The Voice and the Constitution

In 1901 it was just assumed that the colonial system would remain, and the Governor General would require the approval of the British Monarch to be appointed. Until the appointment of Richard Casey in 1965 (with the one, at the time controversial, exception of Sir Isaac Isaacs (1931-1936)) it was assumed that our Governor General would be some minor British aristocrat.

The other issue, that is currently in debate, is that of recognition of the Indigenous people who have developed a rich culture over 60,000 years and who still suffer from colonisation.

In the original Constitution the Federal Government was specifically excluded from making laws for Indigenous Australians. In the Legislative Powers of the Parliament Sub section 26 originally read that the Federal Parliament could make laws for:

The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race, in any State for whom it is deemed necessary to make laws

The phrase 'other than the Aboriginal race' was removed through the 1967 Referendum as was the whole of Section 127:

In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.

In the 1967 Referendum the majority of Australians (91% overall and, as in the 1945 referendum, a Yes vote in all the States) accepted these changes to the Constitution. However, a by-product of removing 'aboriginal' was that of removing any mention of Indigenous Australians and their history in the Constitution.

To treat the passing of this Referendum as some threat to the Constitution is a failure to see the Constitution as a living document. If the Referendum is passed, some Constitutional complexities may be discovered, but that has always been the role of the High Court to resolve.

I see this Referendum as an opportunity to make an 'imperfect' document less imperfect and more representative of our Nation.