Liberals agitate for modest indigenous recognition

A push to recognise indigenous Australians in the Constitution with a modest preamble is gaining traction.

A push to recognise indigenous Australians in the Constitution with a modest preamble is gaining traction at the highest levels of government, amid concern that a radical package of reforms proposed by a parliamentary committee will fail.

On the eve of a critical meeting of indigenous leaders, The Weekend Australian can reveal that ­Coalition MPs are considering a form of words for constitutional recognition to accompany the ­removal of outdated race clauses and a power to be able to make laws for indigenous people.

Derived from a speech from Cape York leader Noel Pearson, the statement would outline Australia’s “indigenous heritage, British foundation and multicultural character”, and would be included at the beginning of the country’s founding document.

Critics say the idea, which is expected to be fiercely debated at Monday’s meeting in Sydney, risks repeating the failed 1999 ­preamble push that included ­recognition of indigenous “kinship”. The idea is being advocated by those who say other options will not be approved by government MPs.

Mr Pearson describes the ­Coalition partyroom as “the most significant hurdle” to substantive recognition. In an impassioned opinion piece published in The Weekend Australian today that crystallises the political battlelines of reform, he warns that a minimalist model of recognition would amount to “cosmetic surgery, a symbolic shot of Botox, ­ignoring the broken foot”.

“How many symbolic mom­ents, devoid of practical effect, does a nation need?” he writes.

Tony Abbott, who has warned against “substantial” change in the Constitution, is understood to like the statement as a reflection of modern Australia, but has not committed to it as a preferred model for change. His parliamentary secretary, Alan Tudge, has suggested the statement could provide a way of recognition, “but also a summary of what is unique about our nation”.

Jesuit priest and advocate Frank Brennan, the Prime Minister’s indigenous adviser Warren Mundine and former prime minister John Howard have urged that conservative change be proposed at a referendum in order for it to have the best chance of success. But among the Aboriginal leaders to be represented at Monday’s meeting, few favour the minimalist position likely to be pursued by Mr Abbott, who has said he would like to see a recognition referendum take place in 2017, coinciding with the 50th ­anniversary of the 1967 referendum.

Mr Pearson says a minimalist approach would do nothing but apply a Band-Aid to “white guilt”.

“Such an outcome would be feel-good symbolism and maintenance of the operational status quo,” he writes. “White guilt might be somewhat appeased. For the moment at least. Until we need another national symbolism rush.”

Mr Pearson’s proposal for a ­declaration of recognition outside the Constitution and the establishment of an indigenous body — along with the removal of racist clauses — also faces resistance.

Many attendees at Monday’s meeting have thrown their support behind the recommendations of a parliamentary inquiry, which last week proposed a new chapter of the Constitution, along with the removal of racist clauses, and the inclusion of a racial non-discrimination clause.

Indigenous MP Ken Wyatt and senator Nova Peris have said a constitutional ban on discrimin­ation is essential for securing the support of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, saying it provides “substantive change” beyond symbolism. However, constitu­tional lawyer Greg Craven, who favours the Pearson proposal, said the committee’s model for change was “catastrophic” and would lead to a “completely unwinnable” referendum. “I think people who are thinking about ­indigenous recognition have got to get fair dinkum,” he told The Weekend Australian.

“Do they want to have an interesting debate where they all feel moral? Or do they want to have indigenous recognition?”

Warning against the tempt­ation for “heroic relevance”, Professor Craven said the push for a racial non-discrimination clause would not be supported by conservatives. He also warned that the new chapter proposed by the committee would create legal uncertainty. “No constitutional conservative is going to run with the proposal that is being put forward by the expert committee. That guarantees a divisive referendum, (and) divisive referenda lose,” he said.

“The bigger and more complicated a proposal is, the more it is guaranteed to lose, and the proposals of the joint parliamentary committee are exactly that — they are big, complicated, controversial proposals. They are a constitutional albatross.”

Professor Craven said the Pearson model was the safest legally but also said a short preambular statement might have merit.

Mr Pearson says there are four hurdles to be crossed. “First, the Prime Minister. Second, his partyroom. Third, the parliament. And fourth, the Australian people. It is easy to be uplifted by polls. But the people — as hard as they are — are the easiest hurdle. The Prime Minister’s party room represents the most significant hurdle.”

A Newspoll published in The Weekend Australian a fortnight ago showed 63 per cent in favour of recognising indigenous Australians in the Constitution, 19 per cent opposed and 18 per cent uncommitted.

Mr Pearson, Aboriginal leaders and organisations are calling for a series of conventions to debate recognition, culminating in an all-in indigenous summit at Uluru. “Indigenous people have not yet been afforded a fair opportunity to understand and assess the models,” he says. “This process is what should be decided at our meeting with the Prime Minister on Monday. It would be foolish and unjust to try to decide upon a model in a room of 40 selected indigenous leaders.”

Recognise joint campaign director Tanya Hosch said she wanted Monday’s meeting to reach consensus on the way forward to developing a final proposal by the end of the year.

In a speech marking The Australian’s 50th anniversary last year, and later in a Quarterly Essay, Mr Pearson said the country was on the “cusp” of uniting the three streams of the national story through indigenous recognition. “There is our ancient heritage, written in the continent and the original culture painted on its land seascapes. There is our British inheritance, the structures of government and society transported from the United Kingdom fixing its foundations in the ancient soil. There is our multicultural achievement: a triumph of immigration that brought together the gifts of peoples and cultures from all over the globe — forming one indissoluble commonwealth.”