Voice to parliament: migrant and refugee groups reject ‘divisive’ no campaign proposal for constitutional recognition

The nation’s peak body representing culturally diverse communities has criticised the voice to parliament no campaign’s push for constitutional recognition of migrants as “offensive” and “divisive”, saying they never asked for or discussed such a possibility.

Warren Mundine, a leading organiser of the no campaign, said on Sunday the campaign would propose symbolic constitutional recognition of Indigenous people and migrants through a new preamble, via another referendum. This approach was previously rejected by multiple rounds of consultation including the 2017 Uluru statement from the heart, which called for a voice to parliament.

“We’re talking with the migrant community as well … It’s about recognition of all the people who have come to Australia, who have been here first and how we built this great country of ours,” Mundine said.

But Carlo Carli, the chair of Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia (Fecca), the peak body representing people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, said constitutional recognition for migrants was an interesting concept but a “red herring” in this context, and he would oppose “pitting ethnic communities against our First Nations people”.

Carli said Fecca supported the voice and the Uluru statement, and called Mundine’s proposal “surprising”.

“We had a major conference last year, 800 delegates from ethnic communities around the country, and the endorsement was for the voice,” he said. “There was nothing about adding migrants to the constitution.

“We’ve gone to our membership and there’s no dissent here. Everyone wants it to happen. As an organisation, we are allies of the constitutional change.”

He said Fecca would engage in education and information campaigns for the voice, to inform migrants of the context around the referendum and Indigenous constitutional recognition.

“I do see a political risk, that a lot of newcomers aren’t aware of the conditions and history of First Nations rights in this country, and the need to have that debate in this context,” Carli said.

“The risk is not that people are oppositional, but are not aware of the context and can be diverted into rabbit holes that aren’t relevant and a distraction.”

The main yes campaign organisation, From The Heart, declined to comment.

Fecca’s chief executive, Mohammad Al-Khafaji, tweeted: “We never asked for migrants to be recognised in the constitution.”

“Trying to wedge migrant communities on the referendum by using that as an argument not only won’t work, but it’s offensive to our community’s intelligence.

“This is not being done in good faith and it’s divisive.”

Sign up to Guardian Australia’s Morning Mail

Our Australian morning briefing email breaks down the key national and international stories of the day and why they matter

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The chief executive of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and a refugee advocate, Kon Karapanagiotidis, said his organisation strongly supported the voice.

“I would never support trying to parachute migrants and refugees into a really important conversation, where we should be led by First Nations people, about justice, recognition, and what treaty could look like,” he said.

“That shouldn’t be conflated with refugee and migrant issues, I find that disrespectful and cynical … migrants and refugees are very much allies of First Nations people.”

Former Coalition Indigenous Australians minister Ken Wyatt proposed symbolic recognition in 2019. Uluru dialogue co-chair Prof Megan Davis wrote in 2020 that symbolic “recognition is not enough” and was “weak because it does not change the status quo”.

Anne Twomey, a constitutional law expert at the University of Sydney and referendum advisory group member, said adding a preamble was “problematic” for numerous reasons, noting consistent rejection by Indigenous Australians but also that it would be unlikely to change outcomes for First Nations people – which has been a key criticism of the voice from opponents.

“It’s peculiar [the no campaign] is saying put something symbolic into the constitution, but also saying symbolism isn’t enough and that the voice won’t solve problems in the lives of Indigenous Australians,” Twomey said.

“There’s a deal of contradiction from the no campaign, saying they only want symbolic recognition but also saying they want substantial answers and not symbolism. That’s hard to reconcile.”