[The Canberra Times newspaper has run an opinion piece arguing against the way it is planned to write Aborigines into the constitution. Amongst other things, a planned referendum would trigger “a torrent of hate towards Aborigines and the programs supposed to be helping them”, the author wrote.]
i will vote no
a very interesting article from journalist, blogger and editor at large (whatever that is) jack waterford and what he thinks of the upcoming constitution to place the traditional owners, the aborigines and torres strait islanders (who are pushing to become a self-governing territory) into a recognised position in the australian constitution. or not, as the case may prove to be.
i have followed the perambulations of the discussions very closely, including a constitutional conference that involved les malezer, mick gooda and others, and i have reached the stage whereby i personally see little of value coming out of the legal machine at the other end.
in 2010 the nsw government elected to add the aborigines of nsw into 'their' constitution. whilst it raised a lot of hype and spin from the government and its black camp-followers and also the media, it really meant nothing and said nothing that most non-aboriginal citizens did not already know. we were here first and we are/were one with the land. that's it. i produce the following from a constitutional report to prove my point. the full document goes on for 12 pages and can be found here http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/Cons...$File/E+Brief+Constitutional+Recognition+of+Aboriginal+People.pdf
July 2010 e-brief 11/2010 Page 1 of 12
Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal People
by Gareth Griffith
1 Proposed constitutional amendment
For the purpose of honouring and recognising the unique historical position of Aboriginal people in this State, the NSW Government proposes to amend the Constitution Act 1902 (NSW) by the insertion of a new section 2A. The proposed section reads as follows:
(a) The People and Parliament of New South Wales acknowledge and honour the Aboriginal people as the first people and nations of the State, and
(b) The People and Parliament of New South Wales recognise that Aboriginal people have a spiritual, social, and cultural relationship with their traditional lands and waters and have made a unique and lasting contribution to the identity of New South Wales.
(c) Nothing in this section creates in any person any legal right or gives rise to any civil cause of action, or affects the interpretation of this Act or any other law in force in New South Wales.
In a media release dated 16 June 2010 the Premier said that 'Constitutional recognition reminds us that the determination to close the gap in a range of indicators continues'. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Paul Lynch, said the proposal was 'about acknowledging history, what's happened in the past and it's also about truth telling'.
Elsewhere the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is reported as saying 'There's no reason why you can't do symbols and also practical measures at the same time'. He added that 'Once Parliament resumed in September, a bill would be introduced to amend the Constitution'.1
For Linda Burney, Minister for the State Plan and Minister for Community Services, and the first Aboriginal Australian elected to the NSW Parliament, constitutional recognition 'is another significant step in recognising Aboriginal people in NSW'. Ms Burney stated:
This formal recognition is very important to the Aboriginal community. It's a sign of respect and it has come at a time when the issue of racism has reared its ugly head again. This constitutional recognition will go some way to healing wounds.2
honour and recognition do not become a balm to our invasion wounds.
the stated beliefs of the then premier, ms. kristina kenneally, minister for aboriginal affairs, paul lynch and ms. linda burney, minister for community services, are nothing but 'motherhood' statements to create a feeling of wellbeing without actually doing or changing anything. for ms. kenneally the gap is growing wider, mr lynch has a strange belief that such an constitutional addition is tantamount to 'acknowledging history, the past, and truth telling.' one does not know whether to laugh or cry at this unbelievable naive wish-list that cuts still into our psyche. we have all of that and more to struggle for. whilst i can agree, perhaps, with ms. burney that it was a step forward it was far from being significant.
if this example of sophistry, that is echoed in other states and territories, is all that we have to look forward to then i can only agree with jack, and his reasons, that the constitutional changes are not worthy of the battle.
we do not have a need to be humoured or condescended to in the federal government attempt to sell us and the australian citizens a 'mickey-mouse' inclusion that gives us nothing but the eradication of the racist clauses within the constitution. but that will not change the government(s) view that they can rule for us or against us, as john howard so ably proved. jack takes up this point in his article.
at the conference i attended i argued that the constitutions we have now in this country are all 'british' constitutions and as such they do not correctly portray the modern multicultural and aboriginal australia and therefore they must be scrapped and new constitutions drawn to reflect the australian values of today. they must be based on the human rights of all, including refugees and asylum seekers seeking refuge in this country.
the best result for aboriginals to be treated honestly and fairly is to insert into the body of the constitution the salient points from the un declaration of the world's indigenous peoples. this declaration has already been accepted by the krudd government but will die in the parliamentary vaults rather than be instituted, in part or in full.
such a move will allow us as a society that still whispers of 'mateship and a fair go' to resonate and to once more allow this country to be proud rather than to be a country, a society and a government that is still fighting for the white australia policy, the theft of the aboriginal lands and its resources and the complete abrogation to the racist policies of one nation.
no federal government policy of constitutional change will alter their path. weasel words of succour and the ongoing call for assimilation will not close the gap or improve our lives. nor will the true black and white history be told. our only hope is for our undeniable and legal sovereignty.
i will vote no.
fkj
ray jackson
president
indigenous social justice association
isja01@internode.on.net
(m) 0450 651 063
(p) 02 9318 0947
address 1303/200 pitt street waterloo 2017
Comments
Chatter of this type sucks the oxygen out of enlightenment
Anyone with even the most elementary understanding of Aboriginal tradition knows a conversation on the recognition of Aborigines in the Constitution rests on the recognition of a women's jurisdiction through provision of a women's legislature, as Federal Court Justice John von Doussain found was embedded in Aboriginal law and custom with the view he was "not satisfied on the evidence before this Court that the applicants have established on the balance of probabilities that restricted women's knowledge as revealed to Dr Fergie and Professor Saunders was not part of genuine Aboriginal tradition". [Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 5) (21 August 2001):400]. Similarly, anyone with a rudimentary appreciation of contemporary Australian society would conclude a referendum on equal rights between women and men would achieve overwhelming success. A conversation to amend the Constitution which does not culminate with a proposal to conduct a referendum on the inclusion of a women's legislature is driven by ignorance and the pursuit of male privilege, whether conducted by Aborigines or others. Chatter of this type sucks the oxygen out of enlightenment and should be consigned to bewilderment where it belongs.
philip