Noel Pearson backs call for substance over symbols in indigenous referendum

Noel Pearson has backed voting down a referendum that gives only symbolic constitutional indigenous recognition.

Delegates leave the Uluru summit. Picture: James Croucher

Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson has backed the idea of voting down a referendum that gives only symbolic constitutional recognition of indigenous Austral­ians, in a blow to supporters of a so-called “minimalist’’ change to the nation’s founding document.

The Cape York leader warns that politicians have been the chief proponents of purely symbolic change, which would deserve to fail if it were put to a vote.

In an article in The Australian Law Journal, Mr Pearson seeks to destroy the case for symbolic change by pointing to the few benefits for Aborigines from Kevin Rudd’s symbolic apology to the Stolen Generations.

If a referendum on constitu­tional recognition for indigenous people were limited to symbolism rather than substance, “the Australian people would most likely vote ‘no’,” he writes with co-author­ Shireen Morris. “That resul­t would, in our view, be a deserv­ed and just result.”

Their article, to be published in a special May edition of the ALJ devoted to indigenous Australians and the law, comes at a ­critical time in the push for constitutional recognition. The article emerged as debate over Mr Pearson’s proposed model for change caused a minor rift among delegates at the Constitutional Convent­ion at Uluru yesterday.

Seven delegates from NSW and Victoria walked out in a dispute about the order in which four options should be considered.

The group, including members of the self-declared Muru­wari Republic in western NSW and Melbourne delegates who have argued for Aboriginal sovereignty, accused organisers of running­ a “one-way conversa­tion” rather than a dialogue.

“They gave us no options but Noel Pearson’s road map, and like Native Title was, this will be a ­failure,” Victorian Jenny Munro said outside the meeting rooms.

But as momentum builds for a recommendation from indigenous representatives, Referendum Council co-chairwoman Pat Ander­son said it was “inevitable” there would be “some robust debate­” and 243 members of the original 250-strong gathering remained committed to the process.

A small, vocal minority, including those who walked out, has agitated for a treaty to come before­ any other consideration at the convention and warned recognition in the Constitution would effectively erase their identity. Accompanying them as informal ­attendees are Tent Embassy members from Canberra, including former rugby league star David Peachey, who walked out. Traditional owner Alison Hunt, speaking for her Pitjantjatjara people as well as in her capacity as anUluru-Kata Tjuta National Park board member, warned dissidents they were being disrespectful to their hosts. “I’m very disappointed at some people walking out,” she said. “We’ve got to give the govern­ment­ a strong message by tomor­row about the Constitution. We have to be united. This is sacred land that you are standing on, talking on, and we ask visitors to please respect that and to get a message with us supported by the traditional owners of this land to the Prime Minister.’’

In the ALJ article, Mr Pearson and Ms Morris write that indigenous advocates made a mistake when they accepted Mr Rudd’s “symbolic apology for the Stolen Generations without any compensation for harms done”: “The politicians reaped the rewards for their seemingly generous gesture, and no compensation has yet been paid to indigenous people.”

They write that it would also be a mistake to adopt an “incrementalist” approach by backing a symbol­ic change as an achievable stepping stone to substantial recognition of indigenous Australians in future, since it would dissipate the political momentum.

However, if a symbolic referendum question were rejected, “the impetus for change would remain­ alive for later resolution”.

While strongly criticising purely symbolic change, they seek to consolidate indigenous support for a constitutionally recognised advi­sory body. They also reject an alternative scheme criticised as handing power to the High Court.

This scheme, which would insert­ a racial non-discrimination clause in the Constitution, is incapable of attracting bipartisan support and has therefore reached “a political dead end”, they write.

“Rather than empowering indigenous people to go to the High Court to challenge discriminatory laws already enacted, (a consultative body) would ensure indigenous involvement and partici­pa­tion at the start, when relevant laws and policies are being devised and enacted, hopefully preventing discrimination,” the two write.

“(It) thus presents a political, preventative and proactive approac­h, rather than a reactive and litigious approach.

“Political participation, in contrast­ to perpetual litigation, cre­ates an increased sense of indigenous peoples as self-determining political actors ... an attractive and empowering prospect.”