This is a useful long essay (approx 85 small, well spaced pages) from a (First Nations') Yes voter as to the upcoming referendum.

It is a passionate call for a yes vote, but is more balanced than many I have read over the last year or so.

It does not provide much which has not been said before, but if one has not read anything until now, this would be a good start.

A few comments:


1 it addresses the one page vs 26 page Uluru Statement from the Heart controversy very well in my view. The book says read both versions, but focus on the notion that the referendum is only addressing the first issue ie the Voice. I agree with this assessment. I am not suggesting that in considering whether to vote yes or no that one should not consider the issues of Treaty and Makarrata, but those will require further consideration by government etc. So we have time to consider those other issues. By the way the 'hidden' 26 pages are found in the Final Report of the Referendum Council dated 30 June 2017 and found here ...https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf commencing on page 16.

The report was co signed by the Co Chairs Marcia Langton and Mark Leibler (the latter of whom has recently suggested that it was only a one pager). If so, why not admit that the Report he co signed is mistaken in this regard. But please don't misrepresent me, the pages have been available for years, nothing has been hidden, but why prevaricate?

“2.2 National Constitutional Convention
The National Constitutional Convention was held at Uluru between 23 and 26 May 2017.
2.2.1 Process
A synthesis of the Records of Meetings of the First Nations Regional Dialogues was produced by the
Referendum Council. This synthesis, entitled ‘Our Story’, recounted the themes that emerged in the
Dialogues and is reproduced below.
Note: The shaded sections of text in the following pages are extracts from the Uluru Statement from
the Heart.”

My own view is that:
- (perhaps what happened was that (and hence what allows people to now state that ) only one page was presented to the final meeting and was signed
- the other pages provide background to the thinking behind the one page
- both should be read in deciding how to vote, as almost everyone seems to advocate
- even the one pager references Treaty and Makarrata, so there has been no hiding of them
- a yes win does not guarantee either Treaty or Makarrata, so what is the downside?

Megan Davis and George Williams’ book “Everything You Need to Know About the Uluru Statement from the Heart” published in 2021 references (pages 166-7) the Statement as comprising one page, whilst also explicitly references the further pages as follows:

“ The need for people to know more about Australian and Aboriginal history was repeatedly raised in the dialogues. Across Australia, the idea oh history and truth-telling emerged as a strong theme. This led the Referendum Council to capture the richness in ‘Our Story’, the Aboriginal history of Australia that follows the one-page Uluru Statement from the Heart.”



2 The title 'On the Voice to Parliament' is unfortunate. One of the divisive issues is whether the Voice should be able to access the Executive Government (particularly as it was not referenced in the one page Statement). I understand the need for brevity on the front cover, but given this book has only an Australian market, would not 'On the Voice' have been sufficient?

To be clear, the author does not avoid the notion that proposal that the Voice is proposed as to both (so good on him)

3. The book illustrates how short hand language gets it often wrong.

Page 79 contains the following statements:

"Our Constitution did not recognise us [First nations peoples] as equal to other Australians in the first 67 years. Finally, our country took the step to count us as Australian citizens."

Such is not accurate. One of the things the wildly successful 1967 referendum did was to remove s 127 from the Constitution. That section provided that in determining the size and number of electorates in the Federal Parliament, indigenous people were not counted. It does not take much thought to understand that is discriminatory, but it has nothing to do with citizenship as such (Australian citizenship as such did not become a ‘thing’ until the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1947, when all, indigenous or not became Australian citizens at the same time. For further detail see Megan Davis and George Williams’ book “Everything You Need to Know About the Uluru Statement from the Heart” pages 41-46.

Big Ship

29 August 2023 ( )