PM must tear up any thoughts of a treaty

PRIME Minister Tony Abbott reopened debate about recognition of Aboriginal Australians in the Australian Constitution when he chose Australia Day to reiterate his government's commitment to preparing a draft of a formal wording by September.

PRIME Minister Tony Abbott reopened debate about recognition of Aboriginal Australians in the Australian Constitution when he chose Australia Day to reiterate his government's commitment to preparing a draft of a formal wording by September. He promised that the agreed wording would then be debated, saying: "We have to be comfortable with it as a nation - black and white Australians, old and new Australians. Australians from everywhere have to be comfortable with it and they have got to appreciate that this will be and should be a unifying moment and when that time comes that's when it should be put to the people." Undoubtedly, most Australians would probably feel relatively comfortable with the inclusion in the Constitution of a bald acknowledgment that, yes, the land mass we call Australia was inhabited at the time of European settlement in 1788. Unfortunately, that is not what the noisy minority, or even Abbott's chief adviser on Aboriginal affairs, Warren Mundine want. The activist rabble, exemplified by the mob that rioted outside Canberra's Lobby restaurant on Australia Day, 2012, inflamed in part by false information delivered by a staffer in former Prime Minister Julia Gillard's office, is most unlikely to be content with an unvarnished factual statement. Mundine has already called for a treaty between the Commonwealth and "each Aboriginal nation", with the treaties circumventing native title cases. A more pragmatic position has been put by Noel Pearson, an altogether more grounded Aboriginal leader, who has urged for progress on practical reforms in Aboriginal affairs to win support for constitutional recognition for Aborigines. "Without real demonstrable traction on the practical agenda, the symbolic reform will face sceptical Australians, black and white. A narrative that explains the relationship between the symbolic and the practical will be needed." The issue of Constitutional recognition was first raised by former Prime Minister John Howard in 2007 when he indicated that he was in favour of some sort of acknowledgment of Aboriginal inhabitants at the time of settlement. That is an historical truth, it's an undeniable fact and is worthy of inclusion in the preamble. Anything more however becomes extremely problematical and divisive. Activist judges, such as Mordecai Bromberg who managed to find imputations invisible to ordinary readers "between the lines" in an article written by my colleague Andrew Bolt in 2011, will always exercise their creative genes when searching for intent in the Constitution. Finding a formal wording which will not lay the ground for a lawyer's picnic will be difficult but is essential. Any hint of a judgmental sentiment will see Labor and the Greens, always anxious to parade their populist pieties, baying for more and the debate will spin out of control. Mundine's notion of treaties, also ventilated on Australia Day, was given cautious consideration by indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion, but is clearly a step too far. Scullion said the word "treaty" scared people but admitted there was merit in exploring the idea. No, there's not. If the inclusion of an acknowledgment of Aboriginal habitation is meant to strengthen and unify Australia, the very question of treaties is sheer madness. Nations make treaties with other nations, they don't make treaties with themselves and to make a treaty with an entity within Australia would bring the lawyers out like maggots on rotting roadside roo. Any proposed wording must be concise and precise or Abbott will fracture his own conservative support base. As the majority of those who claim some Aboriginal heritage are already incorporated into the mainstream community, there is a well-grounded fear that any additional distinction will divide not unite us. The possibilities for exploitation are legion. Abbott has long shown a willingness to be at the forefront of adopting genuine and practical measures to combat Aboriginal disadvantage. A sound approach to overcoming the enormous disparities in Aboriginal health, education and employment opportunities, makes far more sense than symbolic gestures that will be seized upon and abused by the industry that has long fattened on Aboriginal disadvantage. Those who have daily contact with the genuinely disadvantaged, be they Aboriginal or not, see merit in genuine solutions, those who seek public recognition of their moral positions think public displays of apology and other such empty symbols are all that's needed. Abbott must be careful he doesn't waste his capital taking the nation down a never-ending and unrewarding road.