Constitutional silence, white noise: putting Indigenous opposition to the Recognise movement front and centre

Critically examine the debate surrounding the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution. To what extent could constitutional recognition represent an act of self-determination?

Since the Yolngu and Bininj clans presented Kevin Rudd with the Yirrkala bark petition calling for constitutional reform in 2008, debate has been ongoing about changes that could potentially be made to the Australian Constitution with regards to Indigenous people. In 2013, Prime Minister Tony Abbott pledged $10 million in funding to Reconciliation Australia to rebrand and relaunch the then YouMeUnity campaign. The new Recognise campaign, under the slogan its the right thing to do, has travelled around the country promoting the broad concept of recognition and claims on its website almost 250,000 supporters.[endnoteRef:1] However, there has been substantial opposition to the campaign from Indigenous communities, opposition that remains largely unrecognised by the political mainstream and actively silenced by the Recognise campaign and its conservative proponents. Here, I aim to chart and investigate Indigenous opposition to the recognition movement. Decolonization of Australian political discourse requires the centering of Indigenous voices and aspirations, not least of which are passionate and sustained arguments for self-determination and sovereignty I take this as a methodological starting point in this paper. I analyse the points at which recognition (at least, in the provisional form proposed by the Expert Panel) comes into conflict with these aspirations, and argue that the totalising rhetoric employed by the recognition movement creates a fundamental negation of Indigenous consent, silencing opposition and making constitutional recognition more plausibly read as an act of forced assimilation into the colonial nation-state than an act of self-determination. [1: RECOGNISE 2015, Homepage - RECOGNISE campaign website, Reconciliation Australia, viewed 15 April 2015, http://www.recognise.org.au/]

Before launching into analysis of the Recognise campaign and Indigenous opposition to it, it is important to ground this analysis in the historical context of Indigenous political discourse and its relationship to policy measures. Larissa Behrendt documents various conceptions of self-determination and sovereignty, two terms that have been frequently employed to give voice to Indigenous aspirations.[endnoteRef:2] She argues that sovereignty and self-determination entail a list of claims, often including claims to the protection of customary practices and laws, recognition of historical ownership of land, equality under the law, and recognition of distinct cultural character, languages and customary law.[endnoteRef:3] At the heart of claims to self-determination is the right of Aboriginal people to negotiate with government on decisions that affect their communities. As Patrick Dodson writes, Aboriginal peoples have the right to participate in law and policy-making and in decisions that affect us governments shall obtain our consent before adopting these laws and policies.[endnoteRef:4] Thus, substantive self-determination is enabled by taking seriously the perspectives of Indigenous communities, centering Indigenous voices and aspirations, and, at the very least, obtaining consent before implementing legislation that affects Aboriginal people. It is from this standpoint that I will analyse the political rhetoric of the Recognise campaign and the various claims made by Indigenous folk in opposition to it. [2: Behrendt, L 2003, Indigenous aspirations: the starting point for rights protection, in Achieving Social Justice: Indigenous Rights and Australias Future (pp. 89-117). Sydney: Federation Press.] [3: Ibid, pp. 90-92.] [4: Dodson, P 1999, Lingiari: Until the Chains are Broken, in M. Grattan (ed.), Essays on Australian Reconciliation. Melbourne: Black Inc.]

In 2008, the Yolngu people handed a bark petition to then Prime Minister Rudd, demanding full recognition of Indigenous rights in the Australian Constitution.[endnoteRef:5] [5: Australian Government 2009, Bark petitions: Indigenous art and reform for the rights of Indigenous Australians. Australian Stories, viewed 24 May 2015, http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/bark-petitions-indigenous-art]

Two years later, the government announced the membership of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. The panel, co-chaired by Mark Leibler and Professor Patrick Dodson, was tasked with consulting communities around the country, and delivered a 300-page report in 2012. The report stated that between May and October 2011, the Panel held more than 250 consultations, with more than 4600 attendees, and that there was widespread support for the idea of recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the constitution.[endnoteRef:6] However, there is some evidence against the unanimity claimed by Recognise. Megan Davis, in her response to Noel Pearsons September 2014 Quarterly Essay, reflects on these visits to communities as a member of the Expert Panel: [6: Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 2012, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution, Canberra. p. 7, 66.]

Most of us were struck by how alive and present this very complex question of sovereignty and a post-colonial settlement was. It was also clear to the panel that one of the reasons for the current movement towards recognition was not a burning desire to be recognised by Australia but to ameliorate the unintended (or intended) consequences[footnoteRef:1] of the drafting of the 1967 amendment.[endnoteRef:7] [1: The major consequence of the successful 1967 referendum was that the Federal Government became able to make special laws pertaining to races, including Aboriginal people, for their benefit or their detriment. However, the amendments to the Constitution erased any reference to Aboriginal people. Although there is no concrete proposal for the changes to be made in a future referendum, Recognise recommends that Section 25 (the race power) should be removed, and that a new section 51A and 127A should be added to recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and languages.1] [7: Davis, M 2014, Correspondance, Quarterly Essay, vol. 56, pp. 77-78.]

Chris Graham, journalist and editor of New Matilda, echoed this sentiment in a panel for Melbourne Conversations, saying that in his experience speaking to ATSI people, many are against the idea of constitutional reform: symbolically, constitutional reform is assimilation, thats certainly how it is seen by a great many Aboriginal people.[endnoteRef:8] It is illuminating simply to compare the above figure of people consulted by the Recognise campaign (4600) to the number of likes (from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous followers) on the Indigenous-led Vote NO to Constitutional Change Facebook page (5679, as of 18 May 2015).[endnoteRef:9] [8: Melbourne Conversations 2015, Constitutional Recognition of Australias First Peoples [video file], viewed 1 May 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytewert3sEc ] [9: Vote NO to Constitutional Change 2015, Facebook page, viewed 18 May 2015, https://www.facebook.com/VotenoToConstitutionalChange?fref=ts]

So although there certainly seems to be a substantial undercurrent of Indigenous opposition to constitutional recognition, these voices are consistently relegated to the margins of public discourse. This is partly a function of the disparity in economic and social capital between the two groups involved on one side, a group of prominent Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians with $10 million in government funding[endnoteRef:10]; on the other, a group of grassroots community activists, most with little funding and access to mainstream media platforms. Celeste Liddle asks: [10: Australian Government 2013, Continued funding for Reconciliation Australia, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, viewed 18 May 2015, http://pmtranscripts.dpmc.gov.au/browse.php?did=19039 ]

Why are the anti voices from an Indigenous perspective stuck utilising social media to try and raise awareness with meagre media coverage, while Recognise gets copious funding to travel around the country for photo opportunities? Exactly how democratically ethical is it that the government is only funding an organisation that promotes its own policy platform?[endnoteRef:11] [11: Liddle, C 2014, I dont want your Recognise campaign - its nothing but a sham. The Guardian Australia, 18 August. Viewed 21 April 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/18/i-dont-want-your-recognise-campaign-its-nothing-but-a-sham]

Despite the stark differences in material resources between the two sides of the debate, Recognise nonetheless brands itself as grassroots and a peoples movement to garner legitimacy in the eyes of progressives.[endnoteRef:12] It also employs arguably the most prominent and conservative Indigenous voices on its Expert Panel Marcia Langton and Noel Pearson, among others. Academic and journalistic work by these same individuals are leveraged to promote the campaign and justify its claims of Indigenous support for the project.[footnoteRef:2] However, I believe that the way in which Recognise uses these figures to stand in for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in general homogenises the diverse array of standpoints within this group of people, and fails to engage seriously with anti-recognition discourse, perpetuating reductive, monolithic definitions of Aboriginality. For example, in the book Everything You Need to Know About the Referendum to Recognise Indigenous Australians[endnoteRef:13] (promoted by Recognise), there is not one mention of Indigenous opposition to the campaign. Recognise uses vague and totalising terms like equality, fairness and respect, but fundamentally fails to acknowledge that Indigenous people are making diverse, legitimate and sustained claims against the idea of constitutional recognition. This colonisation of discursive space upholds the supremacy of the white voice, undermining the right to negotiation and discussion central to Behrendts definition of self-determination. [12: RECOGNISE 2015, What is the RECOGNISE campaign? Reconciliation Australia, viewed 15 April 2015, http://www.recognise.org.au/about/what-is-recognise] [2: It is worth noting the different levels of access that conservative voices and grassroots Indigenous activists have to academic spaces. The structure of the academy is such that academic disciplines and approaches to scholarship are culturally biased and hegemonic in confrontation with Indigenous place-based knowledge. Aboriginal people in universities experience a culture clash that often occurs at the deepest levels of assumptions about reality and epistemology.24 For this reason, some Indigenous folk feel alienated by the hegemonic white nature of academia, and those with more conservative perspectives are welcomed more readily. To this end, I have used sources from news websites, videos and social media to chart grassroots Indigenous resistance to the Recognise campaign. ] [13: Davis, M. & Williams, G 2015, Everything You Need to Know About the Referendum to Recognise Indigenous Australians. Sydney: NewSouth Publishing.]

Returning to the issue of consent raised by Patrick Dodson, the way in which the Recognise campaign has been conducted and the sidelining of Indigenous concerns about the value of recognition raises serious questions about the ethics of the campaign and the extent to which it upholds the value of Indigenous self-determination. In particular, I believe that the debate calls into question the appropriateness of the referendum as a forum for determining whether or not the constitution should be reformed to include Indigenous people. As Celeste Liddle rightfully states, whether indigenous people themselves wish to be recognised in the constitution should be at the heart of this discussion.[endnoteRef:14] However, the discussion, as led by Recognise, is instead determined to reify its conception of unanimous, bipartisan support. If the proposals of the Expert Panel go to a referendum, the Australian public will vote on this issue largely informed by the rhetoric of the Recognise campaign. However, Indigenous consent to the changes simply cannot be gauged by a referendum, due to what Noel Pearson names as the problem of the 3 per cent mouse and the 97 per cent elephant.[endnoteRef:15] Indigenous people make up a very small minority of the Australian population, meaning that even if all Indigenous people voted against recognition, the referendum could easily still succeed. A fact often submerged in the elation of the 1967 referendum was that the highest proportion of the No vote was in regional areas with largely Indigenous populations.[endnoteRef:16] To this end, Megan Davis asks us, will Australia accept that one possible outcome is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples might politely decline the offer of recognition?[endnoteRef:17] The answer to this question unfortunately seems to be negative. There is something about constitutional recognition that excites the White Australian imagination greatly. Nicholas Rothwell wrote in The Australian that there seems to be an urgent desire of the political class for a single answer to the indigenous question.[endnoteRef:18] Perhaps constitutional recognition has become the Sorry of this decade a symbolic act of reconciliation, engineered to appease white guilt and bolster claims to multicultural tolerance without committing the government to any practical or substantial action. [14: Liddle, C 2014, Correspondance, Quarterly Essay, vol. 56, pp. 87.] [15: Pearson, N 2014, A rightful place. Quarterly Essay, vol. 55, p. 40.] [16: Davis, M. & Williams, G 2015, Everything You Need to Know About the Referendum to Recognise Indigenous Australians. Sydney: NewSouth Publishing, pp. 41-43] [17: Davis, M 2014, Correspondance, Quarterly Essay, 56, p. 81.] [18: Rothwell, N 2014, A decade after ATSIC was axed, Aborigines [sic] still have little say. The Australian, 27 September. Viewed 18 May 2015, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/a-decade-after-atsic-was-axed-aborigines-still-have-little-say/story-e6frg6zo-1227071962303]

While symbolism also undoubtedly plays an important role in the twin processes of healing and decolonization, some Indigenous folk question the symbolic value of constitutional recognition in a contemporary Australian political context. Ghillar Michael Anderson, leader of the Euahlayi tribe in north-western NSW and spokesperson of the National Unity Government, views the constitution as a profoundly racist document and reiterates that the only constitutional change desired by the Sovereign Union movement is the introduction of a binding treaty.[endnoteRef:19] Rosalie Kunoth-Monks, speaking to New Matilda, expressed a similar view: [19: Anderson, M 2012, A Sovereign Treaty is the only constitutional reform with the potential of justice for Aboriginal Nations and Peoples. National Unity Government, 23 June. Viewed 4 May 2015, http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/sovereign-treaty-only-constitutional-reform-potential-justice-aboriginal-nations-and-peoples]

I do not come from that constitution, nor will I be swallowed up into it while the brutal assault is going on with my own constitution. My constitution is unwritten, but my goodness its there.[endnoteRef:20] [20: McQuire, A 2014, I will not be swallowed up into the Constitution: Rosalie Kunoth-Monks. New Matilda, 2 December. Viewed 26 April 2015, https://newmatilda.com/2014/12/02/i-will-not-be-swallowed-constitution-rosalie-kunoth-monks]

If a countrys constitution performs the symbolic role of expressing the shared beliefs and aspirations of the population, then, some have argued, constitutional recognition of Indigenous peoples under the guise of equality is disingenuous in a context of ongoing colonial oppression. Les Malezer and Kirstie Parker, co-chairs of the National Congress of Australias First Peoples, listed in their statement to the Joint Select Committee on constitutional reform the various ongoing injustices faced by Indigenous peoples in Australia. In the context of escalating rates of child removal, imprisonment of Aboriginal youth, mining of Aboriginal land without consent and high rates of unemployment, the Congress writes, they are already receiving messages from [Indigenous] people that they are determined to vote against any referendum.[endnoteRef:21] Celeste Liddle similarly writes for the Guardian, we will always question the motives of governments who talk of the importance of our rights on one hand, yet attempt to strip our rights on another.[endnoteRef:22] Evidently, there is a fair amount of scepticism amongst Indigenous people about the value of a purely symbolic change to the Constitution, when similar actions in the past (for example, the 2008 Apology) have not been accompanied by any concrete changes in the lives and conditions of Indigenous people. Indeed, debates about these symbolic statements have often occurred synchronously with some of the most destructive and racist policy measures in Australias history Rudd apologising while the government plundered NT communities under the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007[footnoteRef:3], and the Recognise campaign at the same time as Western Australian LNP Premier Colin Barnett threatens 150 remote communities in Western Australia with closure. Aboriginal people have thus questioned the legitimacy of the symbolic claims of the Recognise campaign, showing that a symbolic act of recognition could potentially do more harm than good through obscuring government atrocities behind a smokescreen of reconciliation. [21: Malezer, L & Parker, K 2015, Co-chairs statement to the Joint Select Committee. National Congress of Australias First Peoples, 20 February. Viewed 18 May 2015, http://nationalcongress.com.au/statement-to-the-joint-select-committee/] [22: Liddle, C 2015, Baird calls on states to support Indigenous recognition. But what difference will it make? The Guardian Australia, 15 January. Viewed 4 April 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/15/baird-calls-on-states-to-support-indigenous-recognition-but-what-difference-will-it-make23 Davis, M & Williams, G 2015, Everything You Need to Know About the Referendum to Recognise Indigenous Australians. Sydney: NewSouth Publishing. pp. 120-125] [3: The NTER has been widely criticized by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars - for example, John Altman describes the Intervention as neo-paternalist, imposed without consultation, top-down, racist, non-discretionary, disempowering and nowhere implemented in its totality.25 The implications of the Intervention since 2007 have been well documented, for example in a report by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commission published in 2012. The report found that unemployment has risen due to the closure of Community Development Employment Projects, and the incidence of Indigenous youth suicide in the NT increased by 160% between 2001-2005 and 2006-2010. The report noted, we know that feelings of hopelessness and disempowerment contribute to vulnerability to suicide. These types of feelings are well documented and widely acknowledged symptoms of the local government reforms and the Intervention. In addition to mental health problems, violence, rates of child removal and overcrowding in housing have also increased.26 ]

KOCR2600 Indigenous Australia: An IntroductionSID: 312095104Research essayI have examined the supposedly bipartisan Recognise campaign, and exposed the ways in which the totalising rhetoric of equality and unity serve to silence critical Indigenous perspectives. Further investigation of such perspectives undermines the claims of unanimous support made by Recognise, and throws into serious doubt the idea that Indigenous consent has been received for constitutional reform. I questioned the appropriateness of referendum for obtaining such consent, given the statistical imbalance of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and the totalising nature of discourse around recognition. A commitment to the principle of self-determination requires the foregrounding of Indigenous perspectives, many of which have stated clearly that they do not desire to be included in the Constitution. For these reasons I believe that constitutional recognition is not an important symbolic act, nor the first step to treaty or even neutral with regards to the issues of sovereignty and treaty, as claimed by Everything You Need to Know[endnoteRef:23]. Insofar as the Recognise movement colonises discursive space by silencing Indigenous voices, constitutional recognition represents a non-consensual act of assimilation into the legal structures of the colonial nation state, serving to mask the ongoing violence of the government towards Indigenous people. [23: 24 Marker, M 2004, Theories and Disciplines as Sites of Struggle: The Reproduction of Colonial Dominance Through the Controlling of Knowledge in the Academy, Canadian Journal of Native Education, Vol. 28(1/2), pp.102110.25 Altman, J 2007, The Howard Governments Northern Territory Intervention: Are Neo-Paternalism and Indigenous Development Compatible?, Center for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Canberra. p. 1226 Australian Human Rights Commission 2012, Social Justice Report 2012, Sydney. p. 158]

1

Notes