Indigenous recognition debate deserves better than this political jostling

It is argued that this action will negate Recognition of non-ceded Indigenous sovereignty and the negotiation of a Treaty. The campaign 'Vote No to Constitutional Change', for example, argues that a Treaty is imperative for the benefit and security of all Australians. A treaty will in effect become the new constitution.

Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott should know that speaking out the loudest does not show Indigenous Australia that you care most about their status in this country

Celeste Liddle The Guradian 11 July 2013

It's intriguing to me that prime minister Kevin Rudd and leader of the opposition Tony Abbott are currently throwing jibes at each other over who is the most committed to recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian constitution.

During NAIDOC week, the time was ripe for discussions on Indigenous issues in parliament. It was also prime time for getting those discussions covered by the media. By making the other look as if it is he who is dragging his feet on the proposed referendum, Rudd and Abbott are creating the desired parliamentary focus on Indigenous issues for the week, whilst each jostled to position himself as the one who "cares the most" about First Peoples before an election. In other words, it's an orchestrated furphy.

It is well-known that constitutional recognition has bipartisan support. Following a consultation process, the recommendations were handed down by the expert panel on constitutional recognition, and both parties have indicated their support for a referendum. What has also been well publicised is that should his government be elected, Abbott plans to be a “prime minister for Aboriginal affairs”, driving decision-making from the prime ministerial department. Rudd is, of course, the prime minister who apologised to the Stolen Generations, and he's admired for that gesture.

This bipartisan support theoretically means that the public will eventually vote on recognition without too much drama. What it doesn't mean, however, is that the party that pushes hardest for it, and that ends up achieving it whilst in office, cares most for Indigenous people in this country.

Rudd stated in his attack on Abbott that “the Aboriginal people are waiting for this”. It is true that there is definitely a movement for recognition going on at this time. There are a lot of Aboriginal people who are supportive of this movement. To state, however, that “Aboriginal people are waiting” for this is a misrepresentation. Some are completely indifferent to the proposal. Some are also downright opposed.

  Vote 'NO' To Constitutional Change

When the Long Walk for recognition was launched during reconciliation Week, a number of prominent Indigenous people relayed on their differing views. Their opinions covered everything, from a belief that the proposed changes recommended by the expert panel went too far, to the idea that recognition would not address the real daily issues facing Indigenous peoples.

What wasn't covered at this time were the number of campaigns that have been mounted by Indigenous collectives to oppose the amendments. The concerns expressed by a number of these groups is that constitutional recognition is the mere act of being assimilated into a document that was written by a coloniser regime.

It is argued that this action will negate Recognition of non-ceded Indigenous sovereignty and the negotiation of a Treaty. The campaign Vote No to Constitutional Change, for example, argues that “a treaty is imperative for the benefit and security of all Australians. A treaty will in effect become the new constitution”. The Idle No More movement has recently hosted a First Nations Sovereignty Summit , and the Murrawarri Republic has publicly declared its status as an independent nation with its own constitution.

In short, whilst the treaty would be a negotiated and agreed upon document between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia, the current constitution is not. A treaty was promised by the Hawke Labor government only to be reneged upon in the 1980s, and with this in mind, it is not hard to see why there is a section of the community who feel that constitutional Recognition would be selling First Peoples short.

It is rather significant that this political battle between Rudd and Abbott has happened during a NAIDOC Week, which has chosen to honour the 50th anniversary of the Yirrkala Bark petitions. The cause contained within those petitions – land rights – has already been struck off the list of things that could be recognised within the constitution. This in itself poses questions regarding the limitations of recognition to a number of people.

NAIDOC Week provides an opportunity for both leaders to engage in a number of community events from one end of the country to another, and hear first-hand what is important to those communities. Speaking out loudest about relative commitment to constitutional recognition does not show Indigenous Australia that you care most about their status in this country. Instead it shows engaging with the communities during their national week is just too hard and the statement made is more important than the process. Aboriginal people, regardless of where they stand on the constitutional recognition debate, deserve better than that.

Celeste Liddle is an Arrernte Australian woman living in Melbourne. She is the current National Indigenous Organiser for the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU). Celeste blogs personally at Rantings of an Aboriginal Feminist and is particularly interested in education, politics, and the arts