PM’s announcement to recognise Indigenous Australians in our Constitution
John Howard’s announcement in a speech to the Sydney Institute that – if re-elected – he will seek to hold a referendum to formally recognise indigenous Australians in our Constitution is unexpected, but I think it is very welcome.
I’ve already seen comment brimming with cynicism about this announcement, suggesting it’s a pre-election stunt or even a way to keep the Prime Ministership away from Peter Costello for more than half of the next term if he does manage to get re-elected.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what his other motivations might be. And of course it would have been better if he’d tried to do something like this ages ago. But it’s still a good step, albeit only a first step, towards implementing just one measure amongst the many needed to properly recognise and respect the unique role the First Australians play in our nation’s past, present and future.
For all the occasional fine promises of past Labor Prime Minister’s – not least Bob Hawke’s failed promise of a Treaty – they delivered little in this area. So even if Mr Howard loses the election, it will be a big tick on his record (which on Indigenous issues would otherwise be an almost unmitigated disgrace), should Kevin Rudd persists with and implements this. I doubt very much Mr Rudd would have announced something like this before the election, but I assume he will now embrace it and hopefully carry on with it if he is elected.
This ABC report quotes some fairly cold initial reactions from a couple of Indigenous leaders, and the Director of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) is fairly cautious. Given recent history, this is very understandable, but I still think there is a real opportunity here which people should take hold of and run with. The more they do, the more they can give it a life of its own, regardless of how the Prime Minister or other politicians want to control it. That means risking disappointment yet again, but that’s no reason not to try.
A measure like this doesn’t negate the need to reverse some of the damaging things that have done over the time Mr Howard has been in office, such as the weakening of Native Title, Land Rights and Indigenous representation, the promotion of the failed and destructive ideologies of paternalism and assimilation, and the failure to act on a wide range of unfinished business including the Stolen Generations, Stolen Wages and the final blueprint of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. Indeed, it makes addressing these other areas all the more important.
Mr Howard stated in his speech that “I’m the first to admit that this whole area is one I have struggled with during the entire time that I have been Prime Minister.” He still rejected the need for a national apology regarding past government practices that created the Stolen Generations, and the reasons he provided as to why show that he is still struggling pretty badly.
“I have never felt comfortable with the dominant paradigm for indigenous policy, one based on the shame and guilt of non-indigenous Australians (and) a repudiation of the Australia I grew up in”.”In the end I could not accept that reconciliation required a condemnation of the Australian heritage I had loved and owned.”
Mr Howard said reconciliation based on a symbolic apology “would only reinforce a culture of victimhood and take us backwards”.
I presume Mr Howard in sincere in these statements, but they are simply way off the mark. Acknowledging and taking responsibility for past injustices perpetrated in Australia by Australian government does not mean “repudiating” an Australia of a past ear, “condemning our heritage” or “reinforcing a culture of victimhood.” It means accepting a more honest and accurate portrayal of our heritage and history, and assisting healing.
But despite all that, the Prime Minister’s announcement is a very positive step and one which all political parties and the wider Australian community need to grab a hold of and make happen.
One statement Mr Howard made which I do strongly agree with is that there is a “deep yearning in our national psyche” to find a positive and permanent solution to the issue of reconciliation. I really felt I’ve detected that amongst so many people, sometimes quite spontaneously, over the last few years. Whether Mr Howard’s motivations for this announcement or good or bad – or a mixture of both – doesn’t matter; he’s presented an opportunity for the country, and the more people embrace with and run with the opportunity and really try to build on it and make the most of it, the harder it will be for politicians to constrain, restrict and diminish its potential.
Of course, Indigenous Australians must have a central role in this process. If politicians try to manipulate it and turn it into another point-scoring opportunity in the ‘culture wars’ some neoconservatives seem determine to wage, then the whole thing will fail. The final wording for the referendum must be supported by and developed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
ELSEWHERE:
- Robert Merkel at LP queries the motivation(s) behind the announcement.
- Guido at Rank and Vile is fairly cynical.
- Unsurprisingly, Paul Keating’s reaction is not overly effusive.
- Gary Highland, the National Director of Australian for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) gives his view.
30 Comments, Comment or Ping
Nahum Ayliffe
I admire your impartiality Andrew, but I can’t see this as anything but political. I have to agree with Robert.
I read a book called Terra Nullius by Sven Lindqvist before I left Australia and he made a very good point in it. If we are to reap the benefits of this country (ie. ripping the minerals out of the ground as fast as we can fill boats to China) then we must accept some of the costs. And in Australia’s case the human cost was borne by the Indigenous and compounded by centuries of insensitivity and neglect. The least we could do is apologize.
Oct 12th, 2007
Geoff
Well after the PMs last feeble/attrocious attempt at fiddling with a constitutional preamble I wont be holding my breathe on this one.
Oct 12th, 2007
muzzmonster
I must admit it is very hard not to be cynical about this, but if it leads to good outcomes (including Kevin Rudd doing something similar), then fantastic.
But as Geoff indicates, we’ll have to wait and see.
Oct 12th, 2007
al loomis
motivation: desperation.
value: negative.
wnite ozzies gotta give as much of their land back as black ozzies have the tribal organization to handle. free and clear, theirs to muck up if they want. this ain’t gonna happen, it’s just posing, by left as well as right. people don’t give power away, and howard has plenty of track record going to other way.
when he, or any oz pollie, says he’ll offer a referendum establishing citizen initiative i’ll believe in flying pigs. until then, just pass pollie-speak through this simple translator: (anything in) = (i want power).
Oct 12th, 2007
Wizman
It makes me feel sad and cynical. It just looks like another political wedge: disagree and you hate Aboriginals, agree and you are stuck with a (possibly) tainted outcome.
We all remember the Constitutional Convention? Mock consultation, the presentation of the worst possible model, and inevitable defeat at a referendum. Then the pollies can say that the issue is dead and buried.
Same as the awful Preamble.
Same as the handpicked Muslim Council.
I can just see another futile gathering of “right-minded” individuals cobbling together something that noone can really support, then the Aboriginals of this country watching as the citizenry rightly vote it down. Some pollies might string it out to “well we’re now reconciled, and sorry about your paragraph in the constitution – get over it – issue closed.”
I really, sincerely hope not. I just have no faith left in this current federal government, and I am not in the position to place a great deal of trust in the Opposition yet.
What a lamentable situation in a wonderful system of politics described as “not the perfect system but the best we’ve got.”
Oct 12th, 2007
Kathryn Parker
I agree this is welcome news. Reconcillation involves an acknowledgement of past failures and a willingness to put things right as far as you can. Everyone in Australia deserves the right to a fair go, more so the original inhabitants who were wrongly dispossed, brutalized, raped and killed. Sounds like genocide (attempts to destory and people and their culture) and war crimes. And yet they survived! A testamony to courage and determination. Let’s not kid ourselves that Australia was peacfully settled and that Indigenous peoples continue to be affected by this recent Australian history (219 yrs) of European Colonization. Let’s work together for a just and equitable society recognising the rights of all Australians. Maybe it’s time to choose a new day to celebrate Australia Day as well. Now if Pauline Hanson would only get on board too!
Oct 12th, 2007
Lynette2
I think the groundswell of support for reconciliation has been strong in this country for a long time. Howard’s view has appealed to a minority. The majority view will prevail sooner or later. Howard just managed to stem the tide for a while. Now that he’s (sort of) removed the obstacle that is himself we can all get on with it.
Oct 12th, 2007
Christopher
A bit late, Johnnie, a bit too late. It’s this, “If you re-elect me, I’ll do…” sort of thing a bit like the dictator of Pakistan recently promising to give up his military leadership AFTER but not BEFORE re-election. Johnnie’s love for aboriginality is like a wolf’s love for lambs, or should I say, lamb. Should Johnnie get in, something will happen to this non-core promise as usual. If he was really dinkum he would have delivered long before this. I just want him to get out of my face and GO. Pity me. I live in Bennelong.
Oct 12th, 2007
John Tracey
The referendum in the terms outlined yesterday would be the ultimate solution to the various problems Howard, and white Australia, have with native title, customary law, the stolen generations, Terra Nullius and the UN declaration on Human rights. It is a simple “acknowledgement” that sweeps all these issues under the carpet for the rest of history. It will be a vote of white people to reinforce our own perceptions of how Aboriginal people fit into our Australia.
The reconciliation movement and model has not been about reconciliation. It has been predominantly a white movement operating on white notions and has had next to no real connection to Aboriginal Australia and their aspirations.
An assimilationist proposal such as Howard has put up, and as the 1967 referendum was, will be passed by white Australia as an affirmation of our own understandings and the incorporation of Aboriginal people into our understandings.
A Rudd government with a Green (and maybe AB) balance of power could come up with a more substantial proposition, maybe even based on the UN declaration of indigenous rights.
The process that Andrew identifies in terms of involvement and leadership of Aboriginal people will be the main advantage of such a process.
However I am not convinced that a conservative and racist Australian electorate will vote for anything of substance. Howard’s proposal has been well crafted to win. A proposal that acknowledges Aboriginal rights and interests would still be very contraversial and probably fail, especially as every opposition group from the liberals to Pauline Hanson will be part of the debate and whip up racist hysteria about real change.
The truth is that the reconcilliation process was aborted before it really began. As a nation we have to go through some considerable truth telling and healing before Australians could vote for real justice of any sort for Aboriginal people. This change has simply not occured yet.
Oct 12th, 2007
red crab
brilliant.
now our little john is on every news bullitin and broardcast in the country.
just how stupid are we
a blody preamble dos not mean that it is in the constitution.
and there has been very few referendums that have had any sucsses.
so why not say that to get you noticed.
bloddy stroke of geneous if you ask me.
sooo if howard is to recall the pollys just what bills are they trying to get through. while the whole country is debating the layest issue that will go nowhere.
this could be the last chance as i think it will be a vary long time before any govt has control of the senate agane.
john tracey
whith the greatest respect i think that the only thing that pauline hansen is being howelled down buy ppl who call themselves accademics is that she is stupid enough to tell the truth on occasion.
and besides all the ho har did not john howard say he was gowing to hand over to peter costello has any one botherd to ask him if he intends to keep howards promiss .
im just gowing to get a bigger shovel.
Oct 12th, 2007
Naomi Cartledge
John Tracey, I agree with the points you’ve made. As a non-aboriginal person, I’m hoping that with a joint commitment from future black and white leaders, real change could be a reality, not just frivolous ‘talk’ by Howard. I was pretty sure, that during the celebrations in May this year of the 1967 Referendum, Kevin Rudd gave a commitment to a real apology. I watched the tape, and he said,”If reconcilialtion is to be achieved, we must deal with both its substance and symbols. Symbols are important, they are part of our life. They embody in an instant the sort of people we are. What we stand for, what we hold to be true. To build a new relationship often means reconciling that relationship’s past. We cannot simply pretend that certain things did not happen because they did. That is why simply saying you’re sorry is such a powerful symbol. It is powerful, not because it represents some expiation of guilt, it is powerful not because it represents any formal legal requirement, it is powerful because it makes new beginnings possible; simply because it restores respect. And that ladies and gentlemen is why we will do it, and do it quickly if we are elected to form the next government of Australia.” He also said,”Symbolism is important, but symbolism without substance is without meaning, and apology without action is also without meaning.” He went on to speak of realistic objectives and achieving results.
I don’t trust Howard, and judging by the huge response to the blog on the Sydney Morning Herald website, only a handful believe in this last ditch stand for votes. People desperate to hold on to power will do anything. This is a typical and repugnant demonstration of that. Who’s “middle Australia” by the way? I voted “yes” in 1967. I hate Howard’s Australia, and I wonder what sort of country we’d have now if Paul Keating had continued what he started. As Martin Luther King said, “I have a dream.”
Oct 12th, 2007
The Piping Shrike
Other than making politicans feel good about themselves and the Constitution I can’t see a single practical benefit for indigenous people already facing an affront from the same politicians in the NT. Your support for this is very ordinary, Senator.
Oct 13th, 2007
muzzmonster
Symbolism is important Piping Shrike, even if it has no practical outcomes. Otherwise why would the conservative Christian right guard marriage so jealously?
If the policy is good, it shouldn’t matter who proposes it. I know it is easy to be cynical about Howard, but if elected I think he will go through with this.
Oct 13th, 2007
The Piping Shrike
Muzzmunster, I’m not cynical about Howard, I’m cynical about all the politicians who talk about reconciliation in a year when they have supported one of the most shameful initiatives on the indigenous communities in recent years.
What does such symbolism mean when they were willing to believe the allegations that indigenous communities were sexually abusing their children on a wide scale without any proof? I remind you that after nearly a thousand medical checks there is still no evidence and not a single arrest has been made. Senator Bartlett being a notable exception but even those opposing the intervention were willing to believe the allegations that prompted it.
In 2007, politicians from both sides of the fence showed very clearly this year in practical terms the ‘high’ regard they hold indigenous people. Their symbolism is worthless.
Oct 13th, 2007
Kathryn Parker
It’s good to see a politician who is willing to admit to making mistakes,and who hasn’t been misguided at some point? Hindsight is a wonderful thing and if this is John Howard’s last campaign it’s good to correct the record and admit relationships could have been better.
What matters now is a discussion on the type of Australia we want for ourselves and our children. Do we want peace and justice? Do we want equal opportunities and equal access for all Australians to health, education, employment and housing? or Do we want to further alienate and isolate those with the least power and resources?
We are at the cross roads it’s time to decide the type of future we want and need, and to choose the leaders who capture the vision of a just and sustainable community for all who live here and those who come after us.
What will be our legacy?
Oct 14th, 2007
Greg
From an Aboriginal perspective I really don’t care one way or another whether white Australians have a “deep yearning in their psyche to find a positive and permanent solution to the issue of reconciliation”.
I’m tired of the psycho babble analysis that is used to describe the state of mind of Australians. (Howard calls them middle Australia)
Remember – Our struggles are not about providing “national group therapy” for racist Australians.
It’s as though fixing this is the ultimate solution to my people’s struggles.
As for what Howard has offered “ Scraps from the table is what Aunty Faith Bandler called it.
Howard says he will work with Indigenous leaders if he is elected.
I’m assuming this means Noel Pearson and whoever will work with Noel Pearson or whoever Noel Pearson selects to work with him. Or combinations of these three!
Andrew,
I would be pushing Rudd to respond to Howard’s reconciliation rabbit to see what Labor has to offer. Only then will we all have a coherent picture of what the government is offering.
And just remember the many non-core promises Howard has delivered.
And stuff the preamble – that was already defeated back in 1999.
Oct 14th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Well Shrike, I don’t pretend it is the be all and end all by any means, and unlike Mr Howard I think almost anybody other than him would have a better chance of ensuring the process of implementing this proposal is a successful and unifying one.
However, it is still a goal worthy of trying to achieve, and the fact that it is Mr Howard who has opened a door to a chance of achieving that goal shouldn’t stop us walking through that door.
The proposal to “recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia in a new preamble to the Constitution” comes straight from one of the recommendations in the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.
One should rightly have caution about Mr Howard’s ability (and that of many other politicians) to adequately implement such a task, but I don’t think one should criticise the idea itself, just because it is Mr Howard that has proposed it.
I think this point of John Tracey’s is key. My view is that, if the process for developing the words for a Constitutional preamble was done properly, it would play part of the role in enabling this truth telling and healing to occur (how big a part I’m not sure, but anything would be an improvement)
Oct 14th, 2007
Naomi Cartledge
Andrew, I admire your stand on just about everything, but on this issue,you must believe that John Howard is a decent human being-I don’t! Not even a little bit! I agree with Greg. In fact, I’m surprised that aboriginal people have put up with s*#t for this long. How can we believe that a person who introduced legislation into the Parliament that removed rights of indigenous people over their land(they’d had to fight to get back what was theirs in the first instance)removed their rights for protection under the Racial Discrimination Act, sent in the army and police without consultation or inclusion of the people (more patronizing, paternalistic crap),and voted against a 20 year debate/discussion/ policy to recognize the rights of all indigenous peoples in the world, just a week or so ago at the UN. How could he thump his fist on the table (with such venom) in the company of aboriginal people at the Reconciliation Conference 10 years ago, and now he’s a ‘born again’ anti-racist? Is this the same leader of the “Kevin Andrew’s” racist attitude? The horrors of racism against Muslims and asylum seekers and others? Oh please! I’m 62 not 2. His brand of racism is ingrained, it’s in his gut, just like my passionate rejection of it is in mine.
Yesterday I watched the speech given by Mick Dodson at the Opera House the day before the Harbour Bridge walk (2000), and he said in part, that real reconciliation is “to do with nation, soul and spirit, not the nuts and bolts, but the blood and flesh of the lives we must lead together”. You could explain this to Howard until you’re blue in the face, and he would not have a clue. Mick Dodson is 11 years younger than Howard. His 2 older sisters (1 is JH’s age) were removed, his father was jailed for 18 months for “cohabitating” with his mother.JH is 68-These laws were made before and some still operative after he joined the Liberal Party. What generation is he talking about?
Oct 15th, 2007
Liz
If Howard’s gesture makes anyone feel better about race relations in Australia and goes anywhere towards actually improving the lives of indigenous people, or redressing the damage done in any way, then it has my support. Personally though, I think there’s a hell of a lot more that needs to be done to even come close to meeting these goals, and I can’t see Howard or Rudd following through on it.
I’m reading Raymond Evans excellent “A history of Qld” – and this is how he sums it up in part, “the land and its resources … had been successfully taken … a comprehensive plundering: land, lives and labour power… theft of children & women; extensive sexual exploitation; looting of weapons and implements, grave sites, bones and skulls… A calamitous demographic decline, from disease and violence, had reduced original numbers by around 90% to perhaps 25000 shocked and subjugated people.”
I’m way too pessimistic to think this will make any lasting, real positive difference. But maybe you’re right Andrew and the process used to develop the words for the preamble can start to get the truth out and some sort of healing happening – I think it’s just not enough – I’m with Greg in his “stuff the preamble” comments.
Oct 15th, 2007
Greg
“truth telling and healing to occur”
I would not envisage either Labor or Howard implementing a truth and reconciliation type commission- which was also a recommendation of the SG report.
That recommendation referred to the Van Boven Principles. Follow this link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen71.html
Labor has promised to ratify the UN declaration (indigenous peoples) and this more capacity than Howard’s reconciliation plans of moving towards some structural reform in Indigenous affairs.
As stated in my last post I think its time we all starting moving away from the ecclesiastical mumbo jumbo speak of “ healing” toward saying what actually needs to be done.
Symbols, trinkets, songs and dances and hand wringing are important (to some) but they will not deliver long awaited justice.
As old Gerry d Brennan once stated, ‘reconciliation is an obligation of justice, not a manifestation of benevolence.’
Oct 15th, 2007
John Tracey
In defence of a healing paradigm….
When I spoke of healing above I was refering to Aboriginal Australia. Every major report written in the last few decades has refered to, as well as physical health issues, the mental health issues. Dispossession from land and the degeneration of cultural frameworks, unresolved trauma including intergenerational symptoms, the day to day grind of a black mind in a predominantly white society and the constant fear of racist attack, especially by the police have caused individual and collective mental ill health. Then there is poverty on top of that.
The demands by Howard and Brough for Aboriginal Austraia to pull itself up by its own bootstraps is a cruel attack on people who have had their boots stolen.
The first step in any new direction has to involve removing the conditions that perpetuate mental ill health. Physical things such as better housing so everyone has their own private space and jobs so that people can make lifestyle choiices rather than just inevitably ending up in a welfare box. Psychological things such as validation of Aboriginality – not in the white society’s constitution though that wouldn’t hurt, bt in the day to day lives of Aboriginal people in things such as independant Aboriginal organisations, the realities and power of elders and men’s/women’s business in family life, daily connection to extended family, issues of identity such as song and dance and connection to country. The repression of all these things is the cause of Aboriginal ill health.
The facilitation of these things is a healing paradigm.
Until Aboriginal Australia has some solid grounding in a healing paradigm then no program to provide for need will work beyond a welfare paradigm.
Aboriginal Australia needs to be given its boots back, not just so it can pull itself up by the straps but also so that it can kick some arse on its own terms and agendas.
Oct 15th, 2007
Greg
Back to Andrew,
So how is this announcement a good step?
How will this propel the rights of Indigenous people?
Are Indigenous people (such as myself) purely cynical on this or is a convenient way of discounting any critical analysis we have of Howard and this plan?
Why not take a harder line?
Do not you really think Howard has this miraculous ability to unite conservatives in this country -especially if it means we the Indigenous people will want to reclaim substantive rights they neither understand nor have any desire to rest.
The preamble is a joke and will not provide anything more than appeasement to white middle class guilt and as I’ve written before I’m not the least interested in feeding this ‘guilt’ and absolution anymore and I don’t for one minute that other Indigenous people are interested either.
Howard has NOT presented Australians with an opportunity. And our rights as Indigenous people should not be bound up with political opportunities anymore than the basic human rights of all people should be put out to political auction or the hope that white Australians ‘may’ suddenly feel benevolent. I’m totally over this line of thinking. White Australians should not rely on us to measure their own moral aptitude. We suffered enough from this insidious game.
I urge you Senator to take a harder line.
I heard Aden Ridgeway this morning on radio national. He too took the same soft ‘lets be hopeful’ line.
His accomplice on this interview was Megan Davis an Indigenous scholar and lawyer who put forward clear and succinct legal arguments on why Howard’s proposal was more about political opportunism than anything else.
There was nothing cynical about her analysis. There is nothing cynical about advocating our rights.
“Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation,
Oct 17th, 2007
Greg
I’m out here, got better things to do.
Oct 18th, 2007
The Piping Shrike
With you Greg, things are moving on, maybe not to better, but maybe where we don’t have to treat seriously such meaningless empty gestures as progress. Here we go.
Oct 18th, 2007
lisa
Back in 2003 (before I was cognisant of blogs and blogging — did they exist then) following the Jeannie Ferris incident (or at least the MSM rendering of it) I was inclined to think you mustn’t have very good judgement. Now it is obvious that she played the event to the Liberals greatest possible political advantage.
Acres of blogging including this post has totally proved that you do have good judgement. Wish you and the Democrats, esp in South Australia, success in the senate on Nov 24!
Oct 19th, 2007