PM must engage conservatives to win referendum

GILLARD must enlist Tony Abbott and John Howard as well as indigenous leaders.

JULIA Gillard has opened a political opportunity for herself and the Labor Party with conservative Australia by her audacious venture to recognise indigenous peoples in the Constitution.

This proposal is a daunting test - some might suggest an impossible test - of Gillard's ability to bring the nation together and find a consensus for such constitutional recognition.

It prompts the question: does Labor grasp what it has done? This referendum has only one hope of passing. Gillard must win conservative voters in numbers across all states, including the big resource states where Labor's primary vote was below 35 per cent last election. Indeed, if Gillard does not seek to carry the conservative side then she should abandon the project forthwith.

Any idea that this referendum can succeed as a "true believer" or Labor-Aboriginal-Green project for indigenous justice will descend into tragedy. Put simply, it will not work as a statement of indigenous rights and this needs to be accepted at the outset. Gillard, however, will face trouble containing the ambitious aspirations of some indigenous leaders as well as the Labor progressives.

If this referendum becomes an effort to enshrine in the Constitution more powers and rights for Aborigines, it will not win even 40 per cent of the national vote and will become a catastrophe for indigenous reconciliation.

That means, for a start, that Labor needs Tony Abbott, Noel Pearson and John Howard on board. All three. The initial reaction to this claim may be to scoff. Well, scoffing is no substitute for a strategy to win and that means working out how to persuade conservative Australia.

Constitutional lawyer George Williams hammers this point.

"It will be a disaster for the

Aboriginal people if this referendum does not pass," he told this column. "You are rolling the dice on this because of the damage that will be done by any failure. That means both government and opposition must be stakeholders and the referendum has to become a win for both sides. Labor cannot give the Coalition any reason to oppose this. It must have the broad body of conservative politics behind this."

Williams said Howard had displayed leadership on this question from his proposed preamble in 1999 to his referendum pledge at the 2007 election. Gillard is following Howard and this offers an opportunity for Labor.

It will be difficult for Labor to stomach but the required approach should be modest, relying on recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first Australians plus the removal of racially discriminatory provisions of the Constitution. The key to success is words that bring all Australians together rather than words accentuating the separate indigenous culture.

The hopes for this referendum are worthless unless coupled with wisdom born of history. Remember that Labor's referendum record is pathetic. The last successful referendum proposed by a Labor government concerned social services in 1946. All the referendums put by the Whitlam and Hawke governments failed. The most spectacular recent failure was the 1999 referendum on the republic, a Labor idea put by the Howard government yet opposed by Howard.

The reoccurring mistake Labor makes is to think the people will ratify its own agendas at referendums. They won't.

A referendum is not an election and 50 per cent of the vote cannot secure a change of the Constitution. Labor must compromise and Gillard must negotiate the compromise wording with both conservative and Aboriginal leaders.

The risk is that Aboriginal leaders will fail to reach a broad agreement. Williams said: "You cannot expect the Australian community to endorse the referendum if there are significant elements of the Aboriginal leadership opposed to it." Exactly.

Gillard's initial remarks on the referendum are encouraging. She sees a chance this parliament because Labor, Coalition, the Greens and independents support the principle of the referendum. "We have a once in a 50 year opportunity for our country," Gillard said. "I'm certain that if this referendum is not successful there will not be another like it."

Gillard, along with Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin and Attorney-General Robert McClelland, wants an expert panel of both indigenous and non-indigenous people to consult, recommend the wording and strive for consensus.

It is obvious the premable must be changed. There will be support for altering s.25 and s.51 (xxvi) on grounds of racial discrimination and creating a more positive power in relation to indigenous peoples. Abbott says the Coalition supports changes to the preamble, not to the body of the constitution. At least that creates a basis for negotiation but Abbott must ensure he operates in good faith on this issue.

Such a referendum would have a far better chance if mounted by a Coalition government. So let's confront the brutal truth: Gillard's only hope of winning lies in building bridges to conservative Australia and persuading sufficient of the Aboriginal leaders to follow her. It means Gillard must transcend the limits, so far, of her political identity. The irony, however, is that this strategy of carrying conservative Australia is the key not just to the referendum's success, but to Gillard Labor's political success this term.

In Noel Pearson's famous September 17, 2007, letter that persuaded Howard to back the referendum, Pearson identified the heart of the matter. He wrote: "Only a conservative leader can change the Constitution by carrying the conservative constituency and delivering the 80-90 per cent strategy that is needed so that the majority of electors in a majority of states is achieved."

Yes, Gillard is not a Howard-type conservative. But Pearson's insight remains true: Gillard can only carry this referendum by operating from a conservative ethos as a prime minister for the entire nation. Given the recent internal ALP debate, anybody who thinks that a socially progressive Labor Party aligned with the Greens can persuade the Australian nation to such a referendum is fooling themselves. Just forget it.

The greatest referendum success was the Holt government's 1967 indigenous referendum that won a stunning 91 per cent of the popular vote. It is hard to imagine a more misunderstood event in our nation's history. It was, without question, a vote against racial discrimination and for an assimilated Australia. It was, without question, a victory for a conservative and tolerant Australia, not for radical change. The simplifications of that age are long gone. Its message, however, remains relevant: Gillard's referendum is doomed unless she defines herself as a Labor conservative able to reach out to new constituencies.