The "Uluru statement from the heart"

 is a very emotional and also a very political document. Some of the issues raised in it need to be addressed.  They may not get addressed before the proposed referendum takes place but they will still need to be addressed at some point. If you read yesterday's blog post then you may have noticed a number of things both mentioned and not mentioned in it. There are also some assumptions made. It is a document which should be discussed,  perhaps even challenged, before the referendum takes place. 

The word "aboriginal" is not defined in it but there is talk "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People", of "tribes" and "our people". There is also talk of a "First Nations Voice" and a claim that ownership of the land "has never been ceded or extinguished". Who are these people? Is there any sort of "First Nation"? Who "owns" the land?

The definition of "aboriginal"needs to be addressed. It is going to be very difficult to do but if the referendum succeeds then the election of people to the Voice is going to need to come to terms with this. There will need to be a decision about just who is going to be eligible to vote for the representatives on it and why those chosen as representatives are going to be eligible. This is not a problem which has had to be faced in the past because people have generally been appointed or invited to be part of whichever organisation they work with. More recently there has been talk of people who "box tick" - people who may or may not have aboriginal ancestry but, if they do, it is so far in the past it is difficult to suggest they are at some sort of disadvantage from it. The "our people" mentioned in the Statement cannot be allowed to rely on self-identification or even "acceptance" if they are there to represent an extraordinarily diverse group of people generally lacking in any sort of cohesiveness. 

"First Nations" is a recent term in this country. Although used in the Statement" it is actually not a term which can be applied to aboriginal people here. There were no "nations". There were at least more than 800 tribes. Some were connected with other tribes in their area but many more had not only nothing to do with one another but were not even aware of their existence. Their languages, stories and cultural practices were (and still are) so different that they are not a single cohesive group. There is often surprise expressed that stories and beliefs about "the Dreamtime", cultural practices and ways of life are not the same across the entire continent. How could they be? 

In some areas relationships between tribal groups are such that they still have nothing to do with one another. Where an indigenous language is spoken it is often not recognised or understood by others. What is acceptable in some areas is not acceptable in others. Representing such a disparate group is so difficult that repeated attempts in the past have failed, especially when more outspoken people have tried to impose their ideas on groups that may not even acknowledge one another.

Who "owns" the land? This is a very difficult issue.  In 1992 the High Court recognised that the Meriam people had ownership of an island of an island in the Torres Strait. In doing so they also acknowledged that native title existed for all indigenous people. The decision does not mean that aboriginal people suddenly owned all land. It does not mean that "native title" overrides all other titles. If the referendum is successful however then is there a potential for the Voice to argue that some sort of uneasy co-ownership of all land allows the to make representations about a much wider range of issues than intended?

It is not possible to answer these questions, or many others. What we need to recognise is that the idea of a Voice is not a simple one. So, what are we being asked to do?