Recognition: Patrick Dodson, Noel Pearson closer on Constitution

Noel Pearson and Patrick Dodson, the two strongest Aboriginal voices in the recognition debate, are now united.

Indigenous leader Patrick Dodson at the Garma Festival in Arnhem Land. ‘You need a shift in the Constitution, and you need some certainty.’ Picture: Amos Aikman

While there is still daylight ­between the various constitutional referendum proposals, the camps are moving closer. Noel Pearson and Patrick Dodson, the two strongest Aboriginal voices in the debate, are now united on the need for substantive change in the main body of the Constitution.

“There’s not a single position: he has his views and I have mine, but what we do have that’s common is determination to close the gap in our positions,” Mr Pearson said last night.

At one end of the spectrum is a legal approach that would see a new head of powers established within the Constitution, allowing parliament to make laws to benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Advocates of this approach also envisage a clause prohibiting racial discrimination. The new powers essentially would be inert until implemented through an act of parliament or through action by the courts.

An alternative model favours political pressure over legal obligation. This model would force parliament to establish a representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander body with which it would be required to consult. This body would have no direct authority but could exert force through manipulating public opinion.

Mr Dodson favours legal precept, but sees value in a political approach.

“We can’t hide behind the ­notion that either the parliament or the courts have done very well to assist the indigenous peoples over the 200-year history of this country,” Mr Dodson said.

“It (a representative body) is not really an alternative. You need two things: you need a shift in the Constitution, and you need some certainty ... that you could have some sort of Aboriginal entity.

“If it’s outside the Constitution then it doesn’t have an impact on the machinery of government or on the courts.”

Mr Pearson has advocated strongly for a representative Aboriginal body. He recognises the failings of past bodies such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission but thinks giving such a body a constitutional mandate would fix a “crucial” weakness.

“My opposition is to preambular change by itself … my fear is that the Prime Minister and other parties might be harbouring the idea that some kind of rerun of the 1999 (referendum) is going to work, and I’m telling you it won’t.”

Mr Dodson said he was not confident entrenching a representative body in the Constitution would give it the necessary force.

“Not unless there’s change to the Constitution, in my view. I think that’s the tension point,” he said.

“I’m not disagreeing with the notion that you should have an ­entity, (but) I just think that we’re such a law-abiding society that unless there’s something in the Constitution ... to give you some hope that parliament or the courts may take a different view, in response to indigenous concerns, then what we’ve had to date, you’re going to get more of the same.”