tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/indigenous-referendum-17137/articlesIndigenous referendum – The Conversation2016-08-16T15:15:16Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/640322016-08-16T15:15:16Z2016-08-16T15:15:16ZPolitics podcast: Linda Burney on the 50th anniversary of the Wave Hill walk-off<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134295/original/image-20160816-13007-1xbb4tr.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pat Hutchens/TC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Next week, Australians will look back at one the most significant moments in the struggle for Indigenous rights. August 23 marks the 50th anniversary of the Wave Hill walk-off, when Vincent Lingiari led a group of 200 Aboriginal workers and their families off a Northern Territory pastoral station in protest against their exploitative pay and working conditions. </p>
<p>Labor’s spokesperson for human services, Linda Burney, who at the election became the first Indigenous woman to win a seat in the lower house, tells Michelle Grattan the events of Wave Hill were incredibly important and continue to be. </p>
<p>Burney says the actions of Lingiari and the Gurindji people at Wave Hill were “heroic” and should be “fundamental to everyone’s education in Australia through the school curriculum”. </p>
<p>Burney also traces the modern land rights movement to the walk-off. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134316/original/image-20160816-13025-k3pnn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134316/original/image-20160816-13025-k3pnn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134316/original/image-20160816-13025-k3pnn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=594&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134316/original/image-20160816-13025-k3pnn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=594&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134316/original/image-20160816-13025-k3pnn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=594&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134316/original/image-20160816-13025-k3pnn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=746&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134316/original/image-20160816-13025-k3pnn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=746&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134316/original/image-20160816-13025-k3pnn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=746&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Returning traditional lands to the Gurindgi people in August 1975, Gough Whitlam pours soil into the hands of Vincent Lingiari.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twitter/@CanberraInsider</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>“The Gurindji with the support of unions and many others – non-Aboriginal people – came to the south and presented their case about living conditions, about rights to country, rights to culture, and the south and the north came together and over a long period of time eventually delivered land rights to the Gurindji,” she says. </p>
<h2>Constitutional recognition of First Australians</h2>
<p>Acknowledging roadblocks in the way of constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, Burney says she doesn’t want to “entertain the notion that it can’t happen”.</p>
<p>“I am very disappointed that the Referendum Council has now taken the view that they can’t deliver a report until mid next year.”</p>
<p>“I am still very optimistic that there will be a referendum. It will not be for the 50th anniversary [of the 1967 referendum]. That symbolism is lost but I do think there is still an appetite for a referendum at some point. I am sick of this being kicked down the road.”</p>
<p>“If the Referendum Council says ‘mid-next year’ then let’s for heaven’s sake set a definite date so we know what we’re working towards and get a set of words, a question, so we know what we’re going to be talking about,” she says.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64032/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Next week, Australians will look back at one the most significant moments in the struggle for Indigenous rights.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/422462015-05-26T20:09:47Z2015-05-26T20:09:47ZWhat the record reveals of the chances of Indigenous recognition<p><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-18/majority-support-indigenous-recognition-in-constitution-poll/6476538">Recent opinion polls</a> have given a boost to the campaign for Indigenous constitutional recognition. Prime Minister Tony Abbott has flagged a possible referendum date in 2017. At the same time, many proposals for the form of constitutional change are in competition. None as yet commands general support among opinion leaders. This must be a matter of major concern.</p>
<p>If the referendum goes ahead, any proposal will have to win a majority of votes across the nation plus majorities in a majority of states. As is well known, the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp9900/2000RP02">referendum record</a> is marked by failures: <a href="http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/referendums-and-plebiscites.html">44 proposals</a> (in 19 referendums) have delivered only eight successes. </p>
<p>The government’s <a href="http://www.recognise.org.au/about/expert-panel/">Expert Panel</a> on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians was deeply troubled by this fact. Its <a href="http://www.recognise.org.au/about/expert-panel-report/">2012 report</a> prioritised strategies for success. However, like many supporters today, it paid only modest attention to the referendum record.</p>
<p>The panel concluded that bipartisanship, a well-designed campaign and a large-scale public education program could deliver success. Sadly, such optimism is questionable. An assessment of the chances needs to be tempered with realism. </p>
<h2>A referendum history dominated by rejection</h2>
<p>What does the record tell us? First, to succeed, a proposal needs soaring levels of support and virtually no organised opposition. Any significant degree of opposition will almost certainly mean defeat. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82891/original/image-20150526-24721-ye4qt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82891/original/image-20150526-24721-ye4qt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82891/original/image-20150526-24721-ye4qt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=837&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82891/original/image-20150526-24721-ye4qt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=837&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82891/original/image-20150526-24721-ye4qt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=837&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82891/original/image-20150526-24721-ye4qt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1052&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82891/original/image-20150526-24721-ye4qt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1052&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82891/original/image-20150526-24721-ye4qt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1052&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/referendums-and-plebiscites.html">Parliamentary Education Office</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Bipartisanship is essential, but it will not be enough. Four referendum questions (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1919">1919</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1926">1926</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1937_%28Aviation%29">1937</a>, <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs150.aspx">1967</a>) were backed by both major parties but were defeated. Political opposition, including from minority parties or independent MPs, is likely both to indicate and encourage voter opposition. </p>
<p>Parliament must pass a Constitution Alteration Bill before a referendum proceeds. Members of parliament are entitled to prepare the official “Yes” and “No” cases that reflect their vote. </p>
<p>The cases are then printed in pamphlets and sent to voters. These serve as an important indicator. If no-one in parliament votes against the bill, there will be no No case. Every referendum question in the past with only an official Yes case has succeeded.</p>
<p>The likelihood of this happening for Indigenous recognition looks slim, at least at present. Government Senator Cory Bernardi has already indicated that he may trigger a campaign against any proposal. </p>
<p>Only one referendum with a No case – the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1946_%28Social_Services%29">1946 social services referendum</a> – has ever succeeded. That referendum was the narrowest of the eight successes, but it offers a glimmer of historical hope, standing as the single victory in the face of divided political opinion. It should therefore be the focus of attention. </p>
<h2>The 1967 referendum is an unreliable precedent</h2>
<p>Instead, the spectacularly successful <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs150.aspx">1967 referendum</a>, which attracted more than 90% of the national vote and support in all states, has consistently been treated as a precedent. </p>
<p>A repeat of what happened in 1967 is unlikely. That referendum has been poorly understood. The specific question put to the voters on the ballot paper – Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled: “An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to the people of the Aboriginal race in any state and so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the population?” – bore only a roundabout resemblance to the actual alterations to be made to the Constitution, and almost no resemblance to what people seem to think happened. </p>
<p>The referendum did two things, having little in common with today’s recognition aspirations. It gave the Commonwealth the constitutional power to make “special laws” (beneficial or adverse) for the people of the Aboriginal “race” and it deleted a section of the Constitution (s 127) that had excluded Aborigines from “reckoning” the people of the Commonwealth. </p>
<p>The purpose of this particular section (admittedly not obvious from its words) was to guide the calculation of the numbers of parliamentary representatives and per capita financial entitlements to which each state was entitled.</p>
<p>However, many myths surrounded the referendum, and these have endured. Among others, it is said that it gave “equal rights” to Aboriginal Australians. It did not. No rights were added or altered. </p>
<p>Specifically, it did not give Aboriginal people the right to vote. By 1967, they already voted in all states and in the Commonwealth – they voted in the referendum. </p>
<p>The deletion of section 127, it is also said, meant that Aborigines could be counted in the census. It did not. They have always been counted, in every census.</p>
<p>The belief that the 1967 referendum was about indigenous citizenship and equal rights appears, however, to have helped the campaign. A similar narrative will be hard to achieve for Indigenous recognition, unless the question is meticulously framed to avoid the impression of favouring one sector’s rights over others. </p>
<h2>Proposing rights is no guarantee of success</h2>
<p>Even then, a rights proposal cannot be certain of success. Indeed, the worst referendum defeat on record was the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1988_(Rights_and_Freedoms)">1988 “rights and freedoms”</a> proposal. It attracted only 30.79% of the national vote. This result alone should caution against any proposal to insert an anti-race discrimination provision in the Constitution. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_referendum,_1988">1988 referendum</a> and several others also sound warning bells against including multiple proposals in a single question. Voters are unlikely to warm to an “all or nothing” proposal. </p>
<p>A large-scale education campaign will not necessarily help. Unprecedented public funding was allocated for the <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/1999_Referendum_Reports_Statistics/1999.htm">1999 republic referendum</a>: nearly A$17 million for the official referendum pamphlets, an additional $4.5 million for public information and a further $15 million for campaign advertising. Voters were possibly better informed than in any previous referendum. Their answer was still resoundingly negative. </p>
<p>In any case, the education strategy confuses information with opinion. Constitutional knowledge provides little guidance about the desirability of constitutional alteration. Constitutional lawyers have never been unanimous on the merits of referendum proposals. Knowledge may lead some voters to reject a proposal.</p>
<p>We don’t know much about what Australians know or think about the Constitution. There is little recent data. </p>
<p>Polls conducted <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/publications/papers-and-podcasts/australian-constitution/professor-george-williams.aspx">in 1987</a> and 1994 revealed a very <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp9899/99RP15">low level of knowledge</a> about the Constitution. These are frequently cited and appear to encourage the case for more education. However, they are now seriously out-of-date. A modern referendum campaign needs much better data and cannot rely on small, unfocused samples of opinion.</p>
<h2>Social media: a new wildcard</h2>
<p>In assessing the prospects for success, one critical variable, never trialled before, must be confronted. Although the last referendum, in 1999, took place in the internet era, it pre-dated interactivity, social networking, mass emailing, blogging, tweeting and texting. These new media, as the Expert Panel noted, create huge opportunities for educating and harnessing support and are of particular significance to young voters.</p>
<p>But there is another side to the picture. Social media also offer formidable avenues for opposition. Campaigns, furthermore, can be anonymous and allow things to be said that would be unacceptable if openly expressed. The disproportionately negative comments attached to online opinion pieces on Indigenous recognition provide a stark illustration of the latter. </p>
<p>A defeat for Indigenous constitutional recognition would be disastrous and demoralising. Believing that worthy proposals will attract support because they are worthy and “talking up” the chances of success are profoundly misguided. </p>
<p>Supporters must look long and hard at the referendum record. If not, they will hand the outcome over to the opposition.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42246/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Helen Irving does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A defeat for Indigenous constitutional recognition would be disastrous and demoralising. But history tells us that even worthy proposals with bipartisan support are not assured of success.Helen Irving, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/421102015-05-20T20:08:33Z2015-05-20T20:08:33ZFrank Brennan: the case for modest constitutional change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82333/original/image-20150520-30548-1io2tuu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We need to determine if there is any point in maintaining the concept of 'race' in the Constitution. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/NEWZULU/Wayne E Jansson</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australians are increasingly aware and dissatisfied that the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution">Australian Constitution</a> does not mention Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. In 1967, Australians <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs150.aspx">voted overwhelmingly</a> in favour of constitutional amendments to remove two negative and outdated references to Aborigines. </p>
<p>John Howard when prime minister was committed to a constitutional amendment that would make positive reference to Indigenous Australians and their place in the nation’s history and in national life. His successors Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard repeated the commitment. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, some Indigenous leaders were dissatisfied with court decisions and government policies, which they thought operated unjustifiably in a racially discriminatory way only towards Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. </p>
<p>They wanted a constitutional guarantee that neither the Commonwealth nor the states could enact unacceptable laws or policies impacting only on Aborigines. They were upset at Commonwealth measures like income management, the “<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/special_topics/the_intervention/">federal intervention</a>” on Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and state policies <a href="https://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-116.pdf">restricting access to alcohol</a> on Aboriginal communities in areas like Cape York.</p>
<p>On New Year’s Day 2014, Prime Minister <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-01/abbott-wants-conversation-on-indigenous-referendum/5181004">Tony Abbott said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I will […] start the conversation about a constitutional referendum to recognise the first Australians. This would complete our Constitution rather than change it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Will completing the Constitution without making any substantive changes satisfy Indigenous Australians or make any real difference to their lives? Will proposing a change to the Constitution to the satisfaction of key Indigenous leaders satisfy the majority of Australians who are mistrustful of constitutional change? </p>
<p>Many voters would be happy to sign on to a timely completion of the Constitution, making honourable mention of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, bringing it into line with contemporary views but without making substantive changes. These are challenging issues requiring deep thought in the community and clear bipartisan leadership from our elected leaders. </p>
<h2>No one-liners</h2>
<p>The Australian Constitution is a fairly prosaic, legalistic document. It does not contain any great one-liners that could be readily learned by schoolchildren or repeated on talkback radio programs. Though democratically supported by the Australian people at Federation on January 1 1901, the Constitution is simply an attachment to an act of the British Parliament. </p>
<p>It sets out the basic structure of the Australian federation, bringing six former British colonies together as a Commonwealth. It sets down the relationships between the states and territories and the Commonwealth. It provides for a Commonwealth Parliament (House of Representatives and Senate), a Commonwealth Executive (the governor-general as the Queen’s representative and the Queen’s ministers of state), and a Commonwealth judiciary (the High Court and such other federal courts as the parliament establishes).</p>
<p>The Constitution specifies that the Commonwealth Parliament has the exclusive power to make laws with respect to customs and excise, which are the taxes placed on goods, especially when they cross a border from one jurisdiction to another. It specifies that most of the other law-making powers of the Commonwealth Parliament cover fields that can also be legislated by the states.</p>
<p>These concurrent areas of legislative power are set down in <a href="http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/closer-look/governing-australia/making-laws.html">section 51</a>. Prior to 1967, section 51(26) provided that the parliament had power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to “the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. </p>
<p>In 1967, the Australian people voted to amend that provision, taking out the words of exclusion “other than the aboriginal race in any State”, thereby granting the Commonwealth as well as the states power to legislate with respect to Aborigines within their jurisdictions. </p>
<h2>Super-majorities</h2>
<p>The High Court has made clear that the Commonwealth Parliament’s legislative power in relation to Aborigines, though usually exercised for the benefit of Aborigines, extends to the making of laws adverse to Aboriginal interests or to laws that affected Aborigines might not want. </p>
<p>Should there be a conflict between a valid Commonwealth law and a valid state law, the Constitution provides in <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/%7E/%7E/%7E/link.aspx?_id=6ED2CAE61E7742A1B2C42F95D4C05252&_z=z">section 109</a> that the Commonwealth law prevails and the state law to the extent of any inconsistency is invalid or inoperative. </p>
<p>The Constitution provides for amendment by a super-majority of voters – a majority of all voters and a majority of voters in at least four of the six states voting in favour of an amendment proposed by both houses of parliament. Amendment does not come easily. </p>
<p>Only <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/Referendums_Overview.htm">eight out of 44</a> referendum proposals have been passed since Federation. Since 1967, the Constitution contains no reference whatever to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders or to their presence prior to the assertion of British sovereignty. </p>
<p>The Constitution uses the concept “race” only in section 51(26) and in <a href="https://theconversation.com/indigenous-recognition-and-the-section-25-quandary-5082">section 25</a>, which is a completely outdated provision. Section 25 relates to the calculation of the number of seats from each state in the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>Were a state to disqualify people of a particular race from voting in their parliamentary elections, those persons would not be counted in reckoning the number of seats to be allocated in the House of Representatives. </p>
<p>No state does or is likely to disqualify people of any particular race from voting. Even if they did, such a racist action should not be permitted to affect the equitable distribution of seats in the House of Representatives. It is time for section 25 to go. When considering any reworking of section 51(26), we need to determine if there is any point in maintaining the concept of “race” in the Constitution. </p>
<h2>Recognition</h2>
<p>Australians are now being asked to consider how best to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution, which presently does not mention them, their history or their aspirations.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Abbott’s talk of completion without substantive change might quieten community apprehension and mistrust; it might also serve to modify the aspirations of some Indigenous leaders who, though they would like to see more substantive constitutional change, know that in politics the perfect is the enemy of the good. </p>
<p>In 2012, Parliament passed a law requiring the minister for Indigenous affairs to appoint a review panel to consider the various proposals for constitutional amendment. That panel, headed by John Anderson, who had been leader of the National Party and deputy prime minister to John Howard, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/warning-against-poll-now-on-indigenous-recognition/story-fn9hm1pm-1226994043873">has recommended</a> that the Abbott Government proceed slowly, cautiously and incrementally. In Anderson’s words:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>we risk a terrible, terrible disaster if we go too early, if people are not ready and something put to the Australian people was knocked out.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Aboriginal panel member Tanya Hosch, who is deputy campaign director for <a href="http://www.recognise.org.au/">Recognise</a>, the community-based movement to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution, <a href="http://www.recognise.org.au/wp-content/uploads/shared/uploads/custom/f8398b1696abbf784d61.pdf">said in 2014</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every big moment like this in our country’s history has been preceded by scare campaigns and mistruths. I trust the good judgment of the Australian people. In the meantime, we’ll continue rolling out the thousands of conversations across the country as part of the Journey to Recognition. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In September 2014, this <a href="http://www.dpmc.gov.au/indigenous-affairs/publication/final-report-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-act-recognition-review-panel">review panel recommended</a> that a referendum be held “no later than the first half of 2017”. </p>
<p>The parliament has also set up a committee of members from both houses to recommend the way forward. The committee is led by Aboriginal parliamentarians Ken Wyatt, a Liberal member of the House of Representatives from Western Australia, and Nova Peris, a Labor senator from the Northern Territory. </p>
<h2>A good start</h2>
<p>Never before has there been Aboriginal representation on both sides of the parliament. This heralds a good start to the process. They are consulting Australians about the recommendations for change that were put forward by the <a href="http://www.recognise.org.au/about/expert-panel/">Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition</a>, which had been set up by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and was co-chaired by the nation’s father of reconciliation, Patrick Dodson, and lawyer Mark Leibler during 2011. </p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.recognise.org.au/wp-content/uploads/shared/uploads/assets/3446_FaHCSIA_ICR_report_text_Bookmarked_PDF_12_Jan_v4.pdf">their foreword</a> to the Expert Panel’s report, Dodson and Leibler say:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The logical next step is to achieve full inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution by recognising their continuing cultures, languages and heritage as an important part of our nation and by removing the outdated notion of race. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This next step should commend itself to most voters and all members of parliament. The first proposed means for taking the step – the removal of the outdated section 25, which permitted a racially discriminatory determination of electorates – is already common ground in our parliament. </p>
<p>Other proposed means for the removal of race will be strongly debated. Do we remove the notion of race by not mentioning the word “race” at all, and by not mentioning any particular race in the Constitution? Or do we remove the notion of race ironically by constitutionally entrenching a guarantee against discrimination on the basis of race? </p>
<p>The Australian people will be invited to vote on measures that will have gained a broad cross-section of support in the parliament once the parliament has heard the findings of the joint parliamentary committee, which produced an interim report in July 2014 and will produce its final report in June 2015. </p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Constitutional_Recognition_of_Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Peoples/Interim_Report/index">its interim report</a>, the all-party committee agreed that any successful referendum proposal would need to meet three primary objectives. It must:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia; preserve the Commonwealth’s power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and in making laws under such a power, prevent the Commonwealth from discriminating against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree with the first two objectives. I argue that the third objective is presently unachievable and unworkable.</p>
<h2>Effecting modest change</h2>
<p>For a modest constitutional change, I argue three aspects need to be considered: inserting a factual acknowledgment of Aboriginal history, culture, languages and land rights; deleting the racially discriminatory section 25; and amending section 51(26) to allow the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to the distinctive Aboriginal matters listed in the acknowledgment. </p>
<p>I argue against a constitutional ban on racial discrimination. I think such a ban has no prospect of winning community endorsement at this time. Such a ban would also be unworkable and too uncertain in its application. </p>
<p>Should Indigenous leaders see such a ban as a necessary precondition for their endorsement of any referendum proposal, I would argue that no referendum should proceed unless and until the nation is ready to vote for a fully-fledged constitutional bill of rights (including a ban on all adverse discrimination) or at least for a comprehensive ban on all adverse discrimination, not just on the basis of race, but also on the basis of gender, age, religion, sexual orientation or disability. </p>
<p>If we are to make a substantive constitutional change, why should there be a constitutional ban on racial discrimination but not on sex discrimination? Why should there be a constitutional ban on racial discrimination only against Aborigines but not against newly-arrived migrants? </p>
<p>To place a ban on racial discrimination in the Constitution without a ban on other forms of adverse discrimination would be to put our constitutional arrangements out of kilter. To place a ban on racial discrimination against Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders but not against other Australians would itself be an act of racial discrimination. </p>
<p>Neither of these proposals would complete the Constitution in its present form. They would change it substantially. </p>
<p>A constitutional ban on racial discrimination would require the High Court to second-guess every piece of legislation relating to Aborigines coming before the Commonwealth Parliament. The joint parliamentary committee has been <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Constitutional_Recognition_of_Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_Peoples/Interim_Report/index">advised by Neil Young</a>, a leading barrister, that such a ban “is likely to have wide-reading application and be heavily litigated”. </p>
<p>Nineteen years ago, I did propose <a href="http://www.uniya.org/publications/pdfs/o_bill_rights.pdf">a constitutional ban</a> on discrimination on the ground of race, colour, ethnic or national origin. I have since reversed that position and will argue strongly for the reversal. Only a modest referendum proposal will have the prospect of being carried, of being workable and of being sufficiently certain in its future application. </p>
<p>The lesson from the 1967 referendum is that a modest proposal overwhelmingly carried by the people provides the political imperative for governments to act.</p>
<p><br>
<br>
<em>This is an edited extract from <a href="http://www.uqp.uq.edu.au/Book.aspx/1346/No%20Small%20Change-%20The%20Road%20to%20Recognition%20for%20Indigenous%20Australia">No Small Change: The Road to Recognition for Indigenous Australia</a> by Frank Brennan, published by University of Queensland Press</em>. </p>
<p><em>Frank Brennan <a href="http://www.swf.org.au/component/option,com_events/Itemid,124/agid,4663/task,view_detail/">will be appearing</a> at the Sydney Writers’ Festival today.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42110/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Brennan is the author of No Small Change: The Road to Recognition for Indigenous Australia, of which this article is an extract. </span></em></p>Will completing the Constitution without making any substantive changes satisfy Indigenous Australians or make any real difference to their lives? Ahead of the proposed referendum on Indigenous recognition, such questions are vital.Frank Brennan, Professor of law, Australian Catholic UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.