This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/11/indigenous-recognition-debate-rudd-abbott

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Indigenous recognition debate deserves better than this political jostling Indigenous recognition debate deserves better than this political jostling
(2 months later)
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.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.
Being NAIDOC week, the time is ripe for discussions on Indigenous issues in parliament. It's 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 this week, whilst each jostles to position himself as the one who "cares the most" about First Peoples before an election. In other words, it's an orchestrated furphy.Being NAIDOC week, the time is ripe for discussions on Indigenous issues in parliament. It's 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 this week, whilst each jostles 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.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.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.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.
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.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.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.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.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.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.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.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.