Discover more from Dylan Storer
Wait, shouldn't a voice come before a republic?
I don't think a republic will be on the agenda until there is a referendum on the Uluru Statement's voice to Parliament.
The Australian Republic Movement (ARM)is treating the campaign for a republic as if it is in a vacuum, far away from any constitutional reform on First Nations issues.
The only mention of First Nations people in the ARM's policy document is about the potential for a symbolic preamble of recognition but that significant consultation would have to take place.
First Nations people have made it pretty clear what constitutional reform they want and it’s a voice to parliament, not a mention in a preamble.
When you compare the ARM's policy to the movement for a voice to parliament, the political will is currently more aligned with the latter.
Labor has said they'll prioritise a referendum on the voice in their first term, the Liberals are led by a monarchist.
If the ARM is choosing this time, when there is a growing movement behind a voice, to push their substantially limited constitutional reform there is a risk of crowding the field and muddying the conversation.
Removing the monarchy from our government and having a voice to parliament are both tied to moving away from our colonial story and moving toward a more inclusive and better future, why the ARM is deciding to push a model of a republic that is without significant reform for First Nations people is a question only they can answer.
The denial of First Nations sovereignty was the underpinning characteristic of colonisation & empire.
Can we really cut ties with the monarchy if the constitution still denies a First Nations voice?
While these issues go unaddressed, is keeping the monarchy at least more honest?