Changing the Australian Constitution is very difficult. A national referendum is required for any amendments, which require a majority vote in a majority of states for success.  Since 1901, only eight referenda have passed, from 44 proposals.

As a result, constitutional change is not lightly entertained by any government. High political risks are involved, particularly as the electorate is inherently conservative when it comes to amending the nation’s foundation document (read the Constitution).

Recently a group of eminent Australians completed a year-long investigation into proposals to formally recognise the place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution. Unlike the New Zealand Maoris who negotiated the treaty of Waitangi in 1840 (see this link), Australia’s indigenous people have faced a hard and stony road in legal recognition.

The 1967 referendum sought to have indigenous people recognised in the census, and also enabled the Commonwealth to make laws for indigenous people in the States. Recognition in the census was a major symbolic victory, passing in all six states and receiving 90.77% of the vote. However, it was not until the 1990s that the historic Mabo and Wik decisions of the High Court helped correct historical injustices in relation to land ownership and rights.

The ‘You Me Unity’ Project handed down its report in January this year after an extensive and lengthy consultation across the Australian community. The Expert Panel made several recommendations, including insertion of a new clauses giving specific recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the recognition of indigenous languages, and amendments to remove racial discrimination.

These are important matters of justice. Formal recognition of indigenous Australians is long overdue. These proposals deserve our full support, and that of the churches.

However, the proposals dealing with current ‘race’ provisions with the Constitution are more controversial and their reception has been lukewarm. Further dialogue and analysis is needed on the wider implications of these suggestions and their potential scope. These amendments could be a good way forward but more discussion is needed. In the interests of national unity and guaranteeing bi-partisan support, the Government may opt for the recognition amendments rather than adopting all the Expert Panel’s recommendations.

It would be a day of national joy to see the passage of these historic amendments to the Constitution, representing a measure of justice after nearly 224 years of white settlement. Let’s pray for that day.