Australia doubles down on colonization via a referendum

OTTAWA—On Oct. 14, Australia voted on a referendum to include a Voice for First Nations to their Parliament and changing their constitution. Australia voted against the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples. Australia and Canada share much in common in terms of the state and Indigenous relations: numerous Indigenous nations, a similar era of stolen children, little inclusion in political decision-making until very recently, poor health outcomes, and experiences of racism. We share the experience of colonization: the majority making laws over the minority. The referendum asked if Australians support an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, a resourced group who could speak to Parliament directly on matters relating to them, though without the power of veto. The group would be selected by Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders themselves. There has been much furore over it. Some white Australians argued strenuously against it, with some of the same old arguments that it would give “rights-plus” to First Nations, that it would complicate law-making without addressing the root issues of poverty, and more. Some First Nations argued that the proposal didn’t go far enough, and may even undermine their rights recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Some questioned why Indigenous Peoples would even want to be part of a colonial system. Because the proposal would change the Constitution, it had to go to referendum. Unfortunately, the whole thing turned into a messy public discourse about the rights of Indigenous Peoples and reconciliation. It was a complicated communications exercise on behalf of the “Vote Yes” side, and possibly tanked on communications failures. Votes for the "no" side may have been for darker reasons related to opposition to reconciliation, or for all of the above. There will be much analysis coming from Australia. Here’s some lessons learned already. Don’t put marginalized peoples’ rights to a vote. It’s not up to popular opinion—rights are rights are rights. British Columbia attempted something similar in 2002: a vote on First Nations treaty rights. The eight questions were so "amateurish," according to Angus Reid, that it was clear the provincial government wanted to trash negotiations on First Nations treaty rights, despite many court cases clearly setting out the law. All sorts of groups boycotted the vote, from Jewish groups to Muslim groups, unions and churches. Don’t put the rights of the minority to a vote by the majority. It’s really kind of immoral. Very big-c Colonial. Has Canada learned this lesson? It appears conservative parties have not. Remember that Manitoba voted a couple of weeks ago in an election in which the rights of First Nations to clear and complete police investigations was put to a public vote. The province's Progressive Conservatives used racism as a ploy for votes, and we won’t forget. Should Canada have a recognized Indigenous voice to Parliament? We have treaties for First Nations and settled land claims for Inuit, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and UNDRIP in some stage of implementation, so we are in a different place than Australia, which has none of that. But the practice of relationship and reconciliation is a daily practice—we practice to include Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Indigenous Peoples depend on governments to include us, and uphold and protect our rights. We have structures and rights, but they are brought to life in the daily practice of inclusion. Inclusion doesn’t happen by accident—it happens by intention. Australia tried for the intention and the structure, and it only needed implementation. Canada has structure, but struggles on some days with implementation and intention. Come to think of it, perhaps the federal government could do better on the subject of communications on the inclusion of Indigenous people as a daily practice. Please put a mandatory question in every Question Period note: “how will this law/program/policy/issue uphold reconciliation, and include or impact on Indigenous Peoples?” Wouldn’t that be interesting. Rose LeMay is Tlingit from the West Coast and the CEO of the Indigenous Reconciliation Group. She writes twice a month about Indigenous inclusion and reconciliation. In Tlingit worldview, the stories are the knowledge system, sometimes told through myth and sometimes contradicting the myths told by others. But always with at least some truth. The Hill Times

Australia doubles down on colonization via a referendum

Indigenous Peoples in Australia and Canada share the experience of colonization: the majority making laws over the minority.

The future of emissions trading: can Canada come up with a business case for a ‘businessman-president’?

From coast to core: why Canada’s cities hold the answer to economic stability

It’s time for Canada to embrace its true identity as a North Pacific, Arctic, and North Atlantic power

We need a Team Canada approach to safeguarding our vital interests during the Trump presidency

A missed opportunity in the U.S. election

Our day to talk about the elimination of racism

This is what reconciliation looks like and it’s the Churchill Health Centre

The year 2023: reconciliation in review

Reconciliation is an empty word if Indigenous people are left in landfills

Australia grapples with reconciliation in bitter referendum debate

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Australia doubles down on colonization via a referendum

Indigenous Peoples in Australia and Canada share the experience of colonization: the majority making laws over the minority.

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter