National
A major task …
Those urging an open and immediate ‘Let’s all vote Yes’ attitude to firstly having an Aboriginal Recognition referendum, and then to ticking [Yes] in it, have this major task ahead of them: what exactly are We the People being asked to vote ‘Yes’ to? Failure to answer such a question absolutely clearly was a major factor in a losing ‘Yes’ vote in the November 1999 constitutional referendum.
The second major difficulty lies in the functional nature of our Constitution, which is a working document rather than a statement of national aspiration, freedom & identity. It was was the last in a long line of such documents since the Macquarie governorship, particularly the constitutional documents which established ‘representative & responsible’ self-government in Victoria R’s six Australian settler colonies.
This makes ours different, even fundamentally different, in origin, purpose and language to, say, the US Constitution with its “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . .”. (Of course, further on theirs is as much about ‘boring’ functional details as ours is. Perhaps more so.)
Another difficulty is this: how can such a statement be inserted into the nine-paragraph ‘preamble’ (my wording) of “[63 & 64 Vict.] Commonwealth of Australia [Ch. 12] Constitution Act – An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 9th July 1900]”? Grafting on a philosophical statement might be like inserting one into the How To booklet of your latest mobile phone.
This is one lay person’s suggestion of a task like the one above:
What if the relevant section of “Part V – The Powers of the Parliament” became “51. The Parliament shall . . have power to make laws . . with respect to:-
(xxvi) The people of any race for whom it is necessary to make special laws;”
(Original punctuation retained verbatim.)
became something along these lines
<<51. The Parliament shall . . have power to make laws . . with respect to:- (xxvi) All peoples of the Commonwealth regardless of colour, class or creed, but - while acknowledging the unique status of the nation's aboriginal peoples - it shall have no powers to make special laws for any specific group of peoples:>> ?
Yes, needs work, but that is why we have constitutional lawyers & academics, isn’t it?
Underlying the above is this VERY BIG POINT: well-working & benign constitutions are mucked with at everyone’s peril. Even with good intentions. Especially with good intentions.
And that We the People appreciate this could be the main factor in our 82% (36 / 44) referendum rejection rate, rather than being the shallow, dumb, ignorant, sports-besotted, visionless, fascist / racist / reactionary bogans so casually sneered at by our (safe, warm & cosy) cultural elites.