Hard questions of recognition

At a tumultuous time, with scant political capital to invest, Malcolm Turnbull and his cabinet had no choice but to reject the proposal by the Referendum Council and Aboriginal leaders for a referendum to enshrine an indigenous “voice to parliament” in the Constitution. Or as Noel Pearson writes today in Inquirer, the Prime Minister’s “blanket rejection of the Referendum Council’s report this week is more about his own political weakness than the weakness of these constitutional reforms”.

That said, the decision was pragmatic and politically astute. Mr Turnbull’s belief that a referendum would have been lost was almost certainly correct. And a No vote would have crushed the prospect of constitutional recognition of our first people for decades. It is regrettable that 10 years of painstaking advocacy by hundreds of people and the rising hopes of many more have been dashed in such a way. The manner in which the decision emerged — a newspaper leak followed by a statement from Mr Turnbull — was inadequate. A definitive decision on such a sensitive matter warranted a parliamentary statement or a major announcement.

One of the main reasons for the proposal’s failure was the lack of strong respected advocates within and outside the political sphere. Through no fault of the 300 indigenous representatives who met at Uluru in May, it also lacked detail. Encouraged by leaders such as Mr Pearson, the group did extraordinarily well to reach a rare consensus in calling for a “First Nations voice” to be enshrined in the Constitution. Rather than formulating the detail, they left that responsibility, appropriately, to those with whom it belonged, our elected representatives. As we said in July, “the task of refining, explaining and advocating this proposal first within parliament and then, if accepted for referendum, across the community will be immense”. That work, unfortunately, was not done. Voters could not be expected to back a proposal lacking key detail.

While complex, the central proposition of the Uluru statement was constitutionally conservative, developed by professors Greg Craven and Anne Twomey, Liberal MP Julian Leeser and lawyer and philosopher Damien Freeman. As the Law Council noted this week, the body would have been “a mechanism for indigenous views to be expressed to parliament, not in parliament”. Its role would have been advisory and non-binding. The issue was confused, however, by talk of treaties. As we have said consistently, the indivisible nation of Australia could not make a treaty with itself. However angry or emboldened those favouring more radical propositions might feel at present, demands for a treaty would merely open up deep divisions and be wholeheartedly rejected by the vast majority of Australians.

For the foreseeable future, practical reconciliation, ensuring the vast resources being spent deliver results, takes precedence. Better housing, for example, is crucial to improving health, education and wellbeing. But as reported this week, the main $5.4 billion indigenous housing program, begun under Labor in 2008, has let down Aborigines. New homes cost up to $681,000, while families suffer overcrowding that has left them vulnerable to leprosy, tuberculosis and meningococcal disease. Such incompetence needs urgent attention.

It should not be beyond our nation, to get constitutional recognition of our first peoples right. Whenever and in whatever form it might occur, it should enhance national unity. Any future referendum proposition would need to be clear, backed by respected advocates and have bipartisan political support. Responsibility for steering the process gently and steadily back on track rests with both sides of politics. This is not an issue for cynical pointscoring. Making headway will be hard. The Uluru statement, as Pearson says, rejects recognition if it is “mere symbolism”. The way forward is unclear. But as he writes: “One’s perspective is restored when one is reminded of the long history of indigenous advocacy in this country for something better.”