After winning the federal election, Anthony Albanese opened his victory speech with a commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Labor Party has supported the Uluru Statement since it was passed in 2017 and have argued that it is the best way to rectify the wrongs of Australia’s colonial past. While a similar position has been taken up by many community organisations, unions, and other political figures, left-wing grassroots opposition to it has also been growing. The statement is heavily opposed by segments of the Indigenous community, particularly in NSW and Victoria. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy, a collective of activists who have militantly campaigned for land rights, sovereignty, and Indigenous justice for over 50 years, are also strongly opposed. To these people, the statement represents a non-consensual agreement with a government and constitution that has oppressed them for centuries.
The statement’s main demand is for constitutional recognition, something both major parties have supported in some form since at least 2007. Morrison committed to a referendum on constitutional recognition in 2019, the Gillard government funded the group Reconciliation Australia to promote the need for constitutional recognition, and – perhaps most egregiously – John Howard committed to supporting constitutional recognition after announcing the draconian and immensely destructive Northern Territory Intervention in 2007. All these governments saw support for constitutional recognition as an easy way to maintain a tokenistic commitment to Indigenous rights while continuing real attacks on Indigenous communities through their policies and laws. This is because, at its core, recognition within the constitution is a symbolic act which will enact little to no real change for Indigenous people.
The latest iteration of ‘constitutional recognition’ within the Uluru Statement calls for an Indigenous voice to parliament. This voice would be made up of delegates from across the country with a range of political beliefs. Crucially, the suggested voice would have no binding powers over parliament and would exist in an entirely advisory capacity. This means it has no ability to materially change policy that may be harmful to Indigenous communities. Moreover, the voice was designed by self-described radical centrist and advocate for the Northern Territory intervention Noel Pearson, who was aiming to win support from the right-wing of parliament and the business sector for a constitutionally enshrined voice. Simply put, a non-binding voice to parliament has no ability to achieve the systemic change required to alleviate the continued oppression of Indigenous people, which is caused directly by the Australian government and the capitalists it protects.
The idea of a committee advising government on matters relating to constitutional recognition is not new, with both major parties latching on to the idea in the mid 2010’s as an easy way out of having to fundamentally change government policy. This “Referendum Council” consisted of 16 Indigenous and non-indigenous people appointed by both parties, including representatives from a parliamentary background like Pat Dodson, Kristina Keneally, and former Howard government minister Amanda Vanstone, along with a host of other right wing figures like conservative and Zionist Mark Leibler. To garner support from the Indigenous community for their proposal, the Council began a series of regional dialogues across the nation. Only 12 of these sessions occurred and they were capped in attendance at 100, casting doubts as to whether it was the most consultative process possible, especially considering the vast resources available to the Referendum Council. The sessions revealed vocal opposition to constitutional reform in favour of treaties between Indigenous nations, with some people arguing that constitutional recognition would actively hinder true sovereignty, the central demand of the massive land rights campaign of the 1970s and 80s. Being a demand born out of grassroots struggle and mass protests, the call for sovereignty is largely antithetical to Pearson’s proposed constitutional amendment, meaning this sentiment was ignored by the Referendum Council. However, the demand is alive and well in grassroots protests, with the majority of Invasion Day rallies uniting under the banner of sovereignty.
Indigenous sovereignty is not just a tokenistic phrase, either. As a demand, it focuses on the need for Indigenous people to be able to genuinely self-determine their futures. This means defunding the police, ending deaths in custody and child removals, and funding Indigenous-led land management programs, schools, and community services. The ultimate ask of many of these rallies is to dismantle the colonial systems of governance that have oppressed Indigenous people for centuries, rather than ask to be included within them.
The Uluru Conference
The work of the Referendum Council culminated in the 2017 Uluru Conference. On the first day, Pearson unveiled his roadmap to constitutional recognition in his capacity as a Referendum Council member. The roadmap was meant to reflect the pro-constitutional recognition perspective at the conference, but it was quickly made apparent to conference attendees that the roadmap was being pushed as the only option, ignoring the dissent heard in the preceding Council sessions, and despite the event being described as an open forum for democratic debate amongst the Indigenous community.
This led to a bloc of delegates from the south-east of the country walking out in protest. Aunty Jenny Munro, one of the delegates who walked out, told the Guardian in 2017:
“It’s not a dialogue… Every time we try and raise an issue our voices are silenced… I’ve asked the question in there, how does our sovereignty remain intact when we go into the white man’s constitution? … We have chosen to walk away from this debate and this dialogue today because it is not a debate, they are not looking at any alternative options other than the Noel Pearson roadmap. And, like native title, that will prove to be an abject failure.”
Munro is a militant activist who has campaigned for sovereignty for decades. In 1988 she helped organise the titanic Invasion Day convergence protest, and in 2015 she led the Redfern Tent Embassy campaign to save The Block. Her statements encapsulate the two major grievances of the bloc that walked out: the undemocratic nature of the conference and the lack of consensus among Indigenous communities on constitutional recognition as the best way forward.
More tokenism and empty promises
The Uluru Statement is a neatly packaged example of the empty promises the imperialist class have given Indigenous people for decades. Native Title, the recognition by Australian law of Indigenous traditional land rights, is in reality a farcical process that sees many land claims rejected. Ones that are accepted give the relevant communities little to no power to autonomously manage their land or veto projects such as mines. The Gomeroi people have a successful native title claim over the Pilliga region in north-western NSW but are currently being forced to campaign against the energy corporation Santos, who want to open 650 gas wells in the region. The native title tribunal regularly sides with mining companies in instances like this despite Indigenous community opposition, meaning the Gomeroi Native Title claim is under a very real threat. Much like the powerless voice to parliament that the Uluru Statement calls for, native title is a largely toothless scheme that can only be understood as tokenism.
Similarly, the Uluru statement calls for a Makarrata commission to oversee the process of a national treaty between Indigenous people and the federal government. Similar processes are being attempted at the state level, however, examples in the Northern Territory and Queensland show that a potential treaty with colonial governments would not result in any tangible change. The NT government recently committed 510 million dollars to police funding despite elders in Yuendumu publicly calling for police funding to be immediately diverted into community alternatives to police and prisons during treaty negotiations. In Queensland, Wangan and Jagalingou people have militantly opposed the Adani coal mine while the state government has strongly supported the project. These examples demonstrate that working toward a treaty between Indigenous communities and the government will simply allow the government to claim a commitment to Indigenous rights, to the detriment of emancipatory justice and self-determination. The Uluru statement will be no different, and it will allow the newly elected Labor government to “blak-wash” its policy platform. Much like how Aboriginal Land Councils have a tendency to at times lend their support to government projects that are opposed by the communities they represent (most notably a nuclear dump in Muckatay, NT), the voice to parliament will be employed as cover for any policies that may be opposed by grassroots Indigenous community groups.
This tokenism and commitment to symbolic action extends to Australia’s business sector. The Uluru Statement is also supported by some of the most anti-Indigenous and climate destructive businesses in Australia. Fossil fuel corporation Rio Tinto, who in 2020 destroyed rock shelters in the Juukan Gorge that were of high significance to Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Binigura people, released a statement in 2019 advocating for the statement in collaboration with a range of other corporations including BHP and Woodside, both of which have proceeded with mining and gas projects despite opposition from local Indigenous communities. Once again, commitment to the statement from this section of society only serves to show who will benefit from its enactment.
What Does this Mean today?
After falling to the wayside for a few years, the election of the Labor party has seen a resurgence in calls to make the Uluru Statement a reality. Considering the grassroots opposition to the Statement from radical Indigenous activists, the path forward for anyone who wants to build a truly emancipated society is clear: we must fight this colonial system of government rather than collaborate with it. If the Uluru Statement remains as it is, this may necessitate a left-wing ‘No to Constitutional Recognition’ campaign, and regardless, we must prioritise winning the material demands of the grassroots Indigenous justice movement through militant mass protest.
The same people who walked out of the Uluru Conference have led some of the most well-attended and politically radical Invasion Day rallies in recent years, and organised the ground-breaking 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. Only by standing in solidarity with these organisers can we force the systemic change needed to achieve sovereignty and self-determined justice for Indigenous people.