There is a line in the Uluru Statement that says:
“With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.”
In this post, I will write about what “substantive constitutional change” means.
Substantive:
One of the meanings of the word substantive is: considerable – serious, big or significant.
But another meaning is: Of, or relating to the substance of a thing.
Substantial => Substance. Makes sense!
Constitutional:
The other word here is constitutional. This can mean one of two different things;
- One is that it is to do with the Commonwealth of Australia Contitution Act. This is a DOCUMENT, that is sometimes described as “Australia’s birth certificate”. This is also called the Big “C” constitution.
- Another meaning of the word constitution is the MAKE-UP OF SOMETHING. Australia is made up of a federation of colonies that call themselves “States”. If the fundamental make-up of Australia would change, but without changing the words on the “birth certificate” – that would still be a “constitutional change”. This is also called Small “C” constitution.
What is “substantive constititional change”
Put this together – “substantive constititional change” could mean a couple of different things.
- It could mean a big overhaul of the Constitution Act, as in the document. A significant re-writing of the “birth certificate” document.
- It could also mean a change to the substance of the make-up of Australia.
Pretty much everyone is being misled to believe that it is a change to the Constitution ACT – the birth certificate. But it isn’t. No one’s putting forward any suggestions as to what to put in a significant re-write.
The Uluru Statement asks for a fundamental change to the federation, to the make-up of Australia itself.
It substantially changes the federation by retrospectively adding a FIRST NATIONS STATE as a landless, seventh state.
“First Nations” are sovereigns of the soil, and by retrospectively becoming part of the federation of Australia, First Nations will replace the sovereignty of the British Crown as the source of authority on which Australia and it’s institutions run. This is what the second part of this line the Uluru Statement is referring to when it says:
“this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood”
This does not need any change to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. To add a new state (or in this case, retrospectively recognise a First Nations state, pretending like it was always there) does not need a change to the words of the Constitution Act. It can be enacted through a declaration. In this case, this will be done by the Declaration of Recognition, part of the reforms that no one talks about.
The Referendum
Another thing to note is that the word “referendum” DOES NOT APPEAR in The Uluru Statement. It appears in the “OUR STORY” annex to the Uluru Statement in the Referendum Council Final Report, but only in reference to the 1967 referendum. THE ULURU STATEMENT DOES NOT ASK FOR A REFERENDUM! The Referendum Council recommended a referendum – but that is just that – merely a recommendation.
It is not the referendum that we need to worry about.
They will continue with the circus show – arguing over whether the Voice should “be enshrined” first, or the Agreement-making, blah blah blah…. The Voice-Treaty-Truth order doesn’t matter – because THERE IS NO ORDER! Read the Referendum Council Final Report – it does not ask for any particular order! The arguing over the order is just to drum up controversy and press.
More circuses/drama is drummed up over how such-n-such politician, or such-n-such party is bad because they want to co-design a voice first (even though the Referendum Council Final Report specifically asks for that!), or such-n-such is bad because they don’t call a referendum yesterday.
Don’t be distracted by the circus!
HOW TO STOP THE ULURU STATEMENT
If we want to protect Aboriginal sovereignty – we need to listen to Tony Abbott!
Tony Abbott said:
“The first thing is that we’ve got to come up with some words, an amendment that is meaningful for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders. It’s got to speak to, it’s got to sing to them, OTHERWISE THEY’LL WASH THEIR HANDS OF IT”
Abbott said this because he knows – that’s how we have the power to stop any government-engineered reforms. By WASHING OUR HANDS OF IT!
So wash your hands of everything that the Statement asks for.
- No Treaty from the government. This includes anything called “agreement making”, and treaty with State governments.
- No Truthtelling from the government. Government can “tell the truth” if they want. You can continue to stand in the truth – just don’t take special govt money to do it.
- No Voice. Boycott it!
Boycott until the government admits that it’s failed, and is off the table.
Note also this. There are many people and organisations that are actively PUSHING us towards at least one of these elements of Voice/Agreement Making/Truth – even those who pretend they are against the Uluru Statement. Eg. “We don’t want to be in the constitution, we want a Treaty”. If a treaty is made while the Uluru Statement is still on the table – the treaty will be what’s called an Instrument of Accession, and any terms that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people negotiate will be only enforceable domestically. It will be a GAMMON TREATY. There can be no proper treaty with any Australian government until the Uluru Statement is ABOLISHED.