Another chance for PM to show her backflip skills

THE Prime Minister is one heck of a modern political athlete with a lot of chutzpah to boot.

Her skill is to run backwards very fast when a looming issue or promised policy becomes politically difficult. And then to explain her racing into reverse gear as the actions of a responsible, "moving forward" kind of leader.

Take the PM's weekend reverse stroke when she announced she would not waste time pursuing her promised mandatory commitment legislation because she doesn't have the "numbers". Fresh from pulling back from her poker machine reform promise, Julia Gillard may soon be reneging on yet another promise in similar style. For all her present rhetoric about the need for change and holding a referendum on indigenous recognition at or before the next election, one suspects the lack of "numbers" excuse will be recycled should she need to extricate herself from yet another sticky political promise.

Given the PM's proven athleticism at backflips, you might think the so-called "expert" panel advising the federal government on indigenous recognition would tread with expert caution. Understanding the difficulties of passing referenda in Australian and yet keen to be part of history to amend the Constitution, the panel might have sensibly adopted a "less is more" approach. In other words, if you want to secure a "yes" vote, don't scare the voters, let alone the politicians, with grandiose recommendations. Without bipartisanship, referenda never succeed.

Alas, handing the 22-member panel of high-profile "experts" with the power to suggest recommendations to change the Constitution proved too seductive for modesty to prevail. Why suggest a small but important change, such as recognition of indigenous people in a new preamble, when you can suggest something much grander? Hence the panel's 300-page report, handed to the federal government last week, suggests recognition of indigenous Australians in the body of the Constitution, not merely in the preamble, and the insertion of three new sections to (1) provide for the advancement of indigenous Australians; (2) prohibit racial discrimination but allow laws aimed at overcoming disadvantage; and (3) acknowledge indigenous languages as original Australian languages albeit with English as the national language.

The recommendations of the expert panel are best understood as a lesson in basic human psychology: power tends to encourage expressions of hubris, not humility. The panel's hubris comes at a cost, not just for the ambitions of its members, but also for the hopes of many Australians who support the recognition of indigenous Australians in the Constitution.

Unable to curb its ambition, the panel has effectively handed the PM the opportunity to backtrack from yet another one of her promises. Far from making the case for necessary constitutional reform, the panel's overly ambitious recommendations are more likely to ensure no change will be made to the Constitution. Even if a referendum containing the panel's suggested changes is put to the people, it will most likely fail because divisive recommendations have little chance of harnessing support from a majority of voters in a majority of states, as required by the Constitution.

Knowing that the "numbers" are not there, can we really expect the PM to put her name to a doomed referendum? Unlikely, given Gillard's track record on pursuing politically thorny issues. Gillard's carbon tax is an exception only because it is necessary to keep her alliance with the Greens intact. That aside, slogging it out, making the case, trying to convince people is patently not for Gillard. If that were her modus operandi we might have seen her keep her promise on poker machine reform.

The more likely scenario arising from the panel's report is that no referendum will be put to voters because Gillard will soon calculate that this highly charged debate is a lose-lose proposition for her. If the PM proceeds with the panel's suggestions and puts a referendum to the people she will only antagonise millions of voters opposed to the panel's over-reaching proposals and end up tainted by a failed referendum. The costs of its hubris have not occurred to the expert panel. Indeed, more over-reaching arrogance was on show from panel members when they commenced their pitch to the people. Panel members Marcia Langton and Megan Davis wrote in The Weekend Australian that a "(referendum) loss would brand Australians to the world as racists, and self-consciously and deliberately so."

Bipartisanship reached by bullying is not a smart move from an expert panel. As Aboriginal leader Warren Mundine put it, "To trivialise the horrendous hate crime of racism by attacking people who disagree with you and use it to silence debate to get your own way is a disgrace and happens too much in discussions in indigenous affairs . . . It's not the way to gain the support of Australians by labelling them racist. Bring them with you by your arguments. Australia and Australians are no more racist than any other nation or people in the world."

It's a shame the panel failed to remember what panel member Noel Pearson said last year: constitutional reforms will only succeed if they satisfy both indigenous elders and also conservative elders such as John Howard. Once the aim of constitutional reform morphed from recognition into a broader-based claim for special rights, the chances of finding consensus beyond the panel's meeting room were reduced to nil.

As The Australian's Nicolas Rothwell explained last week, "Voters have a no-nonsense approach to such matters. The expert panel is asking them to accept several measures that tug in different directions: both to deracialise the Constitution and to insert in it a clause recognising the special need for indigenous advancement; both to prohibit racial discrimination and to recognise the special place of Aboriginal languages, cultures and ties to the land."

When, just before the 2007 election, Howard proposed a referendum to recognise indigenous Australians in the Constitution, critics claimed it was a case of "too little, too late".

In fact, it wasn't too little. But Howard was too late. By mid-October 2007, the mood had swung against Howard and his offer of a "new reconciliation" with indigenous Australians would not save his prime ministership. Howard's intention to put a referendum to the people recognising indigenous Australians in the Constitution's preamble was entirely sensible. Moreover, it was feasible, being far more likely to win support from a majority of voters in a majority of states.

Defending her leader on Sunday from accusations of cowardly broken promises, Penny Wong said: "This is a Prime Minister who gets the job done, and she can be trusted to get the job done."

If Gillard is a can-do PM, instead of walking away from constitutional reform using the numbers excuse, she should try to build the numbers by putting to the Australian people something more likely to pass.

When it comes to constitutional change, less is more.

[e-mail]