YES or NO?

THE City of Fremantle wants to launch a three-month campaign to educate people about why they should vote ‘Yes’ for a First Nations Voice to Parliament.
Before FPOL on Wednesday, the City proposes to spend $35,000 to deliver on its commitment to the 2017 Uluru ‘statement from the heart’ and launch a campaign from May to July in support of the ‘Yes Alliance’, “through the provision of community education and awareness”.
However, doubts have been raised over the authenticity of the Uluru statement which legal and constitutional experts say was plagiarised from a 1975 ruling by the International Court of Justice related to people in the Western Sahara (https://ruleoflawaustralia.com.au/commentary/out-of-africa-uluru-statement-from-the-heart).
Legal affairs contributor to The Australian Chris Merritt has revealed the section that refers to sovereignty as a spiritual notion, “is not original and the real author was referring to Africans, not Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders”.
The primary author of that passage was Supreme Court lawyer in Zaire, Nicolas Bayona-Ba-Meya, whose submission to the court was picked up and incorporated in the 1975 ruling.
Merritt writes the link to the Uluru statement is outlined in a new book by Jesuit priest and human rights lawyer Frank Brennan (‘An Indigenous Voice to Parliament – Considering a Constitutional Bridge’).
He states the words in judge Fouad Ammoun’s 1975 ruling found their way to Australia in 1992 when they were reproduced in the High Court’s Mabo ruling overturning terra nullius; that Australia was an empty land owned by no-one.

Cultural appropriation?

Fr Brennan (opposite) is the author of the leading judgment in Mabo that first cites the jurisprudence of Ammoun and the International Court of Justice.
A key advocate for Indigenous advancement, Fr Brennan says an adapted version of the 1975 ruling found its way into the Uluru statement: “The similarity between Uluru and the passage in (the) judgment about the Western Sahara is uncanny.”
For example, in the third paragraph, the Uluru statement concludes that Indigenous sovereignty has never been ceded or extinguished and coexists with the sovereignty of the Crown.
Merritt says this is the only section of the Uluru statement that uses archaic forms of language: “Not many 21st century Aboriginal Australians use terms like therefrom, thereto and thither.”
He says with only superficial changes, the Uluru statement reproduces this entire passage, “right down to the colon after the first three words, without attribution to either the High Court, Ammoun or, more importantly, Bayona-Ba-Meya, who conceived of sovereignty as a spiritual concept”.
He says the only changes from Ammoun’s original wording are Uluru’s insertion of the words, ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’, instead of Ammoun’s reference, ‘the man’, and the subsequent reference to ‘our’ ancestors instead of ‘his’ ancestors.
Merritt concludes it is the power of Bayona-Ba-Meya’s original idea that underpins the Uluru statement: “He does not deserve to be airbrushed out of the history of a document that, until now, has been viewed by many Indigenous Australians as entirely homegrown.”
He says the High Court in Mabo showed that Bayona-Ba-Meya’s concept of sovereignty can have a legitimate impact beyond the Western Sahara, “so there is nothing wrong with including this man’s work in the Uluru statement”.
Merritt adds the fact that the ideas outlined in the Uluru statement are not entirely original is not a fatal flaw, but failing to acknowledge the source of the document leaves it vulnerable to the accusation of cultural appropriation.
“If the Uluru statement is to be taught in schools, children should be taught the truth; it is not entirely original and not entirely homegrown,” he said. “They should be taught that Uluru’s concept of sovereignty as a spiritual notion is the work of others and originally referred to Africans in the Western Sahara, not Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.”
The Uluru statement was adopted by more than 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates at the First Nations National Constitutional Convention at Uluru in May 2017. Council voted to support the Statement following a motion by Cr Rachel Pemberton in June 2018.
City officers state: “The City of Fremantle has a unique opportunity to continue its support and endorsement of the Uluru Statement from the Heart (Council endorsed 2018) in the lead up to the referendum. Through a range of programs and activations, the City can support the and ensure community are educated and aware of the subject prior to voting in the referendum.”
While the City is unlikely to accommodate any dissenters, it will be interesting to see whether these latest ‘truths’ are acknowledged at FPOL or by council. One can only assume that every ratepayer in Fremantle is voting ‘Yes’.
But are they?
Amendments to cat laws (meow), kiosks, dog exercise areas including fenced-off facilities at Hilton Park, AC/DC and proposed changes to Hampton Road also are on the agenda (www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/FPOL%20Agenda%208%20March%202023.pdf).