'Recognise' is proposing five changes to the Australian constitution to give recognition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The government and opposition, plus various corporates and notable individuals are pushing for the change but have not named a time for the referenda, apparently because polling tells them it would not pass.
This is another case of the Australian public being much smarter than their supposed leaders.
Recommendation one is to remove section 25 of the constitution. This section gives States the right to ban people from voting on the basis of their race. It should be removed but as part of a general clean-up of all the non-operative and redundant sections. It has never been used and never will be.
Advertisement
The second recommends removing section 51 (xxvi), which permits the parliament to make laws covering the people of any race where that is deemed necessary. This section originally read, "The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State," In the fondly remembered referendum of 1967 this was amended to delete, "other than the aboriginal race in any State". So the '67 vote gave the Commonwealth power to make laws for Aborigines, and to overrule State law, by changing this section. It was a big step forward.
It sounds nice to get rid of racial discrimination but what if we had a war with a nation that had many nationals living in Australia? The Parliament may want to pass laws restricting those people, or protecting them. It could be so unnecessarily complex to do this without some reference to race that it would become a lawyers' picnic. It is certainly a separate issue to recognising ATSI people.
Changes three and four are contradictory. They aim to insert a new section 51A to recognise ATSI peoples and preserve the government's ability to pass laws for the benefit of ATSI peoples; then a new section 116A banning racial discrimination by government. That is, they want to ban all discrimination while enabling discrimination that is 'good'. Lawyers would make fortunes arguing what laws were for the benefit of ATSI people. Was the Howard Government's intervention 'good'? Is handing out welfare payments 'good'?
Finally they want to insert a new section 127A to recognise that ATSI languages were Australia's first tongues while confirming English as Australia's national language. Maybe we should also formally declare the sky blue.
Apart from the fact the recommended changes are unnecessary, silly or contradictory, the entire project of 'Recognise' is phony.
It is not the result of a growing change of opinion among many Australians, or an attempt to solve a clear problem. It twists the purpose of, and degrades the role of the constitution. I can only assume whoever dreamed it up had so much fun with the 'Sorry Day' campaign they invented an excuse to do it all over again.
Advertisement
I think the "Sorry" speech was the best thing Kevin Rudd did as Prime Minister. It made people feel better for a while and possibly had some long-term effects. It certainly put an end to the 'Sorry' campaign. Trying to repeat that success with a tokenistic campaign that can not be expected to achieve any real improvement or take thinking on indigenous matters to new ground is worse than a waste of time and effort.
It distracts from serious analysis of the manifest failure of so many policies tried over recent decades; failure that can be blamed on aboriginal leaders and their sympathetic white supporters as much as governments.
The best work currently being done to raise ATSI peoples' living standards, as far as I am aware, is in the fields of education and in closing down appallingly dysfunctional small communities in remote areas. These hard won achievements will not be assisted by another grand, national campaign to change some words in a document nobody reads.
Only lawyers would be clear winners, apart from those people wanting to look active on the issue while avoiding hard decisions.
The constitution is the legal framework that sets out how we will be governed. It is not the plaything of self-righteous people trying to show how nice and anti-racist and kind they are. What would be next? All the professional ethnics demanding that the constitution name all the nations from which migrants have come to Australia, and that we name all their languages? Or maybe we should give gays, transgender people and anyone else who has a lobby group a quick mention in the constitution, just to show we care.
But perhaps the worst aspect of 'Recognise' is that it entrenches a racist view of the world. It springs from the 'multicultural nation' idea. Everyone is supposed to be from a particular culture and to be treated as if they are mono-dimensional.
In fact Australia is a nation of multicultural individuals.
If a person is of Aboriginal, Italian and Irish heritage, was born in Australia and has a high paid job in a global industry in a large city, what culture are they? If a person has a Peruvian and an Iranian parent and grew up in Australia, what culture are they? If a person is of German and New Zealand ancestry, was born in Chile and did not arrive in Australia until the age of nineteen, what is their designated culture? This last example was Chris Watson, the first ALP Prime Minister. The others are people living in Sydney now, and there are many more such combinations.
To try and cast three per-cent of the Australian people as 'ATSI' people, separate from the rest of us and needing public campaigning to make them feel better, is appalling. More than most of us, they are multicultural. Pride in the original family culture is certainly necessary. But mostly they need help to raise their living standards, not to be condemned to the impossible task of pretending to live a stone-age culture while watching TV and surfing the internet. Their problems revolve around jobs, education, health care, global warming and all the other issues that beset us all, not the lack of a mention in the constitution.
'Recognise' should be allowed to quietly fade away. The Australian people will never vote for this pointless nonsense.