Linda Burney attacks Bolt's use of 'apartheid' and urges focus on 'winnable' battles
|
Version 0 of 1. The first Indigenous woman to serve in the House of Representatives says apartheid existed in Australia through much of our history and the only way to ensure progress is to propose “winnable” propositions for constitutional change, and engage with people who hold different views. The Labor frontbencher Linda Burney will use a public lecture at the Australian National University on Wednesday evening to argue Indigenous people need to win not only policy and legal fights to wind back entrenched discrimination but also win political battles, including the looming one to recognise Indigenous people in the constitution. In strong comments before next week’s First Nations convention at Uluru, which is likely to pursue a significantly more ambitious reform process than constitutional recognition, Burney says Indigenous leaders prevailed in the 1967 referendum because they were pragmatic, they engaged with their opponents and recognised that some people were afraid of change. Burney will say on Wednesday night the referendum in 1967, which amended the constitution to include Indigenous people in the census, and allowed the commonwealth to create laws for them, “has been misunderstood as a singular victory, rather than a step in a far longer and more complex journey”. Implicitly referencing the differences that exist among Indigenous leaders about whether constitutional recognition is sufficient, or whether there should be a much bolder reform push, Burney will argue people need to play a long game. She will argue that building on the victory of 1967 through further constitutional change “means compromising and it means being political” and it means winning over the whole Australian community, not just the Indigenous leadership. Burney will take a swipe at the conservative commentator and broadcaster Andrew Bolt, who periodically refers to a “new apartheid” to criticise policies or events he characterises as separating races in Australia. “I was recently a guest on Andrew Bolt’s TV show – it’s not something I usually rush home to watch,” Burney will say. “But it is important because I have always and continue to hold the view that we must engage with voices which we do not agree with. “In that interview Mr Bolt repeatedly made reference to ‘a new apartheid’. “This apartheid was purportedly being imposed on the Australian community by the National Rugby League’s Indigenous round, an artwork Mr Bolt found offensive as well as the push for a new referendum on constitutional recognition. “The idea behind that allegation doesn’t bare examination. It is patently absurd. “Andrew Bolt’s football match-induced discomfort does not quite compare to Mandela’s 27 years in prison.” She will argue that apartheid did exist in Australia when Indigenous children were removed from their families; when people on reserves had to ask permission to get married; when Indigenous people were denied education, access to pools, hotels and public baths; and “when we, who had been custodians of this place for eternity, were denied the right to own it or even vote on how it was governed”. She says it is telling that conservative voices in Australia now “feel free to throw around this term lightly nonetheless, precisely because they do not remember this history or they refuse to know it”. Burney says that, decades on from 1967, Indigenous people need to remind the whole community that discrimination is “not ancient history, that this discrimination is still permitted by our constitution and that this fight is not over”. “Section 51 of our national constitution does not just implicitly allow racial discrimination, it explicitly condones it.” She says not all Indigenous leaders supported the 1967 proposition, and a treaty, a separate sovereign state and a parallel parliament “were all ideas proposed at various times along this path”. But she says they also recognised the price of purity was defeat. “They compromised – they proposed positive constitutional change and a vote on equality which they knew they could win.” Burney will argue that it is imperative that Indigenous people secure recognition in the constitution as a first step, because “we will finally have a national compact which recognises and acknowledges our true history – and depending on the proposal which is put forward, one which no longer implicitly endorses racially discrimination”. But she says the proposal put before the public needs to be winnable and that involves recognising the inherent conservatism of Australians about constitutional change. It also means “engaging with opponents – just as the 67ers did” and it means “recognising that some people will be afraid of change, they might even insensitively call it apartheid”. “These attempts to engender fear in the community are fundamentally dishonest and cowardly – but they are a part of debate.” She says Indigenous leaders need to be political and play the long game. “A small community can be won over by a huge margin but it means nothing if they cannot convince the broader one. “Recognition will need to be owned by all of us – it will be an opportunity for all of us to take ownership of the very real history of discrimination but also of the incredible story that is the oldest living culture on earth.” Next week’s First Nations convention at Uluru will hear the results of dialogues held around the country since last December in an effort to build consensus among the Indigenous leadership. |