The Voice - Uluru Statement

The Uluru Statement Promotes a Rival Worldview, and Christians Must Vote No

5 October 2023

4.9 MINS

Some remain uncertain about what the Voice to Parliament referendum means. For Christians, there is no need for uncertainty. The Uluru Statement from the Heart makes the issue crystal clear.

The question facing Australians on October 14 is formally about the Voice to Parliament.

But the Voice has not emerged from a vacuum. It must be understood in the context in which it was forged: the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The statement has been conscientiously crafted, and its words carefully considered. Voice campaigner Thomas Mayo says:

“The Uluru Statement… we’ve actually done the hard work to propose something very specific.”

The Uluru Statement is structured around a story, which is key to unlocking its meaning.

Revealingly, its story and the worldview expressed through that story bear some uncanny similarities to the biblical one. In four-part categories akin to the biblical worldview of Creation – Fall – Redemption – Restoration, the Uluru Statement has Indigenous Sovereignty – British Sovereignty – Treaty – Indigenous Sovereignty.

  Biblical Worldview Uluru Statement (Cultural Marxist) Worldview
Ideal Beginning Very Good Creation Very Good Indigenous Sovereignty
Problem Sin Loss of Indigenous Sovereignty to the British
Solution Redemption: Payment for Sin Reparation: Payment for Loss of Sovereignty
Restoration of Ideal Beginning Sin Removed; Very Good Creation Restored Very Good Indigenous Sovereignty Restored


An Edenic Past

The Uluru Statement paints a picture that life for Indigenous people was ideal before 1788. When Indigenous people had “sovereignty”, “Our songlines covered vast distances, uniting peoples in shared stories and religion.” Here, it is implied that the Aboriginal animist religion was wholly good and brought unity across the continent.

Conspicuously absent is any mention of facts that might call this pristine beginning into question, such as inner-tribal conflict and inter-tribal warfare. There’s no room for the thoughts of Tim Flannery, who wrote of “bloody disputes” that were a devasting “feature of… Aboriginal society.”

The Uluru Statement paints an amazingly naïve picture. But that naïve picture is essential in order for the Uluru Statement’s metanarrative to work.

The Problem: Loss of Sovereignty Through Colonialisation

Having set up this pristine beginning, the Uluru Statement can now present what has gone terribly wrong: the arrival of the British beginning in 1788 which “ruptured” that “sovereignty”.

When the Uluru Statement claims “sovereignty is a spiritual notion”, it does not mean this has no earthly bearing. For someone steeped in a modernistic worldview that pits the sacred (if it even exists) against the secular, this point could be easily missed.

Indigenous people do not think in secular, modernistic categories. Nor should they. After all, the Bible’s own storyline is one in which the physical and spiritual intertwine and cannot be segregated.

The Uluru Statement, after declaring a spiritual sovereignty, immediately connects it to “the land”. It puts “the long struggle for land rights and recognition of native title” at “the heart of our activism”. It makes the “taking of our land without consent… our fundamental grievance against the British Crown.”

The Uluru Statement’s authors apparently believe that everything bad in Indigenous communities can be blamed on colonialism with its corresponding theft of Indigenous sovereignty. It lists some of these problems such as high rates of incarceration, youth detention, and alienation of children from families.

The Uluru Statement is, of course, absolutely right in stating that there is nothing “innately criminal” about Indigenous people. The Bible is clear that sinfulness is universal (Rom 3:23).

But then the Uluru Statement makes the following move: “These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem.” The “structural nature” explicitly refers to the “powerlessness” caused by 1788.

The Uluru Statement uses classic cultural Marxist language. Cultural Marxism is an atheistic philosophy that views life as a power struggle between the ‘oppressed’ and the ‘oppressors’. The Uluru Statement wholeheartedly endorses this worldview and segregates “old and new Australians” into those two categories, respectively. Revealingly, ‘power’ language typical of Marxist thought is scattered throughout the document.

That’s why the Uluru Statement believes that until the ‘power imbalance’ between ‘oppressed’ and ‘oppressor’ is rectified, Indigenous people have no hope of positive change. ‘Closing the gap’ will be impossible.

The Uluru Statement explicitly makes this case. It states that “[only] when we have power over our destiny [will] our children will flourish.”

It is crucial to understand that the authors do not believe in the biblical concept of sin. People are good creatures, so bad behaviour must be blamed on oppressive societal structures.

Further, if animist religion is good and if it unified Indigenous people, then it follows that Christianity is part of the evil system that ruptured the idyllic Indigenous world. Christianity must be cast off if Indigenous people are to re-establish their original selves. The Uluru Statement doesn’t overtly say this but its Marxist logic undeniably implies it.

The Solution: Redemption through Treaty (Makarrata)

The Uluru Statement defines its goal, “the culmination of our agenda”, as treaty (Makarrata).

As for what treaty or treaties will involve, constitutional law expert and Uluru Statement co-author Professor Megan Davis puts it clearly:

“Treaties are legal texts… Treaties are about reparations for past injustice and they are about land and they are about resources.”

“Treaties are foundational constitutional agreements between First Nations and the State, and they do involve a redistribution of political power.”

The biblical word ‘redemption’ means “To pay a price in order to secure the release of something or someone.”[1]

The Uluru Statement doesn’t use the word ‘redemption’. But it does use ‘reparation’ which has the very similar meaning of a “payment for harm, loss, or damage that has been caused”.

Both words centre on the idea of ‘payment’.

The idea of reparation is most necessary in the Uluru Statement. Sovereignty (land, power, etc.) was lost through violent and illegal dispossession. The price for that transgression must be paid. Without such, no resolution is possible.

In Christianity, individuals look to the Saviour, Jesus Christ, who makes payment for sin. Under Marxism, individuals must look to the State to pay reparations for past injustice. Jesus is replaced by the State.

The Resolution: Restoration of Sovereignty

Once “the structural nature of our problem” is resolved through treaty, it will allow “First Nations to express our sovereignty”. The regained sovereignty will constitute a restoration to pre-1788 ‘Edenic’ conditions.

The Uluru Statement envisages that with “substantive constitutional change and structural reform”, “two sovereignties [can] co-exist”. Indigenous sovereignty, as already mentioned, means “ownership of the soil”.

This is effectively a ‘two-state solution’ where the prior (Indigenous) sovereignty enjoys supremacy, being given a special seat at the table to vet legislation. This conclusion seems logically unavoidable. If the Australian continent “always has been and always will be” Aboriginal land, then the second sovereignty involving people whose ancestry dates from 1788 onwards will always be on land not truly theirs.

The Cultural Marxist Worldview of the Uluru Statement is an Antognistic Competitor to the Biblical Worldview

The logic of the Uluru Statement is tightly and carefully woven. Once you accept its assumptions and worldview, its conclusions logically follow.

What was lost at the fall of Indigenous sovereignty through diabolical British colonialism can be regained once more through the striking of a treaty between two sovereign states.

The Uluru Statement’s worldview is false. It fabricates an ‘Edenic’ history and promises a false future. Like all prior Marxist ambitions, its chance of bringing about utopia is zero, while its likelihood of causing division and wreaking havoc is certain.

A vote for the Voice is a vote for the Uluru Statement. And a vote for the Uluru Statement is a vote for cultural Marxism.

And that is something that every Christian should unashamedly reject.


[1] Stan Norman, “Redeem, Redemption, Redeemer,” in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Chad Brand et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1370.


Photo: Wikimedia Commons

We need your help. The continued existence of the Daily Declaration depends on the generosity of readers like you. Donate now. The Daily Declaration is committed to keeping our site free of advertising so we can stay independent and continue to stand for the truth.

Fake news and censorship make the work of the Canberra Declaration and our Christian news site the Daily Declaration more important than ever. Take a stand for family, faith, freedom, life, and truth. Support us as we shine a light in the darkness. Donate now.


  1. Emmy 5 October 2023 at 8:43 am - Reply

    Thank you Samuel, I don’t see anything positive or good coming out of this situation if the constitution is changed. I can only foresee division, anger, unhappiness, frustration and hatred towards Aboriginal people. The activist class seem to forget that there are many more people of European descent and immigrants in this country than there are people with Aboriginal descent and they may find themselves with a major battle on their hands if they think they are going to seek reparations especially in the form of land grabs. I don’t see people just happily going along with it. I’m concerned that people may naively vote ‘yes’ now but may quickly regret that decision in the not too distant future when Pandora’s box is opened!

    • Samuel Hartwich 12 October 2023 at 9:32 am - Reply

      Thanks Emmy!

  2. Paul Newell 5 October 2023 at 9:03 am - Reply

    Thank you Samuel. Sad that this has not not been widely available for the last 5 years or so. Whether the churches that now support the “voice” would have been alive to discernment is another subject.

    • Samuel Hartwich 12 October 2023 at 9:32 am - Reply

      Thanks Paul, yes the meaning and intent of the Uluru Statement must be carefully thought through by everyone before the referendum. It’s the the last few months that the full Uluru Statement came to prominence. It was in the 2017 Referendum Council Report, but few take the time to shift through government web pages.

  3. Judy 5 October 2023 at 10:55 am - Reply

    Thank you for this clear and logical expose’ of the intent of the Uluṟu statement and its Cultural. Marxism … praying for our nation and voting NO

    • Samuel Hartwich 12 October 2023 at 9:33 am - Reply

      Thanks Judy!

  4. Peter Pearce 5 October 2023 at 1:08 pm - Reply

    Samuel, you’ve hit the nail on the head with your perspective on the Uluru Statement and its implications. This movement toward cultural Marxism, particularly in the realm of indigenous rights, isn’t an isolated incident but rather a global phenomenon. It’s worth noting that the United Nations, through its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), emphasizes the importance of recognizing and upholding the rights of indigenous peoples, as outlined in Goal 10, which seeks to “reduce inequality within and among countries.”

    We’ve witnessed similar movements in countries like New Zealand, where the Maori are pushing for greater rights and recognition, and in Canada, with the ongoing First Nations movements and treaties. Other nations, such as the United States with Native American rights and Bolivia with its indigenous-majority government, are also grappling with how to integrate indigenous voices into the modern framework.

    The global pattern is clear. While the underlying grievances of indigenous groups can be legitimate, the solutions proposed often lean heavily into cultural Marxist ideologies. This approach tends to perpetuate divisions, classifying groups as ‘oppressed’ and ‘oppressors,’ and often overlooks the complexities of each country’s unique history and the nuances of individual relationships.

    Furthermore, the implications of such an approach on Christianity, as you’ve pointed out, can be concerning. Christianity promotes unity, forgiveness, and reconciliation. In stark contrast, the cultural Marxist approach, as demonstrated by the Uluru Statement, tends to further divide and segregate, often vilifying one group for past wrongs while pushing for a potentially unrealistic utopia.

    • Samuel Hartwich 12 October 2023 at 9:36 am - Reply

      Hi Peter, “The global pattern is clear. While the underlying grievances of indigenous groups can be legitimate, the solutions proposed often lean heavily into cultural Marxist ideologies.” Spot on! As well as the comments where cultural Marxism segregates people into groups and attributes group guilt and innocence.

  5. Countess Antonia Maria Violetta Scrivanich 5 October 2023 at 6:01 pm - Reply

    A wonderful article which explains the Marxist Deceit which is being perpetrated on kind-hearted but unthinking Australians who have swallowed “Guilt”—hook , line and sinker ! The West has not heeded Solzhenitsyn’s 1975-1976 “Warning to the West “. We thought Communism was a spent force . Not so! The Australian Communist Party (1972 ) ,headquartered in Victoria, has infiltrated for decades our universities, attacked Christianity and formented public disrupture. Now , they are coming in for “the Kill “, to divide us with this Constitutional Amendment which is nothing but a Power Grab, etc. Indigenous Australians were never a united, sovereign nation who had common laws which covered all the 200 or more tribes which spoke different languages and engaged in tribal warfare. It is FICTIONAL NONSENSE !
    How can they have a Treaty with Australia when in 1788 they had not a united, sovereign country , etc? I reject their Marxist Philosophy and attack on my freedom of speech and Christian Religion which they want to silence us with Censorship ( Misinformation Law ) and replace with Animist Beliefs which include sorcery (“Pointing the Bone “, etc ! )
    NO country in the world has amended its Constitution to give such exclusive power to its Indigenous population. We will be the first in the English-speaking country to succumb to Marxist Rule where we will be Second Class citizens liable for prosecution if we complain and don’t pay up reparations . WAKE Up Australia !

    • Samuel Hartwich 12 October 2023 at 9:36 am - Reply

      Thanks for your comments!

  6. Jim Twelves 7 October 2023 at 9:44 am - Reply

    Sam, many thanks for this. I agree 100% with your thesis. May I add a further thought – why has this issue arisen now? Some will say it has been coming for a few generations, perhaps, but why is it coming to the head now?
    I think it is a perfect scenario for for the left to ‘blind the eyes’ of the people to the real agenda of the woke left, the dismantling of the Judeo-Christian foundation upon which our civilization is built.
    I too call on all Christians and Jews to stand against this attack seeing it for what it is. Its not a simple constitutional amendment, it is as real as WWI and WWII ever were.

    • Samuel Hartwich 12 October 2023 at 9:39 am - Reply

      Good question Jim. Certainly, identity politics has come to prominence in recent years, and this would have helped the push for it. And I agree that unless you are aware of it, it can easily slip under the radar.

  7. Warwick Marsh 12 October 2023 at 11:45 pm - Reply

    Great article bro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave A Comment

Recent Articles:

Use your voice today to protect

Faith · Family · Freedom · Life



The Daily Declaration is an Australian Christian news site dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific. The opinions of our contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of The Daily Declaration. Read More.