YES, Indigenous Voice to Australian Constitution
#THEPLACARD
YES, Indigenous Voice to Australian Constitution
Jan 8, 2022, | By Christian Brown | In #THEPLACARD
The dispossession of Aboriginals began when Captain James Cook declared Australia to be Terra Nullius an uninhabited land and claimed ownership by Britain
Large parcels of land were stripped from Aboriginals during the Australian Wars, during the 1890s before the signing of the constitution there was no mention of Australia’s first people. Instead, they were gathered up and housed in government-managed facilities or church missions.
Former Prime Minister John Howard proposed 10-point Bill to amend the Native Title Act.
A summary of the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Commonwealth)
The amendments allowed for some pastoral and mining leases to be authenticated. Which were previously deemed to be between the Mabo and decisions.
Some leases granted sole rights over the land, while others did not.
Pastoralists could carry out the activities allowed by their lease, even if it affected native title.
Existing access rights for Indigenous people on some lands were confirmed – but only until native title claims could be heard.
The right to negotiate over mining was reduced to one chance only – not at each stage of exploration and mining as before.
On the issue of government and commercial development, the right to negotiate in some circumstances was reduced to the right to be ‘consulted’.
The government was given the right to manage water resources and air space; this could weaken or even extinguish native title in many cases.
The Act made it much tougher to register a native title claim, but also speeded up the process.
The amendments also encouraged the settlement of claims by agreement rather than in the tribunals or the courts.
The amendments to the Act also outlined that they did not breach the Racial Discrimination Act 1976 (Cth)
The Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Commonwealth) was passed.
The Act stipulates Indigenous claimants, must prove their continuity of traditional laws and customs on the land being claimed, following European settlement. Evidence used by Aboriginal people, proving their connection with land can sometimes date back over one hundred years
The Native Title Act is problematic for Aboriginal Australians when negotiations with developers falter and agreement between the parties is not reached, as mandated by the Act. What this means practically in negotiations is that mining companies and other developers know that they have the law on their side when negotiations start.
Failed negotiations between the parties, inevitably lead to the mining company or commercial developer having their project rubber-stamped with approval.
The Albanese Federal government has assured voters his government plans to pass in full the recommendations of the Uluru Statement From The Heart for an Indigenous Voice to parliament.
ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART
We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:
Here 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. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.
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.
Two years on, in January 2019 mining giants BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto announced they supported the Uluru statement and an Indigenous voice to Parliament.
The question needs to be asked, is Rio Tinto gaslighting Australians?
Because 14 months later Rio Tinto obliterated the Juukan Gorge Aboriginal rock shelters, dating back 46.000 years. These Aboriginal shelters held important Australian archaeological significance, revealing human habitation during the last ice age.
The Australian Labor Government plans to hold a referendum for Australians to decide if they want an Indigenous voice in the Australian constitution in 2023.
The Federal National Party held a press conference to announce, the party’s opposition to a constitutional Indigenous Voice in parliament.
Western Australia has become the first state Nationals branch to criticise its federal counterpart's decision to not support the Voice to Parliament.
National Party leader David Littleproud has defended his position claiming he has held comprehensive discussions with his constituents, including with elders in his electorate.
This comes as a surprise to Aboriginal elder Lynette Nixon from David Littleproud’s electorate in western Queensland, who does not believe he has spoken to anyone in her community.
Furthermore, the Federal National Party member for Calare Andrew Gee has quit the party and moved to the crossbench to sit as an independent, believing the National party does not represent the views of regional voters on the Voice to parliament.
Meanwhile, the Native Title Tribunal has given the go ahead to Santos mining, to dig 850 gas wells south - west of Narrabri in north-west New South Wales, believing the public benefit outweighed cultural concerns and opposition to the project from Traditional owners, the Gomeroi people.
This could include amendments to the Native Title Act. For example. However, when legislation will have a compelling impact on Indigenous Australians, would parliament be required to consult with the voice?
Langton and Calma recommend the voice should not be limited on the matters upon which it can offer advice, believing Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander Peoples should be heard on issues, which are important to them.
The government would be obliged to explain with every bill, whether it was necessary to consult the voice and if so, whether the consultation took place and what form it took.
Any advice received would have to be tabled. The voice would have the right, on its initiative, to provide advice on any matter which would have to be tabled in parliament.
A Reconciliation Australia survey indicates strong support for an Indigenous Voice to parliament, with 95 per cent of those surveyed backing the proposal.
As a seventh-generation Australian, whose ancestor arrived on the Neptune in 1790 – second fleet, I feel it is necessary to vote Yes for an Indigenous Voice in the constitution