so unique and beautiful.

In addition to beautiful mountains and rivers, Australia is also a country full of opportunities. That's why migrants from all over the world choose to come here, to enjoy living in this generally peaceful society, raise families and benefit from Australia's strong economy. Personally, I arrived in Adelaide in 1996 and moved to Melbourne in 1999. Living and working in Australia, I feel very lucky with all that this country has to offer.

However, as I marvel at the beauty and opportunity of this ancient land, I also often remember that it has been home to Aboriginal people for more than 60,000 years and that they have a deep connection and respect for the land that they have cared for over the years. around the land, which is reflected in their unique culture and art. Unfortunately, over the past two hundred years, especially during the colonial era, they have experienced appalling injustice.

As a nation, Australia has a rare opportunity this year to address this historic injustice and heal the wounds in our national psyche through the upcoming 'Indigenous Voices' referendum.

In "A Manifesto from the Soul," Indigenous leader Fiona Jose writes in her moving essay "Ending Great Spiritual Loneliness" that, through an "Indigenous "The Voice" to achieve constitutional recognition would not only end her people's "enormous spiritual loneliness" but also benefit all Australians. Because in this country we are not spiritually barren only when our ancient hearts are recognized and given a voice. This 'Indigenous Voice' is an opportunity to recognize and honor the unique and continuing presence of Aboriginal people in Australian history from time immemorial.

Although Chinese Australians have also experienced discrimination in this country, we cannot fully empathize with the deep sense of helplessness and pain experienced by Aboriginal people. As a proud Chinese-Australian, I don't think we can just be passive spectators benefiting from the wealth of opportunities this multicultural country has offered since the abolition of the White Australia Policy in the early 1970s. We have a responsibility to actively contribute to creating a more just and inclusive society, including respecting and supporting our Indigenous peoples.

That means casting a yes vote in this year's referendum to support "Indigenous Voices" as a crucial step towards recognition of Indigenous peoples and national reconciliation.

By enshrining long-deserved recognition of our Indigenous peoples in our Constitution, the nation's supreme legal document, Indigenous Voices offers our nation an opportunity to heal and move forward. Giving Indigenous Australians a greater voice in decision-making that affects their lives will ensure that their views and experiences are taken into account when laws or policies that concern them are developed, improving policy and outcomes for Indigenous groups .

Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating's Redfern speech, Kevin Rudd's speech on the "stolen generation" (referring to the forced severance policy, which forcibly sends children of Aboriginal families to foster families or boarding schools, forcing them to isolate themselves from their parents, family and culture) and Aboriginal musician and cultural icon Archie Roach ) and the touching song "Took My Child" both moved us deeply and reminded us of the deep pain and suffering our Indigenous peoples have experienced. This constitutional amendment referendum provides an opportunity to finally take an important step, apologize to the aborigines, and face up to history.

"It's time to build Indigenous voices." Those were the words of Julian Leeser MP when he resigned from the shadow cabinet recently to actively campaign in favor of Indigenous voices. "Indigenous people are looking to be heard," said Ken Wyatt, the first Aboriginal MP and former Coalition Minister for Indigenous Affairs.

The "Visceral Ulu Declaration" is a historic and important document negotiated by Indigenous Australians. It poignantly expresses the earnest desire of Indigenous Australians: "In 1967, we were counted (in the population); in 2017, we expected to be heard." For our Indigenous peoples, the path to healing and reconciliation is A long journey filled with heartache. As Chinese-Australians, we have the opportunity to be a part of this journey, to learn from it, and to develop a deeper respect and understanding for our Indigenous peoples - truly being a part of this country and its democratic process.

So let us stand shoulder to shoulder with Indigenous people, listen to their inner voice, support Indigenous Voices, and work with all communities to build a nation of healing, harmony and prosperity that benefits everyone.

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.

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.

The voice has broad discretion to advise on matters relating to Indigenous people, and parliament has broad discretion to legislate on matters relating to the voice. This is balanced. Such reciprocity can underpin mutual responsibility, creating a new partnership to achieve better practical outcomes.

Yet debate about the drafting is being debased by shallow tribalism. Let’s be clear on the facts. The constitutional amendment does not require the voice to be consulted. It provides only that the voice “may make representations” on matters relating to Indigenous people. The amendment does not require the Reserve Bank to consult the voice on interest rates, a question opposition legal affairs spokesman Julian Leeser posed during question time. There is no constitutional obligation for anyone to consult the voice.

Any such obligation would need to be articulated in the legislation enacted by parliament. It is inconceivable that parliament would require the RBA to consult the voice on interest rates. Ditto for decisions on national security or defence. Whether the voice should be proactively consulted on particular matters, and its advice considered by policymakers on particular matters, would be for parliament to determine.

The constitutional amendment does not enable the voice to “mesh the executive government” in litigation on “decisions about nuclear submarines” or “the location of lighthouses”, as constitutional lawyer Greg Craven has claimed mischievously. The revised clause three gives parliament even broader power to control “matters relating to” the voice. It confirms parliament can legislate to confine or exclude obligations to consider advice, or to exclude the possibility of litigation for failure to consider advice.

This answers concerns raised by people such as Craven. Yet Craven now says he is “nailed” between supporting the voice but opposing the drafting because it includes advice to the executive.

Craven admits to helping devise the conservative voice concept back in 2014 but fails to mention that advice to the executive was in the words he co-created. The government’s drafting developed from those words, though the recent revision gives parliament more power. The voice was always intended to keep parliament in charge. The refinement confirms this beyond doubt.

Since 2014, Craven expressed no objection to the voice giving advice to the executive. In July last year he submitted with Damien Freeman to the voice co-design process, endorsing the drafting published by Anne Twomey in 2015, which included advice to the executive. They wrote: “In 2015, Professor Anne Twomey published a proposal for an amendment to the Constitution that could give effect to (Noel) Pearson’s Indigenous advisory body. We were actively involved in the discussions through which this amendment was drafted. We believed in 2015, and still believe, that it is legally sound. It is a provision that would not undermine the supremacy of parliament or give rise to uncertainty in the High Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.”

Yet now Craven says advice to the executive will “hogtie government” into “webs of legal challenge”. So was he disingenu­ous in July last year or is he disingenuous now? Because advice to the executive is not new. It was there from the start. Even in January this year, in a paper for the Centre for Independent Studies, Craven and Freeman explained the importance of constitutionally guaranteeing “a mechanism for ensuring that the parliament and the executive government” can “hear Indigenous voices when making laws and policies with respect to Indigenous affairs”.

It is only in recent months, following fearmongering by former High Court justice Ian Callinan and law professor Frank Brennan, that Craven has gone to water. Now he calls the drafting “a ruthless con job” and claims that advice to the executive could paralyse government.

“Frustrating legal challenges will multiply like cockroaches,” Craven wrote last Friday, berating the “Indigenous radicals” supposedly responsible. On Saturday, he repeated bizarre remarks about the voice derailing decisions about submarines and lighthouses. Despite the danger of shipwrecks, however, Craven says he is voting Yes to the amendment. Go figure.

These are strange contortions. Craven may be letting his dislike of some Indigenous progressives cloud his judgment. Perhaps he is annoyed his preferred refinement was not adopted. Yet the revised clause three gives parliament more discretion than that solution, which would have conferred only the narrow extra power to manage the “legal effects” of the voice’s representations.

Craven is nailed between his previous fair assessments of the drafting he co-created, and the opposition he’s now misguidedly trying to inflame. We should not be distracted by these shenanigans.

The refined drafting reconciles the Indigenous desire to end the torment of their powerlessness with the desire of politicians to maintain parliamentary supremacy. We have arrived at a radical centre in constitutional craftsmanship, thanks in no small part to constitutional conservatives such as Craven and Leeser who had the moral and intellectual fortitude to co-create the modest yet profound solution Indigenous Australians now champion. I hope Australians of left and right harness their better angels to bring this solution to fruition.

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

The draft amendment is already modest, derived from drafting conceived with constitutional conservatives. The original 2014 drafting created three constitutional guarantees.

First, it required parliament to establish an Indigenous body to advise it and the executive on Indigenous affairs, and gave parliament power to determine all aspects of the body. Second, it required advice to be tabled in parliament. Third, it required the Houses to consider the advice when debating proposed laws with respect to Indigenous peoples.

Its conservative co-creators, including Julian Leeser, Greg Craven, Damien Freeman and Anne Twomey, were satisfied this drafting respected parliamentary supremacy and upheld the Constitution.

Various iterations evolved in intervening years. The tabling procedure was dropped. The requirement for parliamentarians to consider the advice was dropped. The draft wording released at Garma was more modest than the 2014 drafting.

Those claiming it has been radicalised, or that advice to the executive is new, are incorrect.

Inflated concerns about potential litigation regarding advice to the executive should be understood in context. This is hype about mere consideration of advice. There is no suggestion of potential litigation regarding advice to the parliament. All agree no laws could be invalidated and parliamentary supremacy is fully respected.

While I have suggested inserting “proposed laws” to further signpost non-justiciability, most experts say this is unnecessary because non-justiciability is already clear.

This new panic around constitutionally mandated advice to the executive is not about whether a court might require a bureaucrat to implement the voice’s advice. It concerns only whether a court might tell an executive decision maker to consider the voice’s advice regarding Indigenous communities. Not follow it. Just consider it.

A possible requirement to consider the voice’s advice has been overblown. There is nothing in the current drafting that requires policymakers to consider the advice. It is for parliament to articulate procedures for policymakers to receive and hopefully consider advice in a way that improves decision-making.

Parliament could confine or preclude obligations to consider advice under the current drafting. But why would it? The whole point of a constitutionally guaranteed voice is for partnership with Indigenous communities to become ordinary practice in Indigenous policymaking – an embedded part of political culture.

Former chief justice Robert French wrote in this newspaper that it was “improbable” that a court would compel an executive decision maker to “take into account” the voice’s representations.

On the very remote possibility of a successful court challenge, the only result is the court might tell them to consider the advice. Not follow it. Just consider it. This still upholds parliamentary supremacy and keeps government in charge.

The Attorney-General’s suggestion that the drafting be changed to make it even clearer that parliament can remove any expectation that advice should be merely considered by government, should be rejected. The government should not scramble to appease fearmongers making exaggerated claims.

The suggested change would not just make it even more abundantly clear that parliament has power to remove any obligation that policymakers even consider the voice’s advice (a power it has under current drafting) – it also invites future parliaments to use this power to curtail the voice’s influence. Over-emphasising parliament’s power to curtail the “legal effects” of the voice’s representations basically says: “Hey politicians, you can legislate to undermine the voice if you like, maybe you should?”

This demeans the spirit of the proposal. Inserting such a prompt would lead to bad faith dealings, providing an explicit and permanent reminder to politicians that they can – and perhaps should – legislate to curtail the basic respect and dignity accorded to the voice.

Indigenous leaders are right to reject panicked attempts to appease fearmongers – all over whether the voice’s advice should even be considered by policymakers.

Of course, it should be considered. That is the whole point.

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

Parliament should reflect the diversity of the Australian community, and it’s great there is strong Indigenous representation in parliament.

However, this does not guarantee Indigenous communities across the country a proper say in laws and policies made about them. That’s why Indigenous Australians through the Uluru Statement asked for a constitutionally guaranteed Voice in their affairs.

Indigenous politicians fulfil a different role

Indigenous parliamentarians, just like parliamentarians of Indian, Chinese, Greek or other European backgrounds, must represent all Australians in their electorates.

Indigenous politicians can’t just represent Indigenous communities, because they weren’t only voted in by Indigenous communities. And Indigenous politicians also have to represent their political parties - just like any politician.

The job of politicians is to represent Australian voters and make laws and policies. The role of the Indigenous Voice is very different.

The Voice would sit outside parliament and government and would not make laws. Rather, it would enable Indigenous communities to provide advice on, and partner in, the development of laws and policies made about them. This would enable Indigenous communities to be heard in their own affairs.

Indigenous politicians do not always agree with Indigenous communities

Indigenous communities say they need a grassroots Voice that is outside parliament and government, and independent of party politics. As the Indigenous activist Roy Ah-See said, "We don’t want a green voice, we don’t want a red voice, we don’t want a blue voice: we want a black voice."

An independent Indigenous Voice is needed because the views of Indigenous politicians - which are usually constrained and informed by electoral considerations and party affiliations - cannot be expected to align with the views of Indigenous communities across the country.

We can see this in current Voice debate. Both Country Liberal Party Senator Jacinta Price on the right and now-independent Senator Lidia Thorpe on the left have disagreed with majority Indigenous opinion on the Voice. Around 80% of Indigenous Australians support a constitutionally guaranteed Voice, however these Indigenous politicians oppose it.

This demonstrates that Indigenous politicians and Indigenous communities do not always agree.

Grassroots Indigenous voices are still going unheard

Having Indigenous politicians in parliament is also no guarantee that Indigenous communities are heard in crucial policy decisions made about them. Take the way alcohol bans were left to lapse in the Northern Territory last year, against the wishes of many Indigenous communities.

As Professor Marcia Langton explained, the pleas of Indigenous communities for a better plan might have been heeded if those communities had a constitutionally guaranteed Voice in their affairs. Much harm could have been avoided.

That such policy decisions are still made without proper Indigenous community input – despite strong Indigenous representation in parliament – demonstrates why Indigenous communities want a constitutionally guaranteed Voice in their affairs.

The Voice would benefit all politicians

Receiving advice from Indigenous communities would be of benefit not only to non-Indigenous policymakers, but also Indigenous policymakers.

The Voice would enable all politicians to hear from and partner with Indigenous communities across the country, to make better policies about those communities.

For example, Indigenous Senators like Patrick Dodson and Price could be involved in making laws and policies about welfare reform that have a particular impact on Indigenous communities in Cape York, Queensland, or heritage protection policies with a unique impact on Indigenous communities in Tasmania.

Being senators for Western Australia and the Northern Territory, respectively, Dodson and Price probably have less understanding of the specific challenges facing Indigenous communities in Cape York and Tasmania.

Australia is a big and diverse continent, and Indigenous communities are diverse. Indigenous politicians would benefit from hearing Indigenous advice from different local regions when making laws and policies for Indigenous affairs – just as non-Indigenous politicians would.

Fixing a history of exclusion

Finally, it’s worth recalling the history of Indigenous exclusion from political processes, which underscores the need for a constitutionally guaranteed Voice in their affairs.

In the past, there were laws and policies denying Indigenous people the vote in some jurisdictions. Indigenous people didn’t get equal voting rights across the board until the 1960s. And enrolling to vote at federal elections only became compulsory for Indigenous Australians in 1984.

Indigenous representation in parliament has fluctuated, and is not guaranteed. While there are 11 Indigenous federal parliamentarians now, there were far fewer in the past.

A constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous Voice would provide advice to help prevent a repeat of the unjust laws and policies of the past – like those that denied Indigenous people the vote.

The Voice would also help policymakers – both Indigenous and non-Indigenous – partner with Indigenous communities to improve practical outcomes in Indigenous affairs.

This week the no case against the voice referendum made a pitch to migrants and multicultural Australians. Their effort demonstrated little understanding of, or respect for, Australia’s diverse ethnic and cultural communities.

The attempt to pit migrant communities against Indigenous people, and confuse things with talk of a preamble, has achieved the opposite result: it has further galvanised and clarified the support of ethnic and cultural communities behind the referendum.

They should have paid closer attention. In May last year, Australia’s peak religious institutions released an unprecedented joint resolution calling for bipartisan action on the Indigenous voice referendum. It was signed by leaders of the Christian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist communities, demonstrating growing consensus in favour of this constitutional reform.

In 2022, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia (FECCA) confirmed its support. Clearly, the no campaigners did not talk with multicultural communities before trying to co-opt them into their cause.

FECCA rejected the plan for preambular recognition of Indigenous people and migrants – a concept which failed abysmally at the 1999 referendum, was debunked repeatedly by constitutional conservatives as legally unsafe, and was resoundingly rejected by Indigenous Australians in the 2017 Uluru Statement.

Now it has been rejected by multicultural Australia too. “We never asked for migrants to be recognised in the constitution,” tweeted Mohammad Al-Khafaji, Fecca’s CEO, confirming the “resounding support” within multicultural Australia for a First Nations voice . “Trying to wedge migrant communities … not only won’t work, but it’s offensive to our community’s intelligence,” he continued. “This is not being done in good faith and it’s divisive.” Ouch.

Prominent business leader Ming Long was equally unimpressed. ‘‘We should give recognition to First Nations, who have been in this country for 60,000 years. Our country didn’t start when our constitution was put in place or when Captain Cook arrived.” So ‘‘we need to give Indigenous Australians that special place in our history,” she told the AFR.

Another business leader of migrant background who did not want to comment publicly told the paper Australia should recognise Indigenous peoples as other countries like New Zealand and Canada have done – which was much more important than “simply mentioning everyone” in a tokenistic preamble.

Warren Mundine and his team have misread the mood. Many migrants and their descendants feel deep empathy for the plight of Indigenous peoples. Though many of our families have struggled, migrants by and large have come to this country and enjoyed great opportunity. Such opportunity stands in stark contrast to the losses experienced by First Nations people.

My ancestors came from India via Fiji, where the British took indentured servants to work on sugar cane plantations. But we understand that the opportunity and prosperity my family enjoys – though created through hard work – has been enabled by Indigenous dispossession. Indian Australians – like many migrants – have been given more of a fair go in this country than the original owners.

Take voting rights. The Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 provided that “aboriginal natives” of Australia, Asia, Africa or the Pacific Islands were not entitled to be on an electoral roll. A Victorian Indian man, Mitta Bullosh, challenged his exclusion in 1924. The commonwealth subsequently altered the act to allow Indian people to vote – but not Indigenous people, who didn’t get equal voting rights across jurisdictions until some four decades later. If only Bullosh had advocated the rights of his Indigenous compatriots along with his own.

Discrimination against Indigenous people was not limited to voting rights. Colonial protectors once controlled many aspects of Indigenous people’s lives. Policies included unequal wages, forcible removal of children, and other harsh controls. The protection era in some jurisdictions lasted until the 1970s, around the time my parents came to Australia.

While my parents were at university at Monash, the Wik people of Aurukun tried to buy back some of their traditional lands. But Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen enacted a policy preventing Indigenous people from buying large tracts of land. Wik leader John Koowarta challenged the law and in 1982 the high court struck down the policy. But the government dodged the decision by declaring the land a national park, which meant it couldn’t be bought.

The Wik people couldn’t buy land on the country they had lived on for thousands of years. Meanwhile, my Indian Australian parents could purchase property freely to build our lives and wealth. Is it any wonder so many Indigenous families suffer intergenerational disadvantage to a far greater extent than other Australians? No wonder they want a voice in decisions made about them.

Many multicultural Australians came from countries where we too experienced discrimination. We love Australia, which has given us so much opportunity. But we know that Indigenous dispossession “underwrote the development” of this nation that is now our home – as the then chief justice, Gerard Brennan, explained in his Mabo judgment.

This is why many of us want to help Indigenous Australians achieve the modest constitutional recognition they seek: a voice in their own affairs.

I urge multicultural Australians to continue to build support in our communities. Let’s continue to declare that we will vote yes in the voice referendum, and urge others to do the same. Let’s work together across left and right, and across divides of belief and culture. If we stand in solidarity, the referendum will succeed.

Dr Shireen Morris is director of the Radical Centre Reform Lab at Macquarie University law school. She is co-editor of Statements from the Soul which was released on 20 February 2023.

Liberal democracies worldwide value equality and recognise indigenous peoples in their constitutional arrangements, often by ensuring them a specific voice in political processes.

This is because successful liberal democracies are not built on dogmatic ideology – not even the ideology of liberalism. They are built on pragmatic and inclusive compromise.

Their application of liberal principles is supple. It bends to incorporate distinct peoples to broaden and consolidate national unity and stability.

In fact, I can’t think of a successful liberal democracy with a minority indigenous population that doesn’t constitutionally recognise indigenous peoples in some substantive way – except Australia.

Let’s do a survey.

The US has been regarded as a beacon of liberal democracy, with the 14th amendment epitomising the US constitutional commitment to equality. But the US constitution also recognises indigenous peoples. It gives Congress power to regulate commerce with Native American tribes and refers to differentiated tax arrangements for them.

There is a long history of treaty-making with those tribes, whose “domestic dependant sovereignty” – or territorial sovereignty – has been recognised since 1831. The state of Maine since 1820 has reserved (non-voting) legislative seats for tribal representatives who, since 1995, can initiate legislation.

Canada is considered a successful liberal democracy. “Existing aboriginal and treaty rights” were “recognised and affirmed” in its constitution in 1982, while another clause committed to constitutional conferences with indigenous peoples.

Canada has a national Assembly of First Nations, a long history of treaty-making, and the government partners with First Nations peoples on policy development.

Closer to home, New Zealand’s liberal democracy is founded in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi between Maori and the crown. The parliament has had reserved Maori seats since 1867, while the New Zealand Maori Council – a representative and advisory body – has been empowered to “make representations” to government on Maori policy since 1962.

Let’s turn to Europe, where the indigenous peoples have less melanin. The liberal democracies of Norway, Sweden and Finland each constitutionally recognise Sami rights, and give Sami a voice in their affairs through representative and advisory bodies that have a special role promoting Sami language and culture.

Current debate about what issues a First Nations voice should advise on could learn from the Norwegian Act establishing the Sameting, which defines its business as “any matter that in the view of the parliament particularly affects the Sami people”. A 2005 Consultation Agreement lists matters on which the Sameting should be consulted and enables it to independently identify matters of relevance too.

Even our parent liberal democracy, the UK, constitutionally recognises distinct peoples. The Scots, for example, were ethnically and culturally distinct and considered themselves native to their territory. After defeat in the Anglo-Scottish war, they were forcibly incorporated into a commonwealth with England, but that was not sustainable – the Scots wanted self-determination.

The 1707 Treaty of Union more peacefully united the two kingdoms under one crown and parliament, and guaranteed the Scots special representation in the parliament. Today, Scotland has 59 seats in the Westminster parliament plus its own devolved parliament.

Giving the Scots a voice in their affairs did not prevent the evolution of a great liberal democracy. On the contrary, it facilitated unity and stability through inclusion on fairer terms.

This is what liberal democracies do best: to paraphrase the US constitution’s preamble, they strive for “a more perfect union”.

Australia did not guarantee its indigenous people a voice in their affairs in 1788. There was no treaty, and the Constitution contained clauses excluding them. Today, however, we are working to perfect our union and complete our commonwealth by more fairly including indigenous peoples.

Indigenous Australians are not asking for guaranteed representation in parliament plus their own parliament, as the Scots have in the UK. They’re not asking for a broad justiciable guarantee of indigenous rights, as in Canada.

They are not asking for reserved seats in parliament like the Maori have in New Zealand, or territorial sovereignty like in the US.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart asked for a constitutionally guaranteed indigenous advisory body, to ensure indigenous communities a non-binding say in laws and policies made about Indigenous affairs.

Their call for a voice goes to the heart of liberalism. Given parliament and government make laws and policies about Indigenous affairs, Indigenous peoples should have a guaranteed say in those laws and policies.

As philosopher Jeremy Waldron has argued, those who are “required to comply with a decision are surely entitled to some sort of voice in that decision”.

To quote Mill: “If he is required implicitly to obey, he should be legally entitled … to have his consent asked, and his opinion counted at its worth.”

Ordinary democratic processes have not enabled the 3 per cent indigenous minority – Australia’s most disadvantaged group – to be properly heard in decisions made about them. Witness the recent scrapping of alcohol bans up north, against the wishes of many Indigenous communities.

The status quo has produced poor results. We are failing to close the gap. The bleak reality of Indigenous inequality sits starkly against the lofty equality rhetoric espoused by opponents of an Indigenous constitutional voice.

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

A constitutional voice is the first proposed constitutional amendment, probably in Australian history, to arise from collaboration between ambitious reformers and constitutional conservatives dedicated to preserving the Constitution. Doesn’t that warrant goodwill engagement to perfect the execution of the elegant compromise forged?

In 2014, Indigenous leaders devised with constitutional conservatives an alternative to the racial non-discrimination guarantee proposed by the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians in 2012, which was denounced by right-wingers as a “one-clause bill of rights” that would empower unelected judges to invalidate parliament’s laws. Indigenous leaders sought to address conservative concerns, while also achieving substantive and empowering change to improve practical outcomes in Indigenous affairs.

They found an elegant compromise. Instead of empowering the High Court to overturn laws deemed unjust by judges under a racial non-discrimination guarantee, a non-justiciable constitutional amendment could empower Indigenous communities with a fairer say in laws and policies made about them. This alternative would not empower the High Court to invalidate laws. It was a political solution, rather than a litigious solution, which would improve policies and help close the gap.

Drafting agreed with constitutional conservatives such as Julian Leeser, Greg Craven and Damien Freeman was published by Professor Anne Twomey in 2015. Various iterations, including those dropping the constitutional tabling procedure in favour of succinctness, eventually gave rise to the draft amendment suggested by the Prime Minister in August.

The government’s draft amendment is modest and simple. It can be refined. But refinement must occur via constructive engagement. Janet Albrechtsen’s arguments are wanting in this respect.

Contrary to Albrechtsen’s assertions, the government’s draft creates no constitutional “right to be consulted”. Clause 2 provides the voice “may make representations” to parliament and government on matters relating to Indigenous peoples. “May” indicates representations are not compulsory. There is no requirement that the voice must be consulted before laws or policies are made, and no laws could be invalidated for non-compliance. It is not a constitutional “right to be consulted”.

If you want to see what an actual constitutional “right to be consulted” looks like, Frank Brennan proposed such an amendment earlier this year. He suggested a constitutional power to make laws with respect to “Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws after consultation with them”.

This is a constitutional right to be consulted. It is a justiciable qualification within the conferral of law-making power to parliament. Laws enacted in contravention of consultation requirements would be ultra vires – beyond power – and could be invalidated by the High Court.

Following the same theme, barrister Louise Clegg this year suggested an amendment to give parliament power to make laws with respect to Indigenous people “after the parliament has received representations about the proposed laws from a body established by the parliament to represent” Indigenous people.

Again: this is a constitutional right to be consulted. It is a justiciable carve-out within the conferral of law-making power. Laws that, in the High Court’s view, were enacted without parliament first receiving the necessary representations could be invalidated by the High Court.

These proposals would facilitate unpredictable litigation, undermining parliamentary supremacy. They present a striking contrast to the constitutionally conservative approach of 2015, which the government’s draft amendment emulates – namely, a standalone amendment requiring parliament to establish an Indigenous advisory body to provide advice on Indigenous affairs, under laws enacted by parliament. One approach keeps parliament in charge, the other puts the courts in charge.

But here is the truly strange thing: in August in these pages, Albrechtsen praised Clegg and Brennan’s versions of a constitutional right to be consulted as more modest, while denouncing the government’s draft as too radical. Albrechtsen’s analysis is back to front and is neither accurate nor constructive.

There have been glimmers of hope, however. On January 26, Albrechtsen described a constitutional amendment “which gives the voice constitutional recognition while not compromising parliamentary sovereignty” as an “elegant compromise”, noting that she wanted parliament to retain the right to amend or abolish the voice.

Under the government’s draft amendment, future parliaments could amend the legislation establishing the voice as needed. While there would be a constitutional requirement that the voice exist, this requirement would operate through political and moral force – underscored by the endorsement of the Australian people through a referendum – rather than legal enforceability. This maintains parliamentary supremacy.

Albrechtsen’s acknowledgment of the elegant compromise – arising perhaps from an urge to heal the annual rancour highlighted each Australia Day – seemed to wane in intervening months.

Yet, as Chris Merritt wrote in these pages in 2017 before he flip-flopped, a constitutional voice “would do nothing more than provide advice to the government on proposed laws affecting the Indigenous community”.

Why should we work together to perfect and achieve the elegant compromise Indigenous people seek? Because “here’s the harsh reality”, Merritt wrote. “Our forebears took this country from the original inhabitants. We are not about to give it back. So the least we can do is oblige ourselves to listen when Indigenous people ask to be heard.”

The voice proposal has already done more than any other constitutional reform proposal to address sensible conservative concerns.

Let us continue in that spirit, by agreeing on the detail and refining the amendment in bipartisan fashion.

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

A First Nations voice always was intended to be non-justiciable. Non-justiciable constitu­tional clauses respect parlia­mentary sup­remacy. It means courts don’t get involved. Prudent constitutional drafting can ensure this. The amendment can be perfected to remove any doubt that parliament will be in charge of its operation, not the courts.

The words “proposed laws” should be included to confirm parliament’s authority, not the courts. Clause two of the draft amendment could be revised to read: “The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on proposed laws and matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.” Adding “proposed laws” will confirm and signpost non-justiciability. It will fortify the amendment against criticism and help answer concerns about uncertain judicial interpretation.

Constitutional clauses referring to proposed laws have long been considered unenforceable by the courts. This is because the High Court deals with laws while proposed laws are parliament’s business. Australia’s first chief justice and founding father of the Constitution, Samuel Griffith, explained in 1911 that parliament’s internal affairs were “not subject to … review by a court of law”. This is because, as former High Court judge Edward McTiernan explained, “Parliament is master in its own household.”

A constitutionally guaranteed First Nations voice was always intended to be a non-justiciable constitutional reform.

In 2014, Indigenous leaders worked with constitutional conservatives to find a way of achieving the empowering and substantive constitutional recognition Indigenous people wanted, without enlivening High Court uncertainty. The solution devised was a constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous advisory body – established under a non-justiciable constitutional amendment – that would work through political dialogue rather than litigation.

Constitutional law professor Anne Twomey published a draft amendment in 2015 that incorporated “proposed laws” to confirm non-justiciability. As Twomey explained, these words were “deliberately employed to indicate that this is an internal parliamentary process that cannot be interfered with or enforced by the courts”.

Law professors Megan Davis and Gabrielle Appleby recently recalled how Twomey’s 2015 suggestion informed the First Nations dialogues that culminated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart’s 2017 call for a constitutionally guaranteed First Nations voice. The Referendum Council subsequently affirmed the voice amendment must be non-justiciable.

However, the “proposed laws” approach works only with stand-alone provisions that do not limit parliament’s lawmaking power. Those suggesting a “duty to consult” within an Indigenous head of power as a more modest constitutional change are misguided. These formulations substantively limit parliament’s power, creating uncertainty for courts to resolve. The government’s approach is more modest and workable and should be refined.

Non-justiciability also means those trying to excessively limit the issues on which the voice can provide advice are missing the point. If properly drafted to be non-justiciable, scope issues would be resolved by parliament through legislation. Why would policymakers want to inflexibly limit the voice’s ability to give non-binding advice on matters important to Indigenous communities?

Environmental laws, for example, might not target Indigenous people directly but might yield adverse consequences for economic develop­ment on Indigenous land. Indigenous communities might wish to alert government to the impacts of such policies. To prohibit such advice would undercut a key practical benefit of the voice.

Flexibility and common sense are needed here. The legislation can clarify and list the matters for which the voice should provide advice, such as native title reforms, closing the gap measures, violence and economic development policies in Indigenous communities. But it should also enable flexibility and discretion. Importantly, parliament would be in charge of rules around scope, which can be adjusted as necessary. The legislation also can confirm scope issues are non-justiciable, as is common in statutes regulating policymaking processes. The intent to keep the voice amendment away from the courts and under the purview of parliament sets it apart from all other options for recognition.

The expert panel’s 2012 proposal for a constitutional prohibition on racially discriminatory laws would enable courts to invalidate parliament’s laws. A new preamble could likewise yield unpredictable judicial interpretations of the whole Constitution. Constitutional conservatives oppose both proposals for this reason.

By contrast, a constitutionally guaranteed voice intends to keep policy matters out of the courts for resolution through political processes. It is the most legally sound and constitutionally conservative solution. That is the present opportunity. The most constitutionally conservative solution to Indigenous constitutional recognition has won Indigenous consensus through the Uluru statement. The government’s draft amendment can now be perfected to ensure parliament oversees its operation, not the courts.

Shireen Morris is director of the Radical Centre Reform Lab at Macquarie Law School and author of Radical Heart: Three Stories Make Us One (MUP).

However, some critics have raised concerns about “judicial activism”. They worry the High Court might interpret the provisions in unpredictable ways, creating legal uncertainty. Non-justiciable constitutional clauses respect parliamentary supremacy. It means courts don’t get involved. A constitutionally guaranteed First Nations Voice is intended to be non-justiciable. The amendment can now be perfected to remove any doubt that parliament will be charge of its operation, not judges.

What’s been proposed

The government’s draft constitutional amendment reads:

"1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

3. The parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice."

This is modest and reasonable, but can be refined. Clause two could be revised to read (bolding is author’s addition):

"The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to parliament and the executive government on proposed laws and matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples."

Adding “proposed laws” will confirm and signpost non-justiciability. It will fortify the amendment against criticism. It will help answer concerns about uncertain judicial interpretation. Constitutional clauses referring to “proposed laws” are considered unenforceable by the courts. This is because the High Court deals with laws, while “proposed laws” are parliament’s business. Australia’s first chief justice and founding father of the Constitution, Samuel Griffith, explained in 1911 that parliament’s internal affairs are “not subject to […] review by a court of law”. As former High Court judge Edward McTiernan once said, “Parliament is master in its own household.”

Why ‘proposed laws’ is a key phrase

The “proposed laws” suggestion is not new. Back in 2014, Indigenous leaders and constitutional conservatives – experts anxious to protect the Constitution from judicial activism – collaborated on how to achieve the empowering constitutional recognition Indigenous peoples sought, without creating High Court uncertainty. The solution was a constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous advisory body, which would work through political dialogue, rather than through the courts. Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey suggested an amendment in 2015. It used the phrase “proposed laws”, which she noted was:

"...deliberately employed to indicate that this is an internal parliamentary process that cannot be interfered with or enforced by the courts."

Legal scholars Professors Megan Davis and Gabrielle Appleby recently recalled how Twomey’s 2015 suggestion informed the First Nations dialogues that culminated in the Uluru Statement’s 2017 call for a constitutionally guaranteed First Nations Voice. In its 2017 final report, the government-appointed Referendum Council affirmed the Voice amendment must be non-justiciable, noting:

"The proposed Voice would not interfere with parliamentary supremacy, it would not be justiciable, and the details of its structure and functions would be established by parliament through legislation that could be altered by parliament."

However, the “proposed laws” approach only works with standalone provisions that do not limit parliament’s law-making power. Those suggesting a “duty to consult” within an Indigenous head of power as a more modest constitutional change should be commended for engaging productively, but are on the wrong track. These formulations limit parliament’s power, creating uncertainty for courts to resolve. The government’s approach is more modest and workable, and should be refined.

Better than other proposals

The intent to keep the Voice amendment away from the courts and under the purview of parliament sets it apart from all other options for Indigenous recognition. An earlier proposal for a constitutional ban on racially discriminatory laws would enable courts to strike down parliament’s laws. Proposals for a new preamble acknowledging Indigenous peoples could yield unpredictable judicial interpretations of the whole Constitution. Constitutional conservatives oppose a symbolic insertion for this reason. By contrast, a constitutionally guaranteed Voice intends to keep policy matters out of the courts for resolution through political processes. It is the most legally sound and constitutionally compatible solution.

On the question of scope

Non-justiciability also means those trying to excessively limit the issues on which the Voice can provide advice are missing the point. If properly drafted, scope issues would be resolved by parliament through legislation. And why would politicians want to unnaturally limit the Voice’s ability to give non-binding advice on matters that are important to Indigenous communities? Environmental laws, for example, might not directly target Indigenous people but may yield negative consequences for economic development on Indigenous land. Indigenous communities may wish to alert government to the impacts of such policies. To prohibit such advice would undercut a key practical benefit of the Voice. Flexibility and common sense are needed here. Equally, those seeking to constitutionalise a broad scope should remember the Referendum Council’s directive: as the final report made clear, scope issues should be resolved by parliament, not judges.

Let’s work together

Experts should keep non-justiciability firmly in mind when suggesting improvements to the government’s draft constitutional amendment. We need an efficient bipartisan process to refine and agree on the Voice amendment. The phrase “proposed laws” should be included to confirm parliament will be in charge, not the courts.

Shireen Morris is Director of the Radical Centre Reform Lab.

Despite our varied backgrounds and paths to Australia, most immigrants share this journey of struggle and adaptation, and have come to thrive in our vibrant multicultural communities. I am incredibly grateful to this country, for providing me with so many opportunities to be well educated, and to lead a free and healthy life. Australians, for the most part, celebrate this immigrant story, and are proud of the diversity and multiculturalism we have created, often pointing to the leadership and achievements of diverse immigrants.

But the opportunity and relative prosperity me and my family have enjoyed in Australia makes me feel for the unequal opportunities still suffered by Indigenous Australians. In the so-called land of opportunity, in their own land, Indigenous Australians have often been deprived of these opportunities we have enjoyed. How can we allow this? We learn of the history of injustices against Indigenous Australians in school, and dutifully recite our acknowledgements of country, but how many of us really know Indigenous cultures and perspectives, beyond these symbolic gestures?

Our practical and political failures in Indigenous affairs still haunt us. Year after year we fail to close the gap, and nothing much seems to change. Every election, we vote in politicians who are tasked with making laws and policies for Indigenous people and affairs, yet every February we bemoan our comprehensive failure to improve outcomes. Under the Constitution, lawmakers are gifted the power to shape pivotal matters regarding Indigenous communities, sometimes defining entire livelihoods. But the Constitution does not require politicians to make these heavy decisions in consultation with the Indigenous communities they target.

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, Indigenous voices go unheard. Time and time again, we see the detrimental impact on Indigenous communities, in the Stolen Generation, in the Northern Territory Intervention, and narrowly avoided Dan Murphy’s debacle, to name a select few. Indigenous Australians deserve a constitutionally guaranteed Voice, as called for by the Uluru Statement, to enable them to determine their own futures.

The Australian public will soon vote for a constitutionally embedded Indigenous advisory body, empowering Indigenous people to have a say in legislative and policy decisions which affect them.

In May, Australia’s peak religious organisations came together to issue a Joint Resolution calling for bipartisan action to hold a referendum on a First Nations voice. It makes me especially pleased to see the multicultural unity that is forming behind this modest proposal. The joint resolution was signed by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikh, Hindu and Buddhists – an unprecedented coalition of community support.

Multicultural communities also have a role to play in building support for the referendum. all, Indigenous Australians have played a monumental role in welcoming immigrant communities to this country and helping us to establish a place for ourselves. Despite all they have suffered, Indigenous Australians have welcomed us to their country. We owe it to them to show our solidarity and support for a First Nations constitutional voice.

Migrants and their descendants need to know: our voices count. We not only have the opportunity, but the duty, to do justice by the traditional owners of the land which has given us so much. We must support Indigenous Australians to take charge of their own futures.

A First Nations voice referendum provides the opportunity to create real, structural change, to truly recognise and give power back to Indigenous Australians in the founding document of Australia, the Constitution. We all want to close the gap. We all have an interest in ensuring that Indigenous people have the right to be heard. And now, we have to step up and make this a reality.

Caroline Xu is 5th year LLB student at Sydney University and an intern with the Radical Centre Reform Lab.

The name ‘Bondi’ is an Aboriginal word. Or so historians think. Early British settlers claimed it to mean ‘water tumbling over rocks’. But any direct Aboriginal source – or connection to a clan or language group – has since been lost. The picture is muddied by competing theories. Some say Bondi means ‘place where a fight took place’, while others suggest it was named after Bondy in Paris. Today, most people know it to mean ‘the sound of waves breaking’. The creeping emphasis on ‘waves’ certainly resonates with Bondi’s modern reputation for surf. But is this the voice of Aboriginal Bondi speaking? Or present-day Bondi projecting itself into the past?

When Aboriginal people first lived in Bondi, it wasn’t a beach but an inland plain. That was 20,000 years ago. The climate was brutally cold and the coastline further east. If ‘Bondi’ means what we think it does, then it must have had a different name back then. Around 6,000 years ago, rising sea levels settled and Bondi Beach was formed. Most archaeological evidence since this time has been lost or destroyed. A major campsite unearthed in 1919 is now beneath the beachfront Queen Elizabeth Drive. Bondi’s sweeping sand dunes, which swallowed many historical sites, are now encased in concrete. For a time, Bondi’s cliffs were scattered with Aboriginal rock engravings. At one site, at the Bondi Golf Club, there are still fragmented images of people, turtles and fish. One image, now partially erased, once showed a man fleeing a shark. But as Bondi was colonised, engravings like this were damaged, sometimes deliberately. In 1964, the golf course engravings were ‘re-grooved’ by Waverley Council. Today, local concern for this site has waned. When I went there this year, the engravings were mostly buried in silt and grass. The site was unfenced and unmarked, except for a small plaque commemorating the re-grooving.

Written records of Aboriginal Bondi are even rarer. One comes from A.R. Stone, a Bondi settler, who in the 1870s watched Aboriginal locals ‘camped at Ben Buckler, enjoying the ocean waves, with their wives and children’. The locals’ disregard for sharks emboldened A.R. Stone to brave the ocean himself. For Stone, this was ‘the start of surfing at Bondi’. Not long after, in 1905, daytime swimming was legalised and Bondi’s surf lifesaving clubs were beginning to form. Bondi was on its path to stardom, but its first inhabitants had all but vanished.

History is full of forgotten voices. In the case of Aboriginal Bondi, however, this loss is comprehensive. Aboriginal experiences of Bondi have been translated, written about or - like the engravings - reimagined. But they were never properly heard. While Bondi’s first inhabitants clearly shaped Bondi into what it is today, who they were and what Bondi was to them is mostly lost. And silence easily goes unnoticed.

Last weekend, the government announced the words they plan to insert into the Constitution to establish a First Nations Voice to Parliament. This would be an Indigenous advisory body, tasked with advising government on law and policy that affects Indigenous people. The detail has been ironed out in four separate government inquiries and committees running back to 2012. The First Nations Voice will provide Indigenous perspectives on Indigenous policy, and would not create a veto power or ‘third chamber’ of Parliament as some critics falsely claim. It would also acknowledge that Indigenous peoples have not been heard in the past, and it will ensure that they are heard in the future.

Aboriginal people watched Bondi become beach over the course of millennia. Yet in 200 years, their stories have washed away. It is easy to say past is past, but marginalisation is a process, not an event, and it is enabled when people are not heard. We can correct this. A First Nations Voice in the Constitution will make Australia richer, stronger and more complete. It is an important first step to healing our ancient nation.

Billy McEvoy is a Bondi local and the Research Assistant at the Radical Centre Reform Lab, a research group at the Macquarie University.

At one point in the evening, Xiaoping touched on the inspiration for his work. Following his travels near the Kimberley Desert in 1989, he recounted meeting four Aboriginal Australians. Seated around the campfire, all four had distinct Chinese facial features but knew little about their Chinese heritage. One Aboriginal man, named Ah Lee, even unsuccessfully tried to converse with Xiaoping in Chinese, much to the amusement of his friends. He later explained,“We all Aboriginal. But everyone tells me, I am Chinaman. Now I see you…em, yeah…I am, we look the same, right?”

The intertwined history shared by Indigenous Australians and the Chinese reaches beyond ancestral links. Our peoples also share similar – though distinct – experiences of discrimination.

When British colonists first arrived in Australia, they claimed the country belonged to no-one to justify taking land already occupied by First Nations peoples. Assimilation policies were later introduced. The colonial lawmakers may have intended to ‘protect’ and ‘advance’ Indigenous communities by necessitating the adoption of European culture, but many laws were oppressive and discriminatory. Such policies facilitated the removal of Indigenous children from their parents. Families were torn apart, and centuries of culture and connections to land were disrupted.

While this was occurring, Australia was still experiencing the aftermath of late-nineteenth century gold rush migration. As it became harder to find gold, thousands of Chinese families who had been working the gold fields began to establish restaurants, laundries, furniture shops and fisheries. White Australia did not always take kindly to Chinese migrants. Alfred Deakin, the second Prime Minister of Australia, assisted in the implementation of the White Australia Policy. The “alien races,” he said, were a threat because of “their inexhaustible energy, their power of applying themselves to new tasks, [and] their endurance.”

The White Australia Policy was finally phased out in the 1970s, and laws protecting culturally diverse Australians from racial discrimination were introduced. We have come a long way. Australia is now a land of opportunity for migrants around the world, with an overwhelming majority of the country supporting multiculturalism. Like so many Australians of Chinese descent, I have been fortunate to benefit from the prosperity our great nation offers.

By comparison, most Indigenous Australians have not been as lucky. Indigenous Australians remain over-represented in the criminal justice system, and continue to experience worse outcomes in education, employment, and health. Despite our good intentions, we are failing to close the gap. The legacies of past discrimination can be seen in present disadvantage.

The stories shared by the Chinese and Indigenous Australians are very different, but there are grounds for mutual empathy: we have both experienced discrimination in this country. A key difference is that while my parents chose to migrate here in search of opportunity, Indigenous Australians have lived for centuries as the traditional custodians of the lands on which we have since prospered. They had nowhere else to go when settlers and migrants arrived on their shores, just as they had little say in the laws made by the colonisers about them.

The discriminatory policies of the past may have been prevented, or at least improved, if Indigenous people had been fairly heard. Today, we can do better. That is why Indigenous Australians are asking for a constitutionally guaranteed First Nations Voice.

Five years ago, an unprecedented national consensus of Indigenous Australians released the Uluru Statement from the Heart. They called for an Indigenous advisory body, guaranteed by the Constitution, to provide non-binding recommendations on laws and policies relating to Indigenous Australians.

The Australian community is responding positively to the proposal. Last week, our country’s peak religious institutions released an unprecedented joint resolution calling for bipartisan action to hold a referendum on a First Nations voice. This demonstrates communities around the country looking beyond their differences and coming together for the greater good. It is inspiring that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and Buddhists have made their support for a First Nations Voice known.

Indigenous peoples need the support of every Australian, whatever race, creed, or colour, to show our political leaders this is something we care about. As a country that recognises our vibrant multiculturalism as one of our greatest strengths, modern Australia must not shy away from the Uluru Statement’s modest request.

I am calling on Chinese Australians to step up in solidarity and empathy, to vocally support a First Nations constitutional voice. After all, our histories are entwined. We share links of blood in Australian history. We also share some experiences of past discrimination. I urge the Chinese community to support the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The result was a historic message titled the Statement from the Heart, a result of the First Nations Constitutional Convention. It is not a long document, but it offers a depth of desire for a united and ­respectful Australia that should challenge and inspire us, and at the same time touch upon our ­national conscience.

The Statement from the Heart does not use the word “treaty”, but it does talk of processes for agreement-making. It does not use the word “reconciliation”, but it is all about reconciling peoples and ­history with eyes wide open to real stories of heartache and pain.

The statement does not offer a promise of fixing every injustice, but a First Peoples voice can work with government to help address the tangible struggles people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identity are facing right now with regard to crises of health, judicial injustice and the education gap.

These are real issues, and they require serious problem-solving and commitment – a spirit of partnership. People of faith throughout Australia are working shoulder to shoulder with fellow Australians to address these issues, but so much more can be done. The statement asks us to build on these efforts by creating a stronger partnership between First Peoples and parliament.

The invitation of the Statement from the Heart does not promise more than what is possible, but it does offer an invitation to find a way forward for the voice of First Peoples in our Constitution. It must be remembered that in Australia we have both a written Constitution and a set of institutional arrangements to govern the nation. Our Constitution is a practical and lived-out means of being a democracy, and the voice of First Peoples has a rightful part to play in that process – particularly in relation to their own affairs.

Our nation has received a great gift in this invitation. The gift of the invitation of the Statement from the Heart was also presented this week as a sign of our shared humanity to Pope Francis by Gweagal woman Theresa Ardler. A gift, however, only has value if there is a receiver who welcomes it openly and humbly. The exchange then can truly become an act of love. How we now receive this invitation, therefore, is important – not just to those who have given it to us as a nation, but to each of us individually as brothers and sisters.

The voice of First Peoples is a blend of the ancient and the modern, troubled and impacted by ­history, and carrying all the deep human yearnings for community, a living tradition, respect for culture and the hopes of the young for a better future.

Many of our First Peoples also carry a light of faith, including the Christian Gospel, and other spiritual traditions.

On this fifth anniversary, leaders of faith communities gathered with Indigenous elders at Barangaroo, wondering why common ground had not yet been found on a clear constitutional path for a voice into parliament. Faith leaders spoke from their spiritual traditions to share a voice of support for the Statement from the Heart, and for First Peoples in this just and good cause.

We are grateful that on the night of the recent federal election, the new Prime Minister spoke first about the Statement. And we are equally grateful that the new Leader of the Opposition is interested in a practical approach to Indigenous constitutional recognition. May the words of political leaders not be mere rhetoric, but a turning point on a major issue confronting our nation and a sign of constructive co-operation to come.

The Statement from the Heart is both bold and modest and deserves ample attention. It is worth taking a few minutes now, for all people of good will, to read the statement again, mindful of the grace it affords our nation. Faith traditions, including my own Catholic faith, are ways of living full and humble lives, forming our conscience and acting for truth and justice.

The time has come for political leaders and our nation to respond fully, respectfully, and practically. We urge bipartisan support for the Statement from the Heart and are grateful for the courageous parliamentarians of all political parties who have given thoughtful and heartfelt collaboration to work on reconciliation and finding a real policy response to what the statement asks and seeks.

Peter A. Comensoli is the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne.

He wants a Voice to “reduce the incidence of child abuse within those communities” and to improve education, employment and “many other indicators”. Dutton is correct to insist on practical impact: Indigenous recognition would be meaningless without it. Importantly, a practical focus will enable Dutton to find common ground with many Indigenous leaders, such as Noel Pearson and others, who have championed Indigenous responsibility in their affairs.

Such leaders want practical action to close the gap, not empty symbolic gestures. The vast majority of Indigenous Australians agree. That is why they want a Voice, not a tokenistic preamble.

Five years ago, Indigenous peoples from all over Australia gathered to produce a consensus statement on how they wish to be constitutionally recognised. The Uluru Statement from the Heart acknowledged that Indigenous people “are the most incarcerated people on the planet”, their “children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates” and their “youth languish in detention in obscene numbers”.

They proffered a practical solution – a constitutionally guaranteed First Nations Voice. While initially scuttled by misrepresentations of it amounting to a third chamber of the parliament, five years on, political support has been achieved. In 2018, a bipartisan joint select committee headed by Julian Leeser and Patrick Dodson acknowledged that a Voice is the only way forward in the Indigenous recognition debate.

Since then, a co-design process is now completed. It is encouraging that the Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney has said she will build on the work of the former minister, Ken Wyatt, and pursue bipartisanship. Dutton’s comments give cause for further optimism.

The Uluru Statement called for “the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution”. If the intention of a Voice is to genuinely back Indigenous people to tackle the real problems they face, then the constitutional enshrinement they call for, which is supported by broad public opinion, should be respected.

The practical necessity for a constitutionally guaranteed Voice could not be more apparent than right now. Take the problem of alcohol access in Indigenous communities. Alcohol has been restricted in the Northern Territory since the 2007 Howard government intervention. Under legislation set to expire on June 30, restrictions will be lifted.

Despite a coalition of community organisations calling for a moratorium on takeaway alcohol sales, the Northern Territory government amended the Liquor Act to allow alcohol sales in remote communities. North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency CEO Priscilla Atkins said “the impact this will have on Territorians will be absolutely devastating. We already have so many problems related to alcohol. Our hospitals are full, our domestic violence rates are the highest in the nation and rising, and the justice system is clogging up.”

Atkins said the government’s option for individual communities to extend the alcohol ban for another two years simply cannot work as “most remote communities are unaware this is happening because there has been no consultation”.

NT Council of Social Services chief executive CEO Deborah Di Natale similarly called the amendments “rushed through” without “adequate consultation with Aboriginal communities and against the advice of Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations”.

Central Australian Aboriginal Congress CEO Donna Ah Chee called out “the NT and

Commonwealth governments [which] have failed to ensure Aboriginal people are properly

protected from the harm that we know alcohol causes”.

It may seem counterintuitive for many Australians, who recoil from government intrusion into our lives, that some Indigenous communities up north might wish to remain dry under the law, but this demonstrates why a Voice is so critical.

The Dan Murphy’s saga in Darwin provides another salient example. The proposal for a new liquor store had previously been rejected by the Northern Territory’s Liquor Commission because of likely community harm. Causing anger among Indigenous health groups, the Labor government circumvented the commission’s decision by rushing through legislation that gave the final say to a bureaucrat, the director of Liquor Licensing, who did not have to consider community impact.

Legislative commitments to consultation are too easily overturned. The practical imperative for a constitutional requirement for Indigenous communities to be heard in decisions made about them is clear.

Governments, no matter how well-meaning, should not presume to know what is best for each of Australia’s many and distinct Indigenous nations unless they first hear their voices. That is what a constitutionally guaranteed First Nations Voice will ensure, simultaneously upholding the Constitution and respecting parliamentary supremacy, by leaving the detail for elected politicians to determine.

Dutton is right to insist that a First Nations constitutional Voice must deliver practical results. That is what Indigenous people want. And that is what Australians want.

Karina Okotel is a former federal vice president of the Liberal Party.

That it was made “from the heart” has particular resonance for Christians like me. In the Bible, Jesus speaks often of the power and significance of the heart. In warning against greed and challenging our priorities, Jesus said, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”, or in another place, “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”.

The Indigenous people of this country have spoken truth and grace “from the heart” in the Uluru statement. They speak of their ancient ties with this land. The idea is familiar, though not always understood, but the statement highlights the connection between dispossession from the land and its primary and enduring impact – powerlessness.

It is a powerlessness over their own families, haunted by the devastation of the policies and prac­tices of the Stolen Generations in which my church is implicated. It is a powerlessness that sees Indigenous youth languish in detention centres in what is rightly described as “obscene numbers”.

Crucially, it is lack of power or a voice in the mechanisms of our representative democracy. As the statement says, “We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. 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.”

My own church has had an inglorious history in this regard. The Anglican Church made an official apology to the Stolen Generations in 1998 but we recognise that there is much more that can and should be done. In Sydney, we will return to these issues in our church “parliament” later this year.

We are continuing to listen and learn from Indigenous brothers and sisters who invite us to journey together, to accept the invitation to friendship and partnership. This requires what the statement calls for alongside voice, truth and agreement making. We treasure the leadership of Indigenous brothers and sisters in church and ministry roles among First Nations people and more widely, blessing the whole church.

Reconciliation is a central theme of the Bible, and a key way of describing God’s work through Jesus to bring peace between us and God, and between peoples. For Australian Christians, reconciliation with First Nations people is a long project that remains in its early stages. It must involve recognition of wrongs done and a commitment to retrieving as much justice as can be achieved. Just as important, it involves engaging with humility, not from a position of power but in a spirit of compassion, repentance and hope. For Christians, this cannot be separated from Jesus, as it is in him that we have known the freedom and transformation that comes from repentance and forgiveness.

I welcome the commitment of the new government to implementing the Uluru statement. As one of his first actions as Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese committed to constitutional recognition of First Nations people, including a voice to parliament. I look forward to that process unfolding in coming months.

As I read the statement, I am reminded of the words of one of my Indigenous colleagues, the Reverend Michael Duckett. Showing remarkable and typical generosity of spirit, he gently reminded fellow Christians of the reality of life for First Nations people: “I encourage you to rejoice in God’s goodness but also to remember those of this land who walked this country for generations upon generations. Many are still struggling to find a place in this nation with the loss of land, of culture and of our children who were taken away. There’s a heartache still in this land.” Only by giving voice to that heartache, can we move forward.

Kanishka Raffel is the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney.

But when I was 24 years old, I discovered my family was part of the Stolen Generation. I found out I was Indigenous Australian, and that my family’s place was with the Juru people in Ayr Queensland.

That was a significant development for me: it was an opportunity to learn more about where I come from, to begin filling the void I have felt in my being for my whole life. My life has been a puzzle that even now I am still piecing together – a drawn-out and complex process.

The Stolen Generation involved the forcible removal of children from Indigenous families under policies of protection and assimilation. The ostensible aim was for Indigenous people to be included in Australian society and to achieve the same standard of living. Our colonial so-called ‘protectors’ thought they knew what was best for us, but the policies entailed severe discrimination, injustice, and hardship for Indigenous people. Families were broken apart – including mine. We are still recovering from the grief and loss.

This history is part of the reason Indigenous Australians are calling for a constitutionally guaranteed First Nations voice. We need a guaranteed say in the laws and in policies made about us, to help ensure better decision-making and fairer policies. To help ensure these past wrongs are not repeated.

If there had been a constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous body advising on Indigenous policy back then, perhaps discriminatory past policies could have been changed and improved. Perhaps the Stolen Generation could have been avoided, and I wouldn’t have felt so empty all these years. Things could have been different.

This week has given me hope. We have seen Australia’s religious leaders stand side-by-side in a joint resolution calling for action on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. This means a lot to me, especially because I am Christian.

Historically, there has been tension between Christianity and Indigenous Australians. The colonial perspective was very different to what it is now. Some Christian missions viewed Indigenous Australians as less than or had a low view of them as human beings. Others were more caring and saw value in Indigenous traditions. Some missionaries facilitated bibles being translated into Indigenous languages, which helped preserve our culture.

Things have changed in many churches, from being once controlling to now showing greater understanding. Despite the complex history, Christianity’s impact on Indigenous Australians – including me – has been decisive. Christianity has taught me core values like peace, love, kindness and forgiveness. It has also taught me the importance of equality.

The Bible states in Acts 17:25-28 that ‘God made all races and nations, all of us by one blood for his purposes.’ It explains that God made us all equally. We are all inherently interlinked, therefore we must support each other. We should unite as one nation, in support of each other, connecting to the land and people. This biblical perspective makes the support of Christian organisations that amplify the need for an Indigenous constitutional voice invaluable.

As my home, I know that Australia is a place of beauty, goodness, and potential. But I also see ways Australia needs to change. I believe the implementation of the Uluru Statement is crucial to  Australia becoming an even better country than it is.

Indigenous constitutional recognition needs to be a practical part of this change. A First Nations constitutional voice will help stop the cycle of past failures in Indigenous affairs, ensure that we are heard, and improve policies. It will help us close the gap. It will also change even my own day-to-day life because I will go to church knowing that my fellow Christians and my fellow Australians walked side-by-side with me and supported this change.

So, thank you to those churches and religious organisations who are standing with Indigenous Australians to call for a constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous voice to parliament. I pray we will continue to fight for change together, and that we won’t stop until we see it happen. Then I will know that my home is finally united and committed to working together for a better future.

Grace Slatyer is a third-year law student at Macquarie University, and an intern at the Radical Centre Reform Lab.

As a Copt, this empathy arises from our similar historical experiences. The Copts are the indigenous people of Egypt, whose heritage and culture goes back to the time of the pharaohs and beyond. The Coptic Orthodox Church is one of the oldest in the world, having been established by the apostle and evangelist St. Mark around 42 CE. While the history of our culture is perhaps one tenth the duration of that of the Indigenous peoples of Australia, we understand the experience of being second class citizens in our own traditional land.

There is a story that, in the late-nineteenth century, a Russian envoy was sent to the Coptic Pope to invite the Coptic Church to come under the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, so that the power of the Russian Tsar could protect the Copts from their constant persecution. The elderly Coptic Pope quietly asked the envoy, “Does your Tsar die?” The envoy replied that, of course, the Tsar was mortal. The Coptic Pope said: “Then I’m afraid I must politely refuse, since we already have a Protector who cannot die.”

Well-meaning people may often view indigenous minorities as helpless, almost infantile victims in need of enlightened and civilised help. But the Copts have always understood that no one else can appreciate, value, or preserve their own heritage, culture, beliefs, and traditions the way Copts can. Whatever direction Copts take, we need to choose it for ourselves.

Attempts to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians may be similarly well-meaning, but such attempts to help have often been condescending and ineffective. We need to understand that Indigenous people are capable of finding their own destiny if they are given the chance. This is what the Uluru Statement challenges us to understand. It is a call for Indigenous Australians to be given greater responsibility in their own affairs, through a constitutionally guaranteed voice in laws and policies made about them.

A constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous voice is an initiative that originates from the Indigenous peoples themselves. No one is telling them what to do. No other community in Australia faces the hurdles and obstacles — both historical and present — that the Indigenous peoples face. And they understand their situation best.

A constitutional voice would establish the lines of communication that are essential if Indigenous peoples are to be empowered to fashion their own destinies. Of course, the effectiveness of these lines of communication will depend on the quality of those individuals who will, from time to time, occupy the key positions on all sides, but at least the Indigenous peoples of Australia will have a permanent seat at the table that makes decisions about their future.

The joint resolution demonstrates that such a voice is something that diverse faith and, I believe, migrant communities will wholeheartedly support at a referendum.

As an immigrant, I have always felt immensely blessed to have the privilege of being Australian. When my family arrived in 1969 with nothing more than a number of suitcases and a few dollars in our pockets, we had all sorts of opportunities open before us. How sad it is to think that even in that position, our opportunities were already greater, and the obstacles before us fewer, than those whose land this has been for uncounted generations. As (Egyptian) indigenous people ourselves, we understand the painful sting of being relegated to the bottom of the society of those who came late and imposed themselves and their ways upon us.

It is time for immigrant communities, especially those who experienced discrimination in their own traditional homelands, to get whole-heartedly behind our Australian Indigenous cousins. Let’s do what Australia does best: come together to lead the world when it comes to compassion, common sense, and a fair go for all.

Rev. Dr Antonios Kaldas is a parish priest at Archangel Michael and St. Bishoy Coptic Orthodox Church in Sydney and Lecturer in Philosophy at St. Cyril’s Coptic Theological College in the Sydney College of Divinity.

How can Australia hope to resolve our relationship with Britain before we resolve our domestic relationship with the First Nations? Indigenous constitutional recognition as advocated by the Uluru Statement from the Heart must be the first priority.

Both left and right bear responsibility for this inertia.

Contemporary politics struggles to secure broad consensus for ambitious and sustainable reform. We usually can’t even conduct meaningful consensus-building conversations.

Negotiated agreement that transcends tribal divides and the culture wars is key to finding the radical centre, and creating a stronger, fairer, more united Australia. The productive hunt for the radical centre is evident in ongoing work on Indigenous constitutional recognition, which has benefitted from engagement between Indigenous leaders and constitutional conservatives.

The concept of a constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous advisory body germinated in 2014 through collaboration between Indigenous leaders like Noel Pearson, and conservative opponents who lambasted the Expert Panel’s push for a racial non-discrimination clause – a proposal Pearson championed.

Engagement with constitutional conservatives was initially difficult. They didn’t understand why Indigenous leaders were pushing a racial non-discrimination guarantee. At Cape York Institute, we didn’t understand why they didn’t understand, given the history. We explained that Indigenous people wanted a constitutional guarantee that the future would be fairer than the past, because the Constitution had presided over deep injustice for them.

After much vigorous discussion, eventually the parties began to understand each other’s perspectives. Constitutional conservatives acknowledged that Indigenous concerns were justified: the Constitution should ensure Indigenous people are treated in fairer way – just not through an amendment that would empower the High Court, undermine parliamentary supremacy and create legal uncertainty. In turn, Pearson and others came to understand the importance to conservatives of upholding the Constitution, respecting parliamentary supremacy and eliminating legal uncertainty.

This dialogue uncovered a radical centre solution that addressed conservative concerns, while implementing Indigenous aspirations for substantive reform. The idea of a constitutionally guaranteed Indigenous advisory body was constitutionally conservative, yet empowering. Professor Greg Craven called it ‘modest yet profound’.

Consensus slowly grew. A First Nations constitutional voice won Indigenous endorsement through the Uluru Statement in 2017. This extraordinary achievement was led by Professor Megan Davis, Pat Anderson and Pearson, and was unprecedented as a national dialogue of self determination.

The idea later inspired Kevin Rudd and Alan Jones to declare a ‘unity ticket’ of support on the ABC’s QandA – as far as I’m aware, another unprecedented moment. To his credit, even Barnaby Joyce now admits it was never a ‘third chamber’. This radical centre reform is inspiring the consensus necessary for a successful referendum.

Many advocates learned important lessons from that process. It is a political reality that to progress nation-building reform, we need policy forged in the ‘radical centre’. Climate change is no exception.

This week Andrew Charlton, former adviser to former prime minister Kevin Rudd, shared a “horrifying reflection”. Admitting errors in Labor’s long term climate change strategy, Charlton relayed a concession to his tribe’s arch enemies. “Barnaby Joyce is right,” Charlton wrote, at least “about one thing”: Australia needs to solve climate change “for the regions first.” This led to regretful reminiscence. If only Labor had made “affected workers and regional communities our first priority from the start”, Charlton ruminated, things might have been different.

Charlton expressed a radical centre style acknowledgement that his ideological opponents were partially correct. Such realisations should be reciprocal, and could bring productive insight to many political impasses.

Charlton’s recollections of how developing nations resisted climate pressure from developed nations could describe analogous domestic tensions regarding Indigenous economic development. Take the 2004 Wild Rivers controversy in Cape York: after decades of dispossession and discrimination which locked them out of the prosperity the rest of Australia enjoyed, Indigenous communities were expected to temper their ambitions for belated economic development on their returned land to help Australia fulfil national environmental targets. But why should the poorest pay more for Australia’s national progress, especially when our prosperity was built on Indigenous losses? And what about their local and regional aspirations? A better approach would involve governments partnering with Indigenous communities to negotiate plans for environmentally sustainable economic development – in future, through the locally anchored structures of a First Nations voice.

Beyond Indigenous affairs, governments should collaborate with regional communities and industries to develop plans that realise shared sustainable development aspirations. Such a process must secure stakeholder buy-in, and it should happen nationally.

In this spirit, Jenny Macklin argues for a national Emissions and Employment Accord – a redo of Keating and Hawke’s Accord. Pearson advocates a similar idea. At minimum, this new national settlement must secure just employment transitions for those bearing the greatest costs of climate action. We should be ambitious: it could entail a federal job guarantee, as Pearson contends, because every Australian has the right to a real job and a sustainable environment.

Empathetic collaboration across political, ideological and cultural divides is key to forging broad consensus for ambitious reform. We need more radical centre thinking in Australia.

Most saliently for my work, New Zealand has implemented structural mechanisms for the recognition of Māori people, culture and heritage in ways that can provide inspiration for Indigenous constitutional recognition in Australia.

On Waitangi Day in 2020, Labor Opposition leader Anthony Albanese tweeted:

We can learn a lot from our mates across the ditch about reconciliation with First Nations people. New Zealand has led the way. It’s time for Australia to follow. It’s time to support the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Seven years prior, in 2013, former prime minister Tony Abbott (then the leader of the Opposition) similarly invoked New Zealand as a positive role model for Indigenous recognition. “We only have to look across the Tasman to see how it all could have been done so much better,” Abbott said in a speech to parliament. “Thanks to the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand, two peoples became one nation.” Here was conservative Abbott using the “T” word, pointing to New Zealand and calling on Australia to do better at coming to grips with our colonial history. It was no Redfern speech, but it was a moment of principled compassion and empathy.

It didn’t last. Read more.

At least, everyone uses the same language. But real change requires more than nice words and minor policy tinkering.

It requires enduring structural and constitutional reform to empower Indigenous peoples to take responsibility and leadership in their affairs, in true partnership with government. Read more.

For the optimist, the passage of Australia’s first trilingual statute might be indicative of our legal system’s increasing receptivity to Indigenous culture and heritage. However, there is much more that can and should be done to recognise and revitalise Indigenous languages as a fundamental part of our nation’s history, culture, identity and future. This process of language recognition would best proceed in addition to the necessary inclusion of a First Nations voice in the Constitution… Read more.

The lessons of 1999 are twofold. The republic debate showed how habitual opponents can become unexpected allies to defeat a referendum proposal. During that campaign, the direct electionists joined forces with the monarchists to successfully oppose a republic. People who might ordinarily disagree can unite against a common enemy in a referendum campaign.

In the indigenous recognition debate, constitutional symbolism would become the common enemy of indigenous advocates, who have consistently pushed for substantive and empowering constitutional reform over symbolism, and constitutional conservatives, who seek to uphold the Constitution and protect it from legal uncertainty.

Ken Wyatt should understand, however, that with the right proposal, these two groups can become proponents of sensible constitutional reform that empowers indigenous voices and upholds the Constitution.

Indigenous people would oppose a merely symbolic amendment because, as the Uluru Statement makes clear, they seek empowering structural reform to improve practical outcomes. They seek a constitutionally guaranteed voice in indigenous affairs, because this will make for better, fairer policies and help close the gap.

The Prime Minister has said he wants to address indigenous suicide, indicating a preference for the practical. On this he will find common ground with indigenous Australians. As the Uluru Statement indicates, indigenous people want better outcomes in incarceration, child removal and the economic and cultural futures of their children. They seek a constitutionally guaranteed voice because they want to work in permanent partnership with government to improve practical outcomes in indigenous affairs.

If Wyatt hopes that indigenous people may be appeased by a legislated voice and will therefore accept a symbolic amendment of no operational effect — this is unlikely. Indigenous people have had legislated bodies in the past. ATSIC was short-lived and many remember the lessons of this history. Legislation alone cannot create a permanent partnership.

Constitutional conservatives will also oppose the insertion of symbolic words because they view the Constitution as a rule book — a practical and pragmatic charter of government and an inappropriate place for poetic statements, which may be interpreted in unexpected ways by the High Court. Constitutional conservatives have run many well organised ‘‘no’’ campaigns in the past and would do so again to uphold the Constitution and prevent uncertainty.

Australians, too, will likely reject a merely symbolic insertion. They have before. History demonstrates that voters favour practical reform over symbolic words. Of the eight (out of 44) referendums that have succeeded, none has been merely symbolic. All have fixed practical problems.

Why would Australians support a recognition proposal that indigenous people have rejected, which constitutional conservatives warn against, and which does nothing to practically improve indigenous policy?

Government should heed the second lesson on 1999: the failed preamble, which incorporated some lines of indigenous recognition. A purely symbolic proposal. Many indigenous people opposed it and only 39.34 per cent of Australians voted ‘‘yes’’. It was an abysmal failure. By steering the nation towards a merely symbolic change, government is veering towards a repeat of 1999. The proposal would be pincered by indigenous opposition on the one hand and constitutionally conservative opposition on the other.

Both parties would be right: the Constitution is not the place for symbolic words. It is the place for practical reform and enduring guarantees. It is the place for a modest constitutional guarantee that indigenous people will always be heard in decisions made about them. Properly executed, it would turn united opposition of indigenous people and constitutional conservatives into united support. Let us not forget, the concept of an indigenous constitutional voice was devised by indigenous leaders in collaboration with constitutional conservatives. The conservative organisation Uphold & Recognise was born from the collaboration.

Indigenous people have clearly stated they want a constitutional voice in their affairs. Constitutional conservatives like former Chief Justice Murray Gleeson, federal MP Julian Leeser, senator Andrew Bragg, and professors Greg Craven and Anne Twomey have shown how this could be achieved in a way that upholds the Constitution.

Right-leaning commentators like Jeff Kennett, Chris Kenny and Alan Jones have backed the concept. Former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd declared a ‘‘unity ticket’’ with Jones.

The continued pursuit of the balanced, radical centre is the way to win a referendum, not the pursuit of symbolism. Success will come through careful listening and negotiation between black and white, across left and right.

There is a need to heed government’s concerns, but government must equally heed indigenous aspirations for substantive constitutional change.

Cleaning out my junk from their North Ringwood house recently, I found a book of old poems in a red binder. As a kid, inspired by Roald Dahl and Australian bush poetry, I had taken to writing rhymes. On the first page is a poem titled “Australia,” dated 30 August 1988 — I was eight years old. It reads:

I love a sunburnt country, with floods and pouring rains/ With lots of trees and bushes, and big brown open plains / Koalas and kangaroos this country has got / And snakes with big blue yellow red and green and purple spots/ The blossom blooms in springtime and snow falls down in winter/ And with big brown trees you might just get a splinter.

There is a “copyright” symbol at the end (and on every page, and the front cover, just for good measure), which seems rich given my mimicry of Dorothea Mackellar’s “My Country.” Read more.

"The radical centre", he argues, "is not to be found in simply splitting the difference between the stark and weak tensions from either side of popularly conceived discourse" – which is to say, it is not some lowest common denominator compromise – but rather, at the very point where the dialectical tension is most intense," a radical centre solution can sometimes be elucidated.

The radical centre is about finding the noble compromise in deep and enduring disagreements of philosophy, ideology, politics and policy. Read more.

My ancestors came from India, by means of Fiji, where the British took indentured servants to work on sugar cane plantations. My parents came here like so many immigrants, in search of opportunity. Read more.

Read more.

The report rejects uncertain symbolism in the Constitution. It rejects a racial non-discrimination clause that previously blocked bipartisanship. It rejects minimalist tinkering with the race provisions. It presents one simple constitutional reform: an indigenous voice in the Constitution. It also proposes a symbolic declaration outside the Constitution.

Malcolm Turnbull was circumspect in his response, describing the voice as a “big new idea”.

The proposal is big in the sense that it is the substantive reform that indigenous Australians are calling for. It is also constitutionally modest: there is no “one-clause bill of rights”. The Referendum Council proposes a noble compromise: a constitutional body to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders a voice in their affairs. Not a veto: a voice.

The proposition is modest yet profound, but it is not “new”. On this the Prime Minister, like senator Patrick Dodson, who described it as “a bolt in the dark”, must be respectfully corrected. The call for a voice is a decades-old idea going back to the earliest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders. It is about self-­determination. Indigenous repre­sentation, participation and con­sultation in political decisions made about indigenous rights is also a requirement under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Australia endorsed in 2009.

The idea of a constitutionally mandated voice is at least three years old. Noel Pearson proposed it in his 2014 Quarterly Essay. The Cape York Institute made three submissions to the joint select committee chaired by Liberal MP Ken Wyatt in 2015. A collection of conservative essays, The Forgotten People, was published last year. There have been countless speeches and articles, and a constitutional body was one of the proposals Turnbull asked the Refer­endum Council to consult on. This is no “bolt in the dark”. It is the result of years of work.

Turnbull’s other concern was the proposal is short on detail. While there is much work yet to be done, there is extensive thinking that can be drawn on.

Constitutional law professor Anne Twomey released a draft constitutional amendment establishing an indigenous body in 2015, along with an article explaining her drafting. A number of academics have published articles interrogating the proposal.

The proposal has been scrutinised from three different political perspectives. The dialogues and the Uluru Statement from the Heart provided the First Nations perspective. Representatives said the voice must be constitutionally guaranteed.

The constitutional conservative perspective has been provided by people such as MP Julian Leeser, who have sought a solution that guarantees a permanent constitutional voice without creating legal uncertainty. This reform upholds the Constitution and respects parliamentary supremacy. Leeser describes Twomey’s amendment as “the kind of clause Griffith and Barton might have drafted, had they turned their minds to it”.

The liberal perspective is that local voices are more crucial than a top-down national voice: this should be about keeping power, legitimacy and accountability with local people and communities, so they can take charge of their affairs. This is the way to improve outcomes.

Drawing on these perspectives, Cape York Institute developed a design issues report to further the proposal, commissioned by the Referendum Council. The report was read by the Prime Minister before his meeting with the Referendum Council on Monday, and was released on his department’s website this week.

The report discusses international examples of similar representative bodies. The Saami Council of Norway is an elected advisory body. The Finnish body is tasked with looking after Saami language and culture and “matters relating to their status as an indigenous people”. The Assembly of First Nations in Canada is made up of more than 600 First Nations. The Maori Council in New Zealand allows Maori or non-Maori to stand for election, either in the area in which they reside or the area in which they have cultural affiliations.

Our report is an issues paper. It does not purport to represent the views of indigenous Australians, nor the Referendum Council. It presents ideas, not definitive conclusions.

Under a constitutional amendment, parliament would have the power to enact legislation to set up the body, its structures, functions and procedures. These details cannot be articulated in the Constitution. Ultimately, therefore, the design and details of the body are matters for parliament to decide in partnership with Australia’s indigenous peoples.

The aim of such a body should be to represent and give voice to the First Nations of Australia in their contemporary form. It should represent, as Galarrwuy Yunupingu has appropriately described, “Aboriginal people in a modern world”.

The structure should not be top down but bottom up. It should empower local tribes with a voice in their local affairs. This is where we agree with Warren Mundine. It must empower the cultural equivalent of Edmund Burke’s “small platoons” to take responsibility in their affairs. Representatives must not be handpicked by government.

Bill Shorten was more upbeat in his response to the Referendum Council report. The Opposition Leader said on Monday: “These are legitimate aspirations. These are big changes, as the Prime Minister has said. I do not think they are beyond us …

“Our task is to take the collective wisdom of the council (and) turn it into awareness and support for change across the country.”

However, in the days that followed, Labor MP Linda Burney went to the media with a contrary position. She described the recommendations as “limiting”, as providing “no clear line of sight” to a referendum, and urged “dealing with” the race powers instead. This was a strange turn of events.

Despite Burney’s concerns, the Referendum Council was right to abandon the race clauses discussion. The report does not recommend amendment to the race provisions because indigenous people did not adopt such reforms at Uluru and because they are unviable.

If by “dealing with” the race provisions Burney means some variation of a racial non-discrimination clause as pushed by the expert panel and the joint select committee, she is misguided. That clause was opposed by politicians, especially on the right, and reached a dead end after the joint select committee recommended three versions in its final report, only for its chairman, Wyatt, to subsequently describe the clause as unviable due to opposition in his party. He was right.

If Burney means we should simply delete section 25 — a dead-letter provision on voting — and change the word race to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the race power, without any substantive limitation on parliament’s power, she is also misguided. Removing the word race would be a purely symbolic change with no operational effect. It would not prevent discriminatory laws. The Uluru consensus ­decisively rejected minimalist tinkering with the race clauses. It opted for a voice instead.

If Burney means simple removal of the race clauses without replacing the race power, she is completely misguided. This would throw into uncertainty indigenous-specific legislation such as the Native Title Act.

Uluru and the Referendum Council moved on from the race provisions. Burney should too.

Constitutional lawyers have already wasted decades fretting about how to appropriately limit the commonwealth’s power to racially discriminate without sacrificing parliament’s capacity to enact necessary laws with respect to indigenous affairs. The legal reality is there is no substantive solution that does not empower the High Court to strike down parliamentary legislation, and this creates a political roadblock.

A better and simpler solution is presented in the Referendum Council’s report. The solution is to empower indigenous people with a voice in laws made about them, rather than empowering the High Court to strike down discriminatory laws. The Australian’s editorial observed this week, “There is a compelling logic to the argument that if parliament is to have power over indigenous affairs, it should take advice from indigenous citizens.”

This would indeed constitutionalise the Prime Minister’s promise to “do things with indigenous people, rather than to them”. He rightly abjures heroic failure. But the opposite of heroic failure is heroic success.

Samuel Griffith and Edmund Barton could have done it. If Turnbull, Shorten, Tony Abbott and other members of parliament turn their minds to this today, they could do it too.

My brother and I were born in Melbourne. We enjoyed the opportunity and comfort that my parents did not. My mum and brother barrack for the Aussie cricket team, not India – much to dad's annoyance. Australia is my homeland.

Australia Day is a good day for immigrants, the descendants of immigrants and Indigenous Australians alike to declare that this is not just a white country: this is our country too. This should feel like home for all of us.

Yet there are times I have felt less at home. The sense in which Australia is a home primarily for white Anglos is changing, but it comes out sometimes in people's attitudes. Odd, given the first peoples of this land were black. Perhaps that's why I became interested in matters of Indigenous justice.

Read more.