[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

From Schwartz Media I’m Ruby Jones this is 7am

When a Voice to Parliament was first proposed, in the Uluru Statement from the Heart – it was dismissed by then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.

It seemed possible the proposal might never be put in front of the Australian people.

But soon, in all likelihood, Australians will get to vote in a referendum. And will be asked whether Australia should amend its constitution to create an Indigenous Voice to parliament.

Today, someone who has spent years working towards constitutional recognition: chair in constitutional law at the University of New South Wales, Megan Davis.

It’s Thursday August 11.

[Theme Music Ends]

RUBY:

Megan, five years ago - after a process of consultation, of dialogues - the Uluru Statement from the Heart was presented to the country. And you were actually the person who read that statement out loud for the very first time. Could you tell me what that statement is about – for you?

Archival tape -- Megan Davis (Uluru Statement from the Heart first reading):

“We gathered here at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart.”

MEGAN:

Yeah, so the Uluru Statement from the Heart is the kind of top page of about an 18 page document known as the ‘Uluru Statement from the Heart’. So it does include the invitation that we issued to the Australian people, which is a one-page statement to the Australian people as to why we need this reform and why we need the help of the Australian people to persuade the political class and the political elite of the exigency of the change.

Archival tape -- Megan Davis (Uluru Statement from the Heart first reading):

“Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands and possessed it under our own laws and customs.”

MEGAN:

I read it out in the conference for the first time and then out at the rock to the Australian people. And it was a really, yeah, powerful moment because it was the expression of quite an extraordinary two years of deliberative dialogue among our people about constitutional reform.

Archival tape -- Megan Davis (Uluru Statement from the Heart first reading):

“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.”

MEGAN:

I spent 2015, prior to the ref council as well, trying to think of ways and researching ways, looking at other constitutional processes, such as in Ireland and others, about how to engage our people again in a process that would show the Australian Government that we wouldn't support symbolism and that if there was to be constitutional recognition, it needed to be something substantive, something that might make a difference on the ground, something that might change people's lives and that was the substance of the dialogues. We ran the dialogues in a way though, as I said based on kind of other constitutional deliberative dialogues, we ran it in a way that First Nations peoples felt comfortable and in control of the process.

And so when I read the Uluru Statement from the Heart out, I was reading out the words of the many thousands of First Nations people who participated in that process and wanted the Australian people to understand, from the heart of Australia and from our heart, why it is so critical that Australians learn as much as they can about the statement, but also about the status quo.

Archival tape -- Megan Davis (Uluru Statement from the Heart first reading):

“We call for the establishment of a First Nations voice enshrined in the Constitution. Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda. The coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.”

MEGAN:

Because the Uluru Statement very much is about we need to do something different here. We've tried everything in this country, but we haven't tried constitutional recognition in a substantive way. So it was a huge responsibility and it remains a huge responsibility.

Archival tape -- Megan Davis (Uluru Statement from the Heart first reading):

“We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. And we invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.”

RUBY:

And it’s been five years since that moment, and now the new government has committed to the statement and to holding a referendum. And there is a proposed question as well: "Do you support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?" – So, Megan, what is a Voice to Parliament, and why is it being asked for?

MEGAN:

So the Voice to Parliament is, I guess, shorthand for a mechanism that enhances First Nations participation in democratic decision making, such as law and policy, that are made about Indigenous communities and Indigenous lives. The purpose of it is because there's a pretty strong evidence base that if you involve First Nations peoples in the design and articulation of policy frameworks and laws that impact their communities, then not only are they of a higher quality, than if they're not involved, but they're more likely to work.

The concern was that in Aboriginal affairs we are always a political football, we're always subject to the ideology of one government to the next. So, the idea behind an enshrined Voice to Parliament is that the notion of a representative body, whose job it is to provide an input into the laws and policies that are made about communities, that it is set up in a way that governments can't just repeal or abolish this institution at the stroke of a pen without talking to any First Nations leader. And we say that that lack of sustainability, the lack of durability of these First Nations institutions actually drives the inequality and the disadvantage. And so there are many reasons that the dialogues prosecuted as to why an enshrined voice is so critical in terms of constitutional recognition.

RUBY:

And since the government committed to a referendum on constitutional recognition, there has been a lot of questions about what that might look like, whether or not we’re going to see more detail on the proposal, and then all of this supposition about what a ‘no’ campaign might look like. What do you make of all of these questions that have sprung up almost immediately?

MEGAN:

I think the debate has been framed by what I would think are pretty predictable columnists straight out of the gates declaring ‘no’ campaigns and seeking more detail but in a very kind of disingenuous way.

Archival tape -- David Speers:

“Just to be clear on this, there won't be the full detail every I dotted and T crossed on how the thing will work. But there will be some more…”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“There is debate now, David”

Archival tape -- David Speers:

“I know, but from you...from your government…”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“There is a document…”

Archival tape -- David Speers:

“There’s a very lengthy document…”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“There is a document out there that goes to many, many pages as you know…”

MEGAN:

I mean it's been interesting to watch over the ten weeks to see how news is created. I don't think that that's new to anyone, the way in which, you know, these kinds of stories are constructed.

Archival tape -- David Speers:

“But how it would function under your watch…”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“That’s the point. Well we’re not there yet, David, but that’s the point…”

Archival tape -- David Speers:

“But this is the detail that some want to at least see. Not in the constitution, but to see from you…”

Archival tape – Anthony Albanese:

“But David there will be…”

MEGAN:

And I think the framing of the debate, as I said, in that kind of republicanesque way, you know, the government does not have to fund a yes or a no campaign. There are many ways in which a referendum campaign can be run. And I don't think that our imagination about how this should or shouldn't operate needs to be fenced in by what happened in 1999.

But I should say Australia’s very rusty on referendums. I mean, there are some pretty prominent journalists who clearly don't fully understand the Referendum Machinery Act or the Constitution. That's neither here nor there, because the entire nation is rusty on the civics aspect of this. And I think, you know, that will be cleaned up as we get closer to the ballot box about what will happen in terms of a referendum campaign.

Our job is just to continue our work out with grassroots First Nations communities and Australian communities and build, continue to build, that movement of the Australian people for a better future. There are those who say that that's a Pollyanna approach to politics, but we say no, this is a people's movement. The Constitution was built to change. It is the Australian people that have to exercise their agency at that ballot box when this change happens. And that's the important thing I think here, is our people working with Australians to get this across the line.

RUBY:

We’ll be back in a moment.

[Advertisement]

RUBY:

Megan we’ve been speaking about the way that the media has framed the issue of a referendum and the questions about detail and timelines and campaigns. And the media framing is one consideration, but what about the differences of opinions that we’re seeing from politicians on both sides of the fence. Is that more of a challenge, when it comes to bringing people with you on this?

MEGAN:

Look, I think at this point it's, we’re ten weeks in, so if you're putting up a fence right now and saying I'm not going to vote for that when you actually don't have the final detail, to me, that's not great governance and you're probably not going to support it. You know, people will make up their mind you know, as a date is announced, as a referendum bill’s passed, as it's clear what detail is provided to the Australian people about what the model looks like so that they can vote in an informed way at the ballot box. I think now there's a lot of speculation, but you know, I think they'll release detail and more information about process as they go along. I don't think that they were ever going to release it the day after the election. And I think the discussion will settle once we have some substantive detail. There's a lot of impatience about that, but I think the framing of it will change as we get more detail, and that will happen when it happens.

RUBY:

Mm and you mentioned what happened in 1999 before, the referendum that we had back then on the question of whether or not Australia should become a republic. That became very controversial and the referendum ultimately failed. So, what is the legacy of that failure and how is that influencing this debate?

MEGAN:

Well, I mean I say it's framing the debate.

Archival tape – Stan Grant: (7news host, 1999):

“So as I said, the polls closed 90 minutes ago and already there's a pretty good indication of the result. We'll take a look at the tally so far-…”

MEGAN:

That's not surprising, given it’s pretty much the only frame of reference people have. But this is a very different thing, I think, to the republic.

Archival tape – Stan Grant: (7news host, 1999):

“Well, a quick look at how people are voting shows 44% support for yes, 56% no…”

MEGAN:

So to begin with, you know, we have a government that supports the change and we have a prime minister that supports the change. And so I think that issue can never be understated.

When you pull the republic bill and look at it, it required over 82 changes to the text of the Australian Constitution, some cosmetic and some not so cosmetic, but the point to be made there is that all of the detail in relation to the republic model had to go into the text of the Constitution.

And this is a very different creature because the detail is actually left to the parliament to supervise in the way they would any piece of legislation. It's not required to put the bricks and mortar of the Voice into the actual enabling provision. And I think it's really clear there's a conflation of that issue in the way in which the First Nations Voice is being framed. So it's not surprising that people are using the republic as their yardstick. But I think it's an inaccurate one.

RUBY:

And there’s no doubt that 2022 is very different to 1999 in a lot of ways and so there is every chance that things will play out differently this time around. What would it mean for you personally to see constitutional recognition happen?

MEGAN:

Oh, look, I think it's really important. I think it's important for a lot of First Nations people. The Uluru Statement from the Heart was not just about a voice to parliament. There's a very clear sequence there. It is about setting a new roadmap for the nation in terms of engagement, and that first step starts with respect, that is what constitutional recognition is. It's about giving respect and legitimacy to the views and voices of First Nations peoples, so that when government and policy makers are contemplating about what to do and how to act, they do that imbued with the voices of people from the ground.

Constitutions play a really important role in providing the material conditions of a dignified human life, particularly when it comes to Indigenous peoples whose issues do fall outside the kind of majoritarian nature of the ballot box. This is a very common way in which constitutions, in which countries try to mitigate that very big gap between us and the majority.

And I think one of the really important things of the dialogues is, our old people said, you know, our country is coming under a lot of stress. The country needs some peace because what we are about to face as a people is extreme. And this is one way to bring the nation together. You know, our old people are dying and they want some peace for their country. And this whole thing is very much imbued with that but it's also imbued with, you know, a great optimism.

They're not deterred at all because they also led the 1967 referendum, many of them, and many lived through it, and many were kids. You know, when it comes to racism and race, these are the people that many lived through the protection era and lived on those reserves and missions that segregated them from the broader Australian community. Many were stolen generations, our people aren't blind to racism, but there was a very strong belief in the decency of Australians and that they would understand why this was important and why this was a reform idea whose time has come.

RUBY:

Megan, thank you so much for speaking to me.

MEGAN:

Thank you for having me.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

Also in the news today, Chinese ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian says China would use quote all necessary means to prevent Taiwan from being independent and pursue, quote, "reunification". His speech in Canberra comes after renewed tensions over Taiwan following the visit of US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, last week.

And the COVIDSafe app is being decommissioned, Health Minister Mark Butler said that since the app was launched in April 2020, it had only uniquely recorded two COVID-positive cases – which wouldn’t have been recorded through other means. The app cost $21 million dollars.

I’m Ruby Jones, this is 7am. See you tomorrow.

[Theme Music Ends]