A Conversation on Constitutional Recognition of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples – Statewide/Peak Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations Forum at the AAL September 1.

Hosted by the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency (VACCA), the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Incorporation (VAEAI), the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service Co-operative Ltd (VALS) and the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO).

Summary

What happened on the day.

VACCA CEO Muriel Bamblett was the MC for the forum, Aunty Diane Kerr from the Wurundjeri Land Council presented a Welcome to Country and presentations were made by Dr Alf Bamblett, CEO, VACSAL, Richard Frankland, Research development Co-ordinator, VACCA and Mark Liebler, Co-Chair of the You Me Unity Panel on the Constitutional Recognition of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

After the presentations the 60 attendees worked in table groups to discuss their views on Constitutional Recognition of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Summary of the views of the meeting.

The purpose of the meeting was to inform the community about the issues concerned with the proposed Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and assist those who, either as organisations or as individuals, are considering writing a submission to the Panel.The views from the table groups were broadly similar.

In summary, the following propositions appear to have support:

  • Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to be in the preamble or the body of the constitution and include acknowledgement of pre-invasion custodianship, the injustices of the past and the contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to the nation.
  • The deletion of Section 25.
  • Changes to Section 51 xxvi to remove the ‘race power’ and replace it with measures that ensure equality before the law and some form of protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights and culture.
  • Additional agreement making powers to provide constitutional protection to agreements made between the Commonwealth and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
  • Provision of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reserved seats in parliament.
  • Consideration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights to culture and self-determination.

In addition, the participants felt that more needed to be done to ensure that the issue was being heard and understood in both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the broader community.

Table Group Reports

Table A

The first significant question and concern raised in Table A’s discussion was the appointment of the panel insofar as a lack of adequate Victorian representation. The group highlighted the importance of having notable people that were nominated within the Victorian Aboriginal community to offer representation in significant processes. Whilst the table understood the argument that consultation processes were intended to balance out varying views and representations of Australians, there was a strong feeling that this was inadequate. In this conversation was the notion that if you want genuine Aboriginal participation in events and feedback, you need people from Aboriginal communities that have the community’s approval.

These points also raised concerns of a ‘trend’ that seemed to be emerging around perfunctory representation of Aboriginal interests, particularly in government organised events, that left many community members feeling upset by the lack of real representation.

This led to a strong consensus among table members that Aboriginal representation in government is an integral step for the future. The table members appreciated that there is Maori parliamentary representation in New Zealand, and that this has been positive. The table members were curious as to why it had not really been raised as an option for genuine consideration from the beginning of the constitutional change processes. Questions were raised in relation to legislative changes, that could perhaps be prompted through constitutional change and awareness, which ensures significant Indigenous parliamentary representation.

Another area of discussion concerned the decision of where money for Aboriginal affairs is dispersed to, insofar as significant finances leaving Victoria or being invested into services that are not beneficial to the Victorian Aboriginal community. There were questions as to whether Constitutional changes could alter financial arrangements, and the ensuing discussion led us to consider whether agreement making powers could allow for more community control of money intended for Indigenous services.

The table discussed the strong sense of ‘assimilation’ that still underlies attitudes, policy and legislation, and talked instead of the need for the Australian community to better understand the concept of ‘integration’ and thus the integral nature of being able to be part of a larger culture whilst still be supported to maintain and rebuild a strong sense of Aboriginal culture and traditions. If there was a way that this could be genuinely conveyed to the public through the Constitutional recognition campaign, this would be a positive thing.

The table members were adamant that there needed to be more change than the preamble alone, questioning what a preamble would mean in terms of real and inherent basic rights.

The table members also suggested that Australia needs to repeal racist provisions in the Constitution, not only because of its discriminatory tendencies towards Indigenous Australians but because it holds an attitude of intolerance in general. The table members felt that a positive step towards repealing discriminatory provisions would simultaneously be a positive step towards a more broadminded Australia.

Table B

The majority of Table B thought that a statement of recognition (either in the constitution or in a preamble) was necessary and that within that statement of recognition the following things should be stated:

  • That Australia’s First Peoples are the longest continual and oldest culture in the world
  • The Australia’s First Peoples have an entitlement to land and a statement around prior custodianship
  • That Australia is proud of the nation’s First Peoples and acknowledges and respects the unique perspective derived from their culture and time spent on the land.
  • In addition to these statements the importance of self-determination should also be stated

In addition to the preamble there was a consensus that section 25 should be struck from the Australian Constitution.

A majority of people on the table also believed that section 51 xxvi should be repealed.

A majority of the table also felt that Australia’s First Peoples should not be considered/classified a “race” and that a statement in the Constitution should explicitly stating that Australia’s First Peoples cannot be discriminated against.

There was also a lot of discussion of the importance of getting into schools and talking to students from year 10 onward about the importance of the referendum as they will be first time voters when the referendum is occurring.

Table C

The majority of Table C thought that both a new preamble and part of the body should recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights. The tabled asked why there had not been a larger media awareness campaign about the process and feared that we will end up a compromised version

Table D

The majority of Table D expressed concerns around timeframe, and the lack of advertising/publicity. It was suggested that greater advertising/publicity could combat problems with the short timeframe.

Members of the table suggested something in addition to what is stated in Victoria’s preamble should include celebration of culture.

The table believed that ideally, constitutional recognition should be in the preamble and the body of constitution. Acknowledgement is desirable, but practically, perhaps going for body is more strategic (more likely to be passed).

Constitutional changes must be written so as to prevent/avoid multiple interpretations.

All believed that Section 25 must go and that Section 51 (xxvi) currently can have both positive and negative effects but thatrace is a social construct and so should not be used as basis of legislation. Instead there should be an acknowledgement of social determinants rather than race

Table E

The majority of table E felt that preambular recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution is desirable – but not enough. There needs to be some actions to bring the content of the preamble to life in order to give it true meaning and avoid becoming tokenistic.

Also, in order for the reformed Constitution to have an impact, it needs to be able to translate meaning into real action, i.e. the inclusion of non-discrimination. Furthermore it was noted that agreement making power should be included and should not be considered a threat as this sort of agreement making already occurs on a day-to-day basis.

It was noted by one member of Table E regarding section 51 xxvi that it may be beneficial to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples for there to be the ability to make special laws for the benefit of certain groups of people. The problematic question is who decides what is of “benefit” – negative case example is NTER.

Table E agreed that cultural rights need to be protected and reflected throughout the document. This is important as a codification of First People’s identity. It was felt that the Constitution should not only provide recognition, but instead be an aspirational document.

Table E was very conscious that there needs to be strong consideration about what First Peoples recognition in the Constitution will mean to non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. There is a need for us to start thinking about how we encourage people to say “yes”.

Table F

Table F believed that change was needed for the sake of our children. It was important to get theissue more broadly discussed and understood in the Aboriginal community and that more time for discussion was needed so that the community understood how it would affect them. The table believed that the Constitution currently is racist, and even mentions ‘aliens’ before it talks about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.The table agreed with the following proposed changes

-Recognition (in either/both the body/preamble)

-Section 25 removed

-Race powers changed so only for benefit

-Agreement making powers and

-Reserved seats in parliament elected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.