Thread by @IndigenousX

Had a webinar today on explaining the constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliamentand Uluru Statement to over 700 RAP groups @RecAustralia

I am a published critic & scholar of the reconciliation movement and have been for a very long time. My latest @THEMONTHLY speaks to this:

themonthly.com.au/issue/2020/jul…

It’s why, as a constitutional lawyer, I am a supporter of constitutional change as one important approach to creating long lasting change for First Nations people through structural change. It’s not the only approach but it’s the only one that can elicit any structural power.

That’s why one of the principles emanating from the regional constitutional dialogues was not to waste the opportunity of reform.

There has been some consternation about the word “recognition”, a word adopted by Gillard Govt in later 2010. It hadn’t really been used in Australia much. It has in other countries with treaties etc. Because treaty is a form of constitutional recognition.

Recognition sits on a spectrum. You can have weak form recognition and you can have strong form recognition. Treaties, reserved seats, autonomous regions, Indigenous electoral rolls, Voice, symbolism etc. are all forms of recognition.

What matters is where you sit on the spectrum of recognition. The weak end is something like a preambular statement or a statement of recognition. It’s weak because it states a fact but does not have the force of law. It can’t compel the state to act.

The stronger end of the spectrum may be something like an enshrined Voice to Parliament or a duty to consult or autonomous regional arrangements. Either way, it’s “strong” because it compels the state. It has the force of law.

A functional, constitutional power is a v. different thing to something like a treaty, which is a legal agreement. How that legal agreement is protected or can be protected is unclear. How treaties can be retrofitted without a s35 Canadian-like power driving them is unclear.

There are questions around leverage and embedding current power imbalances into agreements without some kind of structural anchor like a Voice. Our system not like Can., US etc. State treaties super vulnerable to Cth. ovverride. Territories most vulnerable cos plenary power too.

In regional dialogues, many participants questioned the readiness of First Nations to enter into agreements with the state. Resources and power imbalance is massive. And 30 years of native title exhausted mob and many families, groups fighting, need healing, dispute resolution.

Agreement making was prioritised in dialogues of course: Voice, Treaty, Truth. Many support agreements. And of course in this process most support a Voice to Parliament which is backed up by research that shows mob support enshrined Voice.

google.com.au/amp/s/amp.thea…

The scaffolding of the @ulurustatement response talks to the capacity of a Voice to create a “Makarrata” Commission to supervise agreement making and truth telling across the Federation. It is v similar in function and form to the Waitangi Tribunal.

I have to go to French so I’ll say a few things about truth telling and come back later to yarn about sovereignty and the claims a referendum can “cede” our sovereignty (it can’t). And that is why truth telling is third in the reform sequence of @ulurustatement

Truth-telling is important. Truth is a critical component of reconciliation. Truth + Justice. What is the truth? What does repair look like? My criticism of reconciliation has always been Aus has jumped the part about REPAIR. They always ask, and then never deliver.

Understandably, regional dialogues wanted to speak about Australian history & our invisibility in that as First Nations. We had generations in each dialogue room so views from across the years. The many stories we recorded in “Our Story”. Read Our Story:

ulurustatement.org/our-story

This is a faithful transcript (that is footnoted in the report to every dialogue) of what traditional owners and others said in the deliberative dialogue. It is their voice. Mob wanted to know why Australians don’t want to know more about the people whose land they dispossessed?

“The continent was occupied by our people and the footprints of our ancestors traversed the entire landscape. Our songlines covered vast distances, uniting peoples in shared stories and religion.”

“The entire land and seascape is named, and the cultural memory of our old people is written there.”

“This rich diversity of our origins was eventually ruptured by colonisation. Violent dispossession and the struggle to survive a relentless inhumanity has marked our common history. The First Nations Regional Dialogues on constitutional reform bore witness to our shared stories.”

It’s a powerful read. It was a privilege to listen to our old people speak with such power, wisdom and generosity. After everything they have seen and witnessed and been through.

ulurustatement.org/our-story

And this was post-Abbott Indigenous Advancement Strategy. The destruction wrought by the IAS absolutely changed the way many viewed “recognition”. We all reject symbolism. We have all fought symbolism. No one entity can claim that!

The IAS highlighted our structural vulnerability to many things particularly that instability and uncertainty is amplified by the ease in which legislation is repealed without even speaking to a single First Nations person or entity.

And everything the mob said about IAS was backed up by successive Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) reports on how appallingly the IAS was administered. @amosaikman did v good stories chasing in the early days who received $ and how much was actually landing in communities.

People think it’s hyperbole to speak to the powerlessness and voicelessness that was entrenched post-IAS, including the iron fist bureaucracy has in our communities (that is NOT ameliorated by CTG v2!) but it’s not exaggerated. Read for yourself:

anao.gov.au/work/performan…

ANAO: “The department’s grants administration processes fell short of the standard required to effectively manage a billion dollars of Commonwealth resources.”

“the department did not
assess applications in a manner that was consistent with the guidelines and the department’s public statements”

or

“meet some of its obligations under the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines”

The dept did not:

“keep records of key decisions;

or

establish performance targets for all funded projects.”

So, the preference for the Voice is absolutely informed by this. Among other things. Having more black politicians won’t resolve the structural problem. Nor will reserved seats. These are important! But it’s not priority. These other mechanisms are not First Nations based.

Mob spoke to two way accountability. The need for those (like peaks) who purport to represent them, to report back to the FN on what is being done and said and spent in their name. Two ways.

Of course politicians represent their electorates and parties and subject to party discipline. Most reserved seats have succumbed to the party politics of Western liberal democratic governance too. This is about a First Nations Voice, not a professional political party voice.

Anyway off the beaten track. It is counterintuitive that truth telling does not come first. Aus has used truth telling as a can kicking exercise on multiple occasions. When Hawke couldn’t deliver treaty 👉🏾 statutory reconciliation process. RCIAIDC 👉🏾truth telling. BTH 👉🏾 truth.

We tell our stories in state processes over and over and over and over and over again. The response to Uluru can’t be “tell us more stories!”. The refrain can’t be “Why weren’t we told?” YOU WERE TOLD. YOU KNEW.