Below are some FAQs on the upcoming referendum on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament as we think through and respond as Christians pursuing Jesus and justice together across these lands.
Where has this call for a Voice come from?
Why do we need a specifically First Nations Voice enshrined in our Constitution?
Why are there different opinions among First Nations peoples and how should we respond?
Is sovereignty undermined by an Indigenous Voice to Parliament?
We will continue to update and share further resources and FAQs.
What is the theological framework that underpins why we believe Christians should support a Voice to Parliament?
As Christians, we approach the referendum like any other big decisions in life - by looking to the example of Jesus. The Bible doesn’t tell us how we must vote, but in the teachings of Jesus, we find a set of principles and virtues that shape the way his followers engage with the world.
Principles like the primacy of love (Mark 12:28) the importance of pursuing justice, mercy and faith (Matthew 23:23), and the call to serve all those in need (Matthew 25:31-46). We hear as well that Jesus’ purpose was to see all people flourish – to experience the ‘fullness of life’ (John 10:10).
As followers of Christ, we are called to love God and our neighbours, respecting and caring for them in all the ways that we know that we each need (Mt 22:39). Following Jesus' own example and instruction, we are to pay particular attention to the needs of the poor and oppressed, those whose wellbeing is most neglected or compromised. Under God's gracious authority, our words and lives are to be grounded in truth and love (Eph 4:15), which means acknowledging the wrongs of history and of the present, repenting of our personal misdeeds and rejecting broader systems of oppression in which we are each complicit. Instead, insofar as it is possible, we are to make amends for wrongdoing and seek the flourishing of justice (Mic 6:8) and righteousness (Mt 6:33). We are to be salt and light as we work together for good (Mt 5:13-14,15), for the healing of broken relationships and for reconciliation between groups with a history of conflict (2 Cor 5:18).
Yet loving our neighbours in a world full of misunderstanding, distrust and violence is often complex and difficult, especially given centuries of colonisation, with its theft, bloodshed and destruction, and amidst growing inequality, and ecological degradation. In a world of injustice, we pray for God's justice promised and established in Christ, that God's will would be done here on Earth, as it is in heaven (Mt 6:10). And we live and work in light of that prayer, seeking justice in our own lives and in broader society.
When it comes to our shared life on this continent today, Common Grace believes that a constitutionally enshrined First Nations voice to parliament would be one concrete step towards greater justice. A constitutionally enshrined First Nations Voice to parliament would provide a formal mechanism for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to participate more fully in decision making processes that affect their lives and communities. Ensuring that our parliament listens to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is a step towards building better and more effective policy, addressing historical and systemic harms and injustice, and enhancing opportunities for self-determination. We also know that recognising and valuing the wisdom and unique perspectives of our Indigenous brothers and sisters will lead to more inclusive, equitable, and conscious decision-making for the benefit of all.
As Christians then, we should celebrate, support, and pursue this constitutional amendment, while also recognising that even with it in place, there is so much more to do – not the least of which will be truth telling and treaties.
Where has this call for a Voice come from?
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been calling for greater self-determination and their voices to be truly heard for the past two centuries. Many were compelled by their faith - Aboriginal Christian Leaders like William Cooper, Pastor Sir Doug Nicholls, Aunty Pearl Gibbs, and many who are still alive today including Senior Aboriginal Christian Leader Aunty Jean Phillips. These calls go back as far as the 1887 Maloga Petition; Jimmy Clements and John Noble in their 1927 protest at opening of Canberra Parliament House; William Cooper's 1937 Petition to King George VI; the 1963 Yirrkala Bark Petitions; the 1988 Barunga Statement; the year 2000 Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation’s Australian Declaration towards Reconciliation; the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017 and many more.
The concept of a National Indigenous Voice is not a new one. Previous national Indigenous representative bodies have included the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (FCATSI), the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC), the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). The most recent of these, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples (2010 - 2019), had a similar purpose to the currently proposed National Indigenous Voice to Parliament- as an independent national Indigenous representative, advisory and advocacy group to the Australian Government. The National Congress had a model of elected Aboriginal voices, with 120 delegates. This model worked, however was defunded by previous governments, much to the heartbreak of Aboriginal peoples. We must learn the lessons of the past around Voice, and apply these lessons to the current proposed National Indigenous Voice.
In December 2015, then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten commissioned a referendum council to provide advice on the next steps on a proposal to amend the constitution in a referendum. The council was made of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous leaders and experts. It consulted broadly through workshops, online meetings, public meetings, and individual and organisational submissions. This included 13 regional dialogues covering every state and territory, where they heard the voices of Traditional Owners, Elders, youth and community leaders. The consultation process itself was built around the values of free, prior and informed consent.
The process culminated in the drafting of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Statement rejected the notion of token recognition and called for a constitutionally enshrined First Nations voice to Parliament, and a Makarrata commission to auspice a process of Truth-Telling and Treaty development.
When the Uluru Statement from the Heart was presented to the then Turnbull government in 2017, it was rejected. Then in 2022, the Albanese Labor government committed to implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full - with its three asks of Voice, Treaty and Truth.
Further Resources:
Explore and learn more about these historic moments here.
Read about the Uluru Statement from the Heart on the Common Grace website here.
Why do we need a specifically First Nations Voice enshrined in our Constitution?
“Indigenous peoples did not get a say in the Constitution that was created in 1901. In fact, the Constitution originally contained clauses that excluded them. The Constitution has consequently presided over many unjust laws and policies made about Indigenous Australians.” (Explainer: A Constitutionally Guaranteed First Nations Voice)
For decades Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islaner peoples have called for constitutional reform to empower them with a voice in affairs that impact them. They are seeking to be included and consulted, and to work with governments from the beginning; as decisions are made, rather than after legislation has been passed.
Enshrining a First Nations voice in the constitution will help to dismantle the systemic disempowerment that is felt by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It will be a step along the way to see better policies, to unwind the structural injustice and move us towards reconciliation.
In the past, there have been other representative bodies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), which have been dismantled when the government of the day has disagreed with the work they sought to do. Enshrining an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in the Constitution prevents these representative bodies from being abolished by future governments.
“This is why the Uluru Statement calls for the First Nations Voice to be enshrined in the Constitution. Constitutional protection would ensure that governments work with and invest in the First Nations Voice. Legislative flexibility means it can evolve. This proposal therefore balances stability and flexibility.” (Explainer: A Constitutionally Guaranteed First Nations Voice)
Enshrining an Indigenous Voice into the Australian constitution is a necessary step. It will help to ensure a long-term outcome, not swayed by partisan politics.
It’s true that there are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in parliament as elected officials, but this is not the same as providing a voice to represent the interest of First Nations people. A parliamentarians role calls on them to represent their electorate and often their party, which may not always reflect the specific needs, concerns and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
A Voice to Parliament would provide a formal mechanism for First Nations people to participate in the decision-making processes that affect their lives and communities, and allow a better representation of the diversity of their cultures and needs.
It’s worth noting as well that the Voice to parliament does not propose a separate parliament for Indigenous people, but rather an advisory body that would work alongside the existing parliament. This advisory body would provide a direct link between Indigenous people and the government and would help to ensure that Indigenous perspectives are taken into account in the decision-making process.
Including a statement in the constitution will also recognise the unique place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the First Peoples of this country and their place in Australia’s history. This is a recognition of their unique cultural place, as custodians of these lands from time immemorial, not a racial difference.
Further Resources:
What is the constitution? https://www.commongrace.org.au/the_australian_constitution
Explainer: A Constitutionally Guaranteed First Nations Voice by Macquarie University's Radical Centre Reform Lab - aims to answer common questions about a constitutionally-guaranteed First Nations Voice.
Bible being used to subjugate Indigenous Australians: Pattel-Gray
Christians must push for change for Indigenous people: Common Grace
Why are there different opinions among First Nations peoples and how should we respond?
While available polling suggests that the overwhelming majority (80%) of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people support a YES vote in the referendum, we recognise it is very rare for any group of people to hold a homogeneous view on any given issue, and this referendum is no exception. We encourage you to listen deeply to the opinions of those with lived experience, to experts, and to those that participated in the Uluru statement - and then seek to understand the context for any differences that arise.
There is much diversity among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including diverse cultural practices, stories, and Country, as well as differing experiences of colonisation and its effects.
We encourage everyone to listen deeply to all First Nations perspectives, and reflect on the reasoning behind their perspectives on the Voice. For example, the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples being let down by governments, their voices not being listened to or taken seriously, and the negative impacts of government policies (for example: the stolen generations policies, the Northern Territory intervention, and the Queensland government's recent amendment to allow children in adult watch houses and prisons). Many of these factors have led to distrust of government and caution towards the Voice. May we hear the diverse First Nations voices and be inspired to keep justice and self-determination at the forefront.
While still holding to a strong YES stance, we seek to listen to, understand, value and wrestle with the diverse perspectives and opinions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
As we continue to consult our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Christian Leaders of diverse perspectives, we hear a resounding call to seek justice. We recognise that a successful YES vote in the referendum is not the only justice issue that needs to be addressed, but we believe that it is a crucial one. Success in the referendum will lead to celebration and help accelerate the momentum for further change.
Even as we work for this outcome, we won’t lose our focus on what else needs to be done. In 2023, that will see us campaigning to see fewer Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in prison, #RaiseTheAge.
Is sovereignty undermined by an Indigenous Voice to Parliament?
“I support the establishment of a Voice to parliament as it gives us- the Australian nation- a way to synthesise our contrasting understandings of this very important word- sovereignty.”
Adam Gowen, Aboriginal Christian Leader and Wiradjuri man
As is often said in Acknowledgement of Country, the sovereignty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has never been ceded and the simple answer is that a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous Voice to Parliament will not change this.
Sovereignty is a complex matter, and as Aboriginal Christian Leader Adam Gowen has said in his quote above, there are many contrasting understandings of this important word.
Over the coming six months, we will be having conversations with Aboriginal Christian Leaders surrounding sovereignty, and providing resources to enhance our theological understanding of this topic.
We have provided some initial thoughts below and encourage you to explore the links in the further resources section.
The Uluru Statement from the Heart states:
“This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or “mother nature” and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.” (Uluru Statement from the Heart)
International law sets out five ways sovereignty is acquired:
- occupation of uninhabited land (terra nullius);
- prescription, maintaining sovereignty without objection from other states or nations;
- accretion, physical expansion of land through natural processes;
- cession, typically through treaty, and
- annexation or conquest (https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/territory ).
None of these occurred either under British colonial rule or during Australia’s federation. Unfortunately, the same international law does not recognise First Nations as nation states. Australia is the only Commonwealth country that does not have a treaty with its Indigenous people.
It is a tension that must be held that, while Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples never ceded sovereignty through any of the ways stated in international law, this same international law recognises that Australia is a constitutional monarchy, with power being shared between the Crown and the Australian government.
Enshrining a voice to parliament in Australia’s constitution will not undermine Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ sovereignty. It is, in fact, a way to bring about substantive changes to the current political and legal structures, and to recognise our First Nations peoples’ place and sovereignty.
Further Resources:
- ANTAR Sovereignty Fact Sheet
- The Conversation, ‘What we mean when we say sovereignty was never ceded’, November 28, 2022.
- National Indigenous Times, Voice will empower us, not undermine Sovereignty, January 16, 2023.
- The Guardian, Explainer: ‘Why a voice to parliament won’t impact First Nations sovereignty’, January 26, 2023.
Is there enough information about the Voice to make an informed decision about what to vote in the referendum?
The First Nations Referendum Working Group have put forward 8 design principles that provide top level detail about the way the Voice to Parliament will function. These principles answer many of the questions that have been coming up about the model and function of the Voice. We strongly encourage everyone to read the 8 design principles here.
In the referendum at the end of the year, Australians are only voting on whether this First Nations Voice to Parliament should be enshrined in the constitution, and then the process of more extensive consultation will occur, which will inform the final model and design of the Voice. It is important that this process of consultation isn't rushed, and if there is a Yes vote at the referendum, we can hold the government accountable to do this process of consulting and developing the model well.
______________
How does the Voice to Parliament help with injustices like closing the gap and the high rate of Indigenous children in detention?
It just makes sense that listening to First Nations peoples, who know their communities best, about policies that affect them will lead to better outcomes. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities make up just 3% of the population, and their voices are often drowned out and ignored. This means that effective culturally appropriate and community led programs are often under-resourced, under-funded, and under-valued. An Indigenous Voice to Parliament will create significant opportunities for people on the ground, with the solutions, to communicate this to the government to inform and improve policies and legislation.
A successful referendum will build momentum and be a celebrated moment of national unity that unlocks further progress and sustained action for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander justice.
The Indigenous Voice to Parliament will help guide the necessary legislative reform required to see justice for First Nations peoples. For example the protection of sacred sites, raising the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14 years of age, increased funding and guidance on closing the gap targets, and the immediate implementation of all 339 Recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
______________
Do you have further questions or resources you would like to share with us? Please get in touch with us at [email protected]
