Radical approach hinders Aboriginal cause

MAINSTREAM Australia has probably never had greater levels of sympathy for constitutional recognition of Aborigines than today.

Sadly, overreaching claims and inflammatory proposals by indigenous leaders run the real risk that Aboriginal Australia will snatch a massive defeat from the very jaws of victory. Noel Pearson's proposal that any recommendation for constitutional acknowledgement of indigenous Australians be first voted on by Aborigines was expressed in Pearson's usual articulate, passionate and elegant fashion. Regrettably, arguing a proposition beautifully won't always rescue it from being just plumb wrong. Indeed, worse that that, it is the sort of radical proposition that may lead those well disposed to a moderate, mid-course proposal to despair about the possibility of a balanced outcome on matters indigenous. And when sensible discussions are at risk of being hijacked by extremes, then sensible minds will be tempted to forget the idea for constitutional change entirely.

The best illustration of constitutional overreach was the republican referendum in 1999. Proponents of the more radical direct election model succeeded only in ensuring there would be no republic after that referendum. In fact, in their private moments, monarchists must surely pray for the resurrection of the direct election lobby knowing that such a model is far less likely to wash with the Australian people and will only serve to split the republican movement between those radicals and those advocating more electorally palatable minimalist models.

Pearson's proposal that an Aboriginal plebiscite precede any wider referendum inevitably privileges Aborigines over other Australians. And, Pearson argues seductively, why not? After all we are discussing an amendment that directly affects indigenous Australians. The error in this argument is clear enough. We do not conduct plebiscites of other groups of Australians even though many, perhaps most, constitutional amendments will inevitably affect some groups of Australians more than others. What's next? If special constitutional arrangements are proposed for the elderly, the military or the poor, do we seek out a vote from each group first? Constitutional changes go to the very arrangements that govern us as Australian people.

Leaving aside the practical difficulties of forming special electoral rolls for such groups, and the invitation to electoral fraud in such proposals, subdividing the Australian people in this way is divisive and offensive. It was inevitable that the idea of constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians would fuel an aggressive minority rights agenda among some within the indigenous industry, but can we please stop?

The beauty of one-man, one-vote democracy is we all speak equally on constitutional issues no matter our origins, characteristics or differences. Special votes for special groups may be appropriate for clubs, religious bodies and businesses, but not for our Constitution. Our founding document governs us as a nation, not as a nation of tribes.

Preferential voting rights, no matter how articulately defended, ought to be seen right up there with proposals for a treaty with Aborigines when it comes to scaring middle Australia into thinking this is not a path we should even start on. The notion that one group of Australian has such special rights it deserves a special treaty with the rest of Australians is so insulting that its proponents set back the Aboriginal cause immeasurably.

A special vote for indigenous people runs the same risk. While Pearson's dramatic assault on our constitutional arrangements provided a splash on Australia Day, most Australians may have found more wisdom in the words of former High Court judge Ian Callinan. In his Australia Day message as president of the Samuel Griffith Society, Callinan spoke powerfully about the need for care when altering the Constitution. He pointed out that "the gestation of the current Constitution was a long one. Every provision was meticulously, microscopically even, examined."

Callinan warned that there is little use debating constitutional change in the abstract. "The actual words, clauses, and terms, must be laid out in full before any evaluation can be made." In other words, don't bother us with generalities, no matter how beautifully worded. Bring us the specifics so that we can decide whether changing our Constitution is wise or not.

The history of attempts to change the Constitution proves Callinan right. Australians regard the Constitution as a fundamentally sound document to be changed only incrementally and after careful deliberation. Speculative thought bubbles about new rights and new electoral processes will only guarantee a bitter debate. And failure.

It is possible that there is a more cunning method to Pearson's plebiscite madness. By putting any constitutional amendment to a vote of Aborigines first, the issue is effectively taken out of the hands of a much smaller and more vocal group of indigenous activists intent on drowning out those who disagree with a more radical rights agenda. Plenty of Aborigines beyond academic ivory towers and the indigenous industry reject the failed separatism of yesteryear. They have little time for symbolic puff that does nothing to improve literacy and numeracy in indigenous classrooms or domestic violence in the homes of indigenous people. Perhaps Pearson's plebiscite is a neat way to quash the whole idea of indigenous recognition, a canny way to stop any return to separatism in its tracks.

The irony of trying to kill off separatism by putting constitutional change to a separate vote of Aboriginal people is that in Australia today, a mid-course solution is possible. One that recognises past historical contributions of our first Australians without creating irreversibly different categories of people with different rights for the future. However, it will demand the very best leadership skills. Unfortunately it is not clear that Julia Gillard wants to do more than win some easy votes from Green supporters and feature in a few historical footnotes as the Prime Minister who tried to change the Constitution. Delivering an apology was much easier symbolism for her predecessor than securing even the most formal recognition of Aborigines in the Constitution.

The Coalition is not exempt from preferring political advantage to principle in this field either. Ken Wyatt's recent musings that the Coalition may support substantive recognition of Aborigines in the Constitution, rather than simply formal recognition in the preamble, may merely be a lack of discipline from the new Liberal MP. A less charitable explanation is that Wyatt, the first Aboriginal member of the House of Representatives, has been deputed to go hunting for political points by hinting at a reversal of Coalition policy.

But let us not give up hope yet. Recognition of the past without wrecking the future: now that would a real victory.

[e-mail]