The Uluru Statement from the Heart. G'day I'm Martyn Iles and this
is 'The Truth of It'. Well the new government, the Albanese
government, says that we'll adopt the Uluru Statement from
the Heart, in full. Well, what does that mean? There's talk of
an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which is a new
institution created through an amendment to the Constitution.
That would require, of course, a constitutional referendum. A
majority of voters, in a majority of states, to get that
done. There's talk of, what they say, 'Makarrata' - I hope my
pronunciation is okay - which is a treaty, or multiple
treaties between the government and Indigenous peoples. That
would be pretty simple, by comparison. Parliament could
presumably do it, and presumably they could legislate the treaty
and create certain Indigenous rights. But then, there is
also the text of the Uluru Statement itself, which is
continually being referred to - the Uluru Statement from the
Heart... we're going to adopt that... It's very broad. It's
very imprecise. And so, I would like to, before getting to those
two key substantive points I just mentioned, - The Indigenous Voice,
the treaty - I'd like to examine the words of
the Statement, and pull out some of my thoughts from it.
I'll read the first bit. It says this: 'We, gathered at the 27 National
Constitutional' - sorry, '...the 2017 National Constitutional
Convention,' - which is where this Statement was made in 2017 -
'...coming from all points of the southern sky, make this
statement from the heart: 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.' I want to pause there, before I finish reading
this. And I want to pause there, because there's an aspect of
these Indigenous matters which gets insufficient attention, in
my view, and it is the spiritual aspect. There is a distinct
spirituality here. And spirituality is never ever
neutral. In fact, Christians must know that the most
significant thing about any issue is its spiritual quality.
And this Statement clearly asserts that it is a pagan
statement - and I use the term 'pagan', not as an insult, but in a
technical sense. Paganism is in defining the spiritual as
being in and of creation itself. And it is bold, if not bolder
than the spiritual preamble to the Constitution, which asserts that
we are - the people of the colonies at the time - were
humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God. Spiritual
frameworks are not neutral. Paganism is very real. Its
spirits are real. The realms into which it dabbles, are real.
Dreamtime spirituality is quite a serious thing, which I
think we just fail to take seriously. And we say, 'Oh well,
it's cultural and it's some kind of white supremacy to
speak against it, or to criticise that aspect.' Of course
it isn't - it's a spiritual issue. I know, not just in theory, but through
very revealing conversations that I've had with Indigenous
Christians, who have been tied up with all of this stuff, with
the Dreamtime spirits, the witch doctors, the animism,
and all that kind of stuff, more besides. I want Indigenous
people to be helped and advantaged, and it's precisely
why I have to critique this aspect of the culture.
And there's no harm in learning things from different cultures,
and I think this is one thing that we can
constructively say about Indigenous culture. A major
concern I have, therefore with some of the advocacy in this
space, is that in the name of cultural preservation, they
actually seek to keep Indigenous people in paganism,
and they treat, say other faiths, like particularly Christianity,
as some kind of 'colonial influence' to be to be repelled
and fought off. This is a spiritual fight, there. It's
quite real. And the reality is as well, that people
fail to acknowledge a huge number of Indigenous
communities have actually adopted Christianity and are
Christian communities. And as a side note, this is also why
people like me do find it difficult to get comfortable
with 'Welcome to Country' statements. It's why I've never
been able to bring myself to make one, and even though I
acknowledge the Indigenous heritage of Australia
and have no actual conceptual problem with it. But this
intrinsically pagan concept of spiritual land may well be
implied in 'Welcome to Country'. So, it's just not something
I've been able to do, and it's a bridge too far for me. Because
nothing spiritual is neutral. First John Four:
'Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to
see whether they are from God.' Anyway, let's continue with the
Statement to get into the substantive guts of it. It says,
'How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed the land
for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from
world history in merely the last two hundred years?' I think that's
possibly hyperbole. I mean, it's probably never been more
prominently asserted in history and society at large. The
education curriculum includes it every single year. Place
names, national days or 'Welcome to Country' as I've just talked
about, and so on. It's kind of ubiquitous. Anyway, they go
on: 'With substantive constitutional change and
structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can
shine through as a fuller expression of Australia's
nationhood. Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated
people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal
people. Our children are alienated from their families
at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no
love for them. And our youth languish and detention in
obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.'
Now here, finally we agree on something! I and the framers of
this thing [Statement], agree the condition of our Indigenous peoples right
now, is a dreadful thing. It demands our close attention, our
sincere efforts and it is not good, and it's not good enough.
Carrying on, 'These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the
structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of
our powerlessness. We seek constitutional reforms to
empower our people to take a right foot place in our own
country. When we have power over our destiny our children
will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture
will be a gift to their country.' They go on to
establish the First Nation's Voice to Parliament enshrined
in the Constitution. They go on to call for this Makarrata
Commission to supervise the process of a treaty. And then they
conclude, 'In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be
heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast
country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the
Australian people for a better future.' So, you can see the
notion that adopting this statement in full could mean a
lot of things. The declaration of Sovereignty, for
example, if that were to be seriously enacted in law... What
are the consequences? Well they're beyond measuring, so I can't
imagine that's going to happen. But then there's the spiritual
declaration. And I raise that because I think it might not be
the end of it. Is a statement pagan spirituality
going to appear in a constitutional amendment? I
sure hope not. That would be something that you'd have to
resist. There are two things which are clear in terms of
what this could mean however. First, is the Indigenous Voice -
It's in there. Second is the treaties. And that seems to be
where the politics of this is going. Regarding the Indigenous
Voice to Parliament - what that means is that you change the
Constitution, and currently the constitution defines three
limbs of government: Legislative, Judicial, Executive.
In the Legislative division, it then sets up the
House of Representatives and the Senate, the Parliament, and they
create laws. In the Judicial division it sets up the courts.
And in the Executive it vests executive power in the Queen,
exercised by the Governor General. And so the idea is to
make a new institution. You know, the House of Reps, the Senate,
and something else, in that Legislative limb which is an
Indigenous Voice - some kind of body populated by Indigenous
representatives, with some kind of office, and some
kind of influence, as yet undefined. That's the Indigenous
Voice. Then regarding the treaty or Macarratta - it could be one
of several treaties or it could be a single treaty. The content
is undefined. The mechanism is undefined. One could speculate
that the treaty might be enacted as a piece of
legislation which creates certain legal rights and
interests on the part of Indigenous groups vis-a-vis the
Federal Government. Now, I want the best for Indigenous
communities, and I want their lives to be better, and I want
real improvement in this area, and I sympathise with many of
the concerns that underly, some of the legitimate concerns
that underly some of those who look on this process with a
certain affection. But I gotta tell you, it makes me a little
nervous. And I'll explain to you why. It's not because of
the prospect of enhancing indigenous affairs. It is first
because I do not trust the people who would be putting
this together. Second, because I do not like division. And third,
because I think that the actual solutions to the problem are
far less grandiose. Far less political. Far less about votes
and institutions and Canberra, and they're much closer to the
ground, and they're much more coalface, and they're much
harder, and grittier, and longer term. Regarding my first
concern, trust... I don't trust these political types to avoid
smuggling in two agendas, and they are the two agendas of a
critical race theorists. First, to permanently divide people on
the basis of skin colour. Okay? Second, to implant some kind of
some kind of trouble, some kind of cancer, into an otherwise
good system, to corrupt it and to start to tear it apart long
term. That is their MO. That is how they work. They divide and
they are cancer, gnawing away at good things and bringing them
down. Look at the USA. This issue of race relations is
destroying the country, because of these critical race theorist
people. Look at South Africa. It's gotten into the
institutions and the culture, where it is destroying the
country. And here's the thing: Australia does not have a
cultural awareness of race relations in the same way as
other countries. Because we were, up until 10 years ago, and
probably still are, let's be honest, but it was even
better 10 years ago, the most successful multicultural
country on the face of the planet, and nobody cared about
race. But of course, that's not how the critical race theorists
work. That's not how they do their work. That's not how they
get their revolution rolling and start gnawing away at things
and dividing people up. This force, it needs a foothold.
That's why the recent education curriculum review saw critical
race theory implanted right across the curriculum. They
need footholds. And I think they're looking at this and
smacking their lips, and saying, 'Aha! Here's our chance!' And in fact they are. We
know they are. They're everywhere in politics. So
that's regarding trust. I don't trust this to be ideologically
pure, if I could put it that way, or free of ideological
baggage. Regarding division, this my second concern. Just to
note that division is a very powerful force in any society.
You saw, you know, just as an example, the hatred and contempt
which was unleashed on people who didn't want to get
vaccinated, when really we should have just got on with
life and said well there's a minority who will choose that,
and carried on. But that's not how it worked. The government set
out the dog whistle on division. Ah these people here
are no good. Now this is a different context, of course.
However, this is quite serious, in the sense that you are
splitting the government between racial groups. That's a
huge thing to do. It's a massive division to entrench.
That really concerns me. And the Referendum Council said
that this was important because Indigenous people make up only
3% of the population, and find it hard to have a say on issues
of concern to them. I think that's very simplistic.
You know, currently 4.5% of the current
Parliamentarians are Indigenous. And most of them
come from parts of the country with higher Indigenous populations, so
they're representing the community in the Parliament
that already exists. And the system operates actually, with a
full knowledge that, you know, you can break down society into
an infinite number of politically relevant identity
groups, and you're never going to have perfect
representation of every single one of those groups. So the
system is set up to accommodate that. And that's why, in the law
making process, you will find that the
various interest groups and peoples that laws
affect are consulted. Their consultation is recorded, and it
is integrated squarely into the law-making process. That's a
huge aspect of the entire work of Parliament. That's why
groups like ACL exists. We go in there and talk from the
Christian perspective. And I must say, the Christian perspective
is pretty soundly ignored a lot of the time. But other groups
don't have that problem, especially Indigenous groups.
And so, I just say look, there is already a Parliament
operating for all. I'd kind of rather focus on, you know,
working that out nicely, rather than a new body that that gives
this kind of two-stream government or divides the
government on race grounds. That's a huge deal from
division perspective in a culture. We are one race.
You know, we've gotta be clear about that. Thirdly, my third
concern, because the actual solutions are far less
grandiose. They're close to the ground. They are unglamorous.
They're not up in the clouds, winning votes, in political
slogans. There are Indigenous communities who want to
self-determine, who want to get ahead, who make a better life
for their children. And I say that not just as a bystander. I
say that because I've actually been to some of them, and I've
spent a lot of time speaking at length with elders and so forth
in these communities, and I've organised support for some of
the people who are working very closely with them, day in and
day out, on a long, slow road to a better life, and a better
community. And I take my hat off to those people, who are there
doing the hard work. And there are people. But, you know what
hits me? And what did hit me, with each, particularly on a
trip I did in November 2020, I think it was. When I spoke
to Indigenous elders in a community that really did want
to get ahead, and had a plan for its future and economic
independence... do you know that they told me? They told me that
the government was their problem. They told me
overwhelmingly, that the government wouldn't let them do
what they needed to do. That it was a bog of regulation, which
was stifling everything in red tape. And they told me story,
after story, which would put your hair on-end in terms of
this mess of corruption - that is the government institutions which are
administering Indigenous affairs - and it's because they're so
full of money. They don't know what to do with it, and money
like a honeypot attracts bees, and will attract corruption. And
the stories would put the most dysfunctional developing
country to shame, in terms of corruption. And these people are
infantilised on leashes. They don't even own their own land.
The land's council owns it, which is not the same as
the people owning it. And they're on a leash, and their
dependency is entrenched and they can't break
free of it. They tell me that the government is the
problem. And the things that I saw, if that stuff was
happening in major cities to influential people, it would be
all over the news. But it's hidden in the outback. And these
communities, they want to do better, and they need support to
do better, and they need support however, not from bureaucracy,
but from people who care. These communities need, frankly
missionary types - those who are on the ground, living a life of
sacrifice, with a heart for the welfare of the people, and the
necessary connections to get the help that those people need to
advance. Then, they need to be given the freedom to pursue
what they need to pursue, and they need to be allowed to take
responsibility for their destiny, free from the shackles
of government bureaucracy, rules, law making, and frankly,
corruption. The government needs to let good people do
good things. It needs to incentivise them if possible.
We need a generation of people who are prepared to go
into Indigenous communities and do the personal work of help.
The hard, the gritty, the long term, the slow work. You know,
as missionaries used to do. That was a big part of what they
did. I'm not saying it should be the same, but I'm saying
something like that. And that's what hits me, when I go to these
communities. I'm encouraged, so encouraged, by how many good
people are doing good things in these parts of the world. But
I'm also discouraged by the overbearing presence of
government regulation and ineptitude. So, the problem is
possibly more top heavy than the solution is more bottom heavy.
And we're getting that pretty wrong here. Finally, before I
close, if we are really trying to find a baseline from which
to advance all of this... If we're really trying to find a
way to reset the relationship, to start afresh with a right
view of things and a vision... there is one solution
only. And it's the radical Christian idea which changes
everything, which changed the world. It is forgiveness. Both
Indigenous culture and the modern west need to learn
something from Jesus. And I say 'and the modern west', because we've
forgotten this as well. Forgiveness. To quote Psalm 103,
'You have not dealt with us according to our sins, nor
rewarded us according to our iniquities. But as high as the
heavens are above the earth, so great is Your mercy towards
those who fear You. As far as the east is from the west, so
far have you removed our transgressions from us.'
You know, how else could we ever relate to God, in any way, except
that He utterly and totally forgive, and wipe out the
transgression, and put the past to one side and start a new?
The fact is we absolutely couldn't. Hence we're
commanded. 'Forgive as God in Christ forgave you.' That's the
secret. But if we're doing it, we no longer need a sorry
day. Sorry has been said. The overwhelming majority, indeed
surely all of the nation, want to move forward, and
want to make things right, and look to a better day. But if
we're doing that through the lens of recompense for wrongs,
it will never be enough, because the wrongs are too grave. If
we're doing that a lens of trying to undo the past, it
will never work, because the past happened. And this is the
power of forgiveness. Otherwise, it will be sorry, every year. And
striving and endless despondency. Imagine running
any other relationship like that. Imagine running a
marriage like that! Sorry day. Apologising afresh on the
anniversary of a wrongdoing, every single year. It'd be
toxic. The marriage would fall apart. It wouldn't work. It
doesn't work. Forgiveness is the missing ingredient. It's
time to forgive, and yes to forget, on all sides, and just
live in unity as one people, together. Because I think we all
want to. The goodwill exists but agendas, and frankly, all
this political malarkey, gets in the way.