Prime Minister Julia Gillard met with indigenous leaders including Pat Dodson. Photo: Andrew Meares
Every so often in a rare moment of Australia’s history political parties agree on matters which are important to the nation. A time where all parties put aside their ideological differences for the good of the country. We are not often given the opportunity to bear witness to those rare glimpses of history unless we are actively involved in the process. Today, we have been given that opportunity in our life to see a healing and closing of a wound that has been a terrible stain on our nation.
We can honestly say that in times of war, depression, plaque, natural disasters and other issues of great importance to the Australian nation, Australians’ on whole have supported the Government of the day to overcame these challenges the nation has faced. Recognising our indigenous people, granting them equal rights, acknowledging their presence before the arrival of the white man and above all respecting their customs and culture is a huge step in the closing of a wound that had been festering for in excess of 200 years.
It is pleasing to note that both the major political parties have worked in unison to achieve what in previous years was thought the impossible. It is true that will always remain a recalcitrant few that fail to acknowledge the original owners but they are few and in the minority. Never having to feel guilty about the past actions of previous generations but acknowledging that the current generation has a responsibility to the original owners of the land is a tribute to the Prime Minister Julia Gillard and to the Opposition Leader Tony Abbot. Both are to be congratulated and applauded for this momentous step forward along with every other individual or institution that assisted in this great move forward. A voice from the pavement. A copy may be downloaded by clicking on: Australia as one nation – About time
Nations wound closer to being healed
February 13, 2013 Michael Gordon National Affairs Editor, The Age
Australia has moved one step closer to recognising its first people in the country’s founding document after one of the federal parliament’s rare and uplifting moments of unity between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott. Both leaders committed themselves to address what the Prime Minister called ”the unhealed wound that even now lies open at the heart of our national story” and the Opposition Leader dubbed ”this stain on our soul”. The passage through the House of Representatives of an Act of Recognition was met by applause from the public galleries and from indigenous leaders including Patrick Dodson and Lowitja O’Donoghue who had been invited to witness the moment from the floor of the house.
Ms Gillard with Lowitja O’Donoghue on the day the recognition bill is introduced. Photo: Andrew Meares
The legislation recognises the ”unique and special place” of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples and is designed to give momentum for constitutional recognition after the September election. It passed the lower house on the fifth anniversary of the apology by former prime minister Kevin Rudd to the stolen generations. ”We must never feel guilt for the things already done in this nation’s history, but we can – and must – feel responsibility for the things that remain undone,” Ms Gillard told Parliament. ”No gesture speaks more deeply to the healing of our nation’s fabric than amending our nation’s founding charter.” Speaking from hand-written notes, Mr Abbott told Parliament Australia was the envy of the world, except for the fact that ”we have never fully made peace with the first Australians”.
”We have to acknowlwedge, that pre-1788, this land was as Aboriginal then as it is Australian now, and until we have acknowledged that we will be an incomplete nation and a torn people,” Mr Abbott said. ”We need to atone for the omissions and for the hardness of heart of our forbears to enable us all to embrace the future as a united people.” Ms Gillard described the absence of recognition in Constitution as ”the great Australian silence” and expressed the hope that legislation for the referendum could pass in 2014. Many of the politicians, including both leaders, wore badges carrying the letter ”R” for recognition to signify support the referendum. Mr Abbott applauded former Labor prime minister Paul Keating’s Redfern speech of 21 years ago and paid tribute to those on both sides of politics who played roles in progress toward recognition.
”So often in this place we are protagonists. Today, on this matter, we are partners and collaborators,” he told Ms Gillard. ”So much of what happens here passes people by. Sometimes it even annoys them. May this be an occasion when the parliament lifts people’s spirits, makes them feel more proud of our country, and more conscious of our potential to more often be our best selves.” But both leaders acknowledged that the challenge of agreeing on the wording of the referendum remains, with Mr Abbott saying: ”It won’t necessarily be straight forward to acknowledge the first Australians without creating new categories of discrimination which we must avoid because no Australians should feel like strangers in their own country.
”But I believe that we are equal to this task of completing our constitution rather than changing it. The next parliament will, I trust, finish the work that this one has begun.” The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples welcomed the passage of the Act of Recognition, but said the hard yards in achieving substantive constitutional reform were just beginning. ”Today is the first test of multi-partisanship leadership. Now all parties must continue to work together to achieve a referendum involving substantive reform not just symbolic recognition,” said congress co-chair Jody Broun. ”Congress calls for constitutional reform that protects rights and prohibits discrimination. ”We now expect clear commitments from all sides of politics to a referendum timeframe and the concrete steps required to make it happen,” she said.
Recognition bill passes lower house
February 13, 2013 Katina Curtis AAP
Parliament has taken the next steps towards reconciliation on the fifth anniversary of the national apology to the stolen generation. Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott put aside politics on Wednesday as the lower house passed legislation that will create an Act of Recognition of indigenous people. Ms Gillard described the bill as a promise and an act of preparation and anticipation for a referendum. The legislation, which contains a two-year sunset clause, is intended to pave the way for constitutional change while giving time to build community support. “I do believe the community is willing to embrace the justice of this campaign because Australians understand that indigenous culture and history are a source of pride for us all,” Ms Gillard told parliament.
The prime minister said the current push for change shared the idealism and dreams of the successful 1967 referendum which allowed indigenous people to vote and be counted in the census. “This year the youngest voters of that referendum are turning 67,” she said. “I hope they will soon be able to return to the ballot box, perhaps with their children and grandchildren, and again make history.” The prime minister paid tribute to her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, for having the courage to apologise to indigenous people on behalf of all Australians. “We are only able to consider this Act of Recognition and constitutional change because the apology came first,” she said.
Mr Abbott noted that while he and Ms Gillard were often antagonists, on this matter they were partners. He honoured Ms Gillard’s work, as well as that of other leaders who had paved the way over the years including Harold Holt, Gough Whitlam, John Howard, Mr Rudd and Brendan Nelson. “Most of all I honour the millions of indigenous people, living and dead, who have loved this country yet maintained their identity, and who now ask only that their existence be recognised and their contributions be acknowledged,” he said. Australia now had an opportunity to do what should have been done 200 or 100 years ago.
“We need to atone for the omissions and for the hardness of heart of our forebears to enable us all to embrace the future as a united people,” he said. “We shouldn’t feel guilty about our past, but we should be determined to rise above that which now makes us embarrassed.” Mr Abbott said Australia was a blessed country with its climate, land, people and institutions rightly making it the envy of the earth. “Except for one thing – we have never fully made peace with the first Australians. “This is the stain on our soul that prime minister Keating so movingly evoked at Redfern 21 years ago.”
Both Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott acknowledged finding a form of words for the constitution that made everybody happy would be difficult, but not impossible. “I believe that we are equal to this task of completing our constitution rather than changing it,” Mr Abbott said. Labor MP Graham Perrett took to Twitter to thank the leaders for their moving speeches. “The best one I’ve heard from Tony in my five years in the chamber,” he tweeted. Several other MPs used the social media network to say how proud they were to be able to vote for the bill. Many indigenous people sat in parliament’s public galleries to hear the final debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2013. They applauded as the legislation passed unanimously.
A step sideways for Aboriginal recognition
CHARLES RICHARDSON FEB 13, 2013
There’ll be feel-good images out of Canberra today as parliament votes on recognition of indigenous people. But the idea that the bill represents a step forward on a constitutional referendum is simply not true. This isn’t a blog about Australian politics, but sometimes there’s a local story that’s not just interesting in itself but has wider application. That’s the case with a remarkable feel-good piece by Michael Gordon in today’s Age on the “recognition” of indigenous Australians. The occasion is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill (pdf here), due to pass the House of Representatives today. According to Gordon, it “will give momentum to the push to recognise” indigenous people, being “the forerunner to a referendum to enshrine this recognition in the constitution.”
It’s a sad sign of the state of the media that the Age has plenty of room for inspirational quotes and anecdotes about the struggle of indigenous people, but none to tell its readers what the bill actually does or why this procedure has been adopted. So let’s look quickly at the background. Following the last election, the Gillard government appointed an expert panel to advise on constitutional recognition of indigenous people. Its final report, presented just over a year ago, recommended a series of constitutional changes, but also pointed out that bipartisan agreement would be a necessary condition for putting them to a referendum.
Despite some optimistic reporting (from, yes, the Age again), it quickly became clear that that agreement was not forthcoming. Put briefly (I went into more detail at the time), the problem is that any change in the race-based sections of the constitution would want to be accompanied by a non-discrimination provision, and the opposition will not agree to that because it is too reminiscent of a bill of rights. Late last year the government bowed to the inevitable and announced that the referendum would be deferred indefinitely. Unwilling to be seen to be doing nothing at all, it introduced the current bill instead.
The bill has only two substantive elements: firstly, a statement by parliament recognising that Australia was “first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” and that they have a continuing relationship “with their traditional lands and waters”, and acknowledging and respecting their “continuing cultures, languages and heritage”; and secondly, a requirement for the government to hold a review, to report within 18 months, of the prospects of a referendum. But there is no timetable for actually holding a referendum and no hint of a way around the deadlock that stymied the government’s original plan. The idea that the bill represents a step forward on a referendum is simply not true.
Nor is there any reason to think that the legislative recognition is of any use to anyone. It says nothing different to what our leaders have been saying for decades; probably no Australian politician in the last 60 years would have disagreed with its sentiments. Elevated statements of general principle, if they belong anywhere, belong in the constitution. There were good reasons why the expert panel recommended against taking the legislative route, and indeed specifically said (p. 224) it “would be concerned if legislative action were to be used as a substitute for, or distract from, a referendum on constitutional recognition.”
The deadlock over constitutional amendment is not in principle insuperable; if there was strong political pressure on the Coalition to come to an agreement, then no doubt some form of words could be found that would bridge the gap. But that is not the case: the Coalition’s core constituencies have approximately zero interest in Aboriginal reconciliation, so for Tony Abbott there is no downside in holding to his position.
The moral here is twofold. First, constitutional change is about specifics. You can’t pass a fuzzy notion into law, you can only pass actual words. They may be fuzzy words, but there has to be agreement on one actual set of words rather than another. If it’s not possible to find words that meet the competing demands of different interests, then no amount of “agreement in principle” will change that situation.
Second, politics is all about finding ways to overcome differences – ways that we can live together and get things done despite conflicting values and priorities. It may be a bad way of doing that (indeed I think it usually is), but that’s what it’s for. If instead we use the political process to produce motherhood legislation that doesn’t achieve anything and doesn’t settle any real controversy, we’re just wasting everyone’s time.
Send 10,000 indigenous to uni: Rudd
MARK SCHLIEBS The Australian February 13, 2013
Kevin Rudd with AIEF scholarship recipients, from left, Sarah Treacy, Kygim King and Nahdia Noter outside NSW Government House last week. Picture: Sam Mooy Source: The Australian
KEVIN Rudd says it is “unbelievable” that the Constitution still does not recognise indigenous people and is calling on his government to update its closing the gap targets to include tertiary education. While Julia Gillard was heralding the passage of an act of recognition that commits Australia to changing the Constitution to acknowledge indigenous Australians, the former prime minister was in Adelaide to mark the fifth anniversary of his apology to the stolen generations. Mr Rudd told the Reconciliation SA breakfast that Constitutional recognition should have already been in place.
“It is, for me, unbelievable that here we are in the year 2013 and we still do not in our foundational legal document recognise the fact that the concept of Terra Nullius was nonsense and is a nonsense and will forever be a nonsense,” he said. “When we came nearly 200 years ago, a twinkle in the eye of god and space, for tens of thousands of years before that indigenous Australians had made this vast continent their home. “Surely, it is not beyond our wit and wisdom as a people, to finally reflect that in the foundational constitutional document of the nation.” But Mr Rudd said Australians should also reflect on “what the Prime Minister is doing” by having the act of recognition.
He later told the audience that there had been a failure to lift indigenous attendance at universities to acceptable levels. “The next frontier for closing the gap is universities. We must, as a nation, see the same number of indigenous kids at our universities, proportional to their size of the population,” Mr Rudd said. “Aboriginal Australians represent some 2.5 per cent of our national population. The Indigenous participation at universities is barely at 1.2 or 1.3 per cent. “We need to make up the difference. I’m talking about adding something in the order of another 10,000 indigenous students to the nation’s universities.” He said the target should be achieved sooner than the 2030 suggestion in the Gonski review of education.
Leaders unite on need to recognise first people
February 14, 2013 Michael Gordon National Affairs Editor, The Age
AUSTRALIA has moved one step closer to recognising its first people in the country’s founding document after one of the Federal Parliament’s rare and uplifting moments of unity between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott. Both leaders committed themselves to tackle what the Prime Minister called ”the unhealed wound that even now lies open at the heart of our national story” and the Opposition Leader dubbed ”this stain on our soul”. The passage through the House of Representatives of an Act of Recognition was met by applause from the public galleries and from indigenous leaders including Patrick Dodson and Lowitja O’Donoghue, who had been invited to witness the moment from the floor of the House.
The legislation recognises the ”unique and special place” of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and is designed to give momentum for constitutional recognition after the September election. It passed the lower house on the fifth anniversary of the apology by former prime minister Kevin Rudd to the stolen generations. The legislation has a two-year sunset clause, in the expectation that momentum towards a successful referendum campaign will have built in that time. As part of the campaign, football legend Michael Long, whose Long Walk from Melbourne to Canberra highlighted the plight of indigenous Australians in 2004, will lead a ”Journey to Recognition” before the Dreamtime at the ‘G game between AFL clubs Essendon and Richmond on May 26.
”We must never feel guilt for the things already done in this nation’s history, but we can – and must – feel responsibility for the things that remain undone,” Ms Gillard told Parliament. ”No gesture speaks more deeply to the healing of our nation’s fabric than amending our nation’s founding charter.” Speaking from hand-written notes, Mr Abbott replied: ”As the Prime Minister said, we should not feel guilty about our past but we should be determined to rise above that which now makes us embarrassed. We have that chance. Let us grasp it.” Both leaders acknowledged that the challenge of agreeing on the wording of the referendum remains, with Mr Abbott saying: ”It won’t necessarily be straightforward to acknowledge the first Australians without creating new categories of discrimination, which we must avoid because no Australians should feel like strangers in their own country.
”But I believe that we are equal to this task of completing our constitution rather than changing it. The next Parliament will, I trust, finish the work that this one has begun.” Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin said the referendum would recognise Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and their unique history, culture and connection to this land; remove all references to race in the constitution; and acknowledge additional effort is needed to close the gap on indigenous disadvantage. Ms Gillard described the absence of recognition in the constitution as ”the great Australian silence” and expressed the hope that legislation for the referendum could pass in 2014.
The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples welcomed the passage of the Act of Recognition, but said the hard yards in substantive constitutional reform were just beginning. ”Today is the first test of multi-partisan leadership. Now all parties must continue to work together to achieve a referendum involving substantive reform, not just symbolic recognition,” congress co-chairwoman Jody Broun said. ”Congress calls for constitutional reform that protects rights and prohibits discrimination. We now expect clear commitments from all sides of politics to a referendum time frame and the concrete steps required to make it happen.”
George Zangalis - Melbourne, Victoria.
Australia’s first citizens
Neos Kosmos Newspaper 23 -2-2013
The Federal Parliament’s unanimous decision to declare the Aboriginal
and Torres Straights Islanders people as Australia’s first citizens is most
welcome.
It has not come a day too soon. It is, in fact, two
centuries late, and nearly 50 years after the 1967 referendum which put an end
to the non recognition of the indigenous people as citizens in their own
country. Hopefully the next historically and morally significant step, that of
the constitutional recognition and removal of racist provisions, will proceed
with without delays.
Correcting and adjusting a nation’s constitution to record
and reflect the truth and accumulated social and demographic changes is an imperative
for building a nation on the solid foundations of equality, democracy and
social justice.
The time is also overdue for the Federal Parliament to
formally recognize the multicultural character of Australia, to enact the
required laws and to enshrine multiculturalism in the nations constitution.
MODERN MIGRANT’S LOYALTY IS AN ASSET TO THE WORLD
There is no reason why migrants cannot faithfully maintain
dual citizenship, write Kim Rubenstein and Danny Ben Moshe.
Age Newspaper Melbourne 26/2/2013
It is staggering that with one albeit very serious case
overseas, that of Ben Zygier suicide, re Ben Saul (The Age 20/2/2013) wants to
turn back the clock of globalization and multiculturalism. In so doing he demonstrates
profound ignorance of the reality of the contemporary migrant experience and
normative global legal practice around citizenship.
The essence of his argument is that for Jews in particular,
although this may extend to other migrants, any shared loyalty with another
country is contradictory, nothing less than a “betrayal” of Australia, with all
the sinister implications this infers.
Once upon a time migrants left their old countries and
severed ties with their homelands, but today with cheaper and more frequent
travel and communication that facilitates and defines what we have come to know
as globalization, migrants maintain ties with the countries they came from.
This is also part of a process known as transnationalism. It
is not the preserve of the Jewish community in Australia; it is something governments
such as Australia and organizations like the World Bank and United Nations encourage
because it facilitates bilateral trade, investment, cultural exchange and
public diplomacy.
We need look no further than the Australian Diaspora to work
this out. There are one million Australians living overseas. Is Saul arguing
that they should sever affiliation with their Australian identity and heritage?
Should they surrender their passports in demonstrations of loyalty to the UK,
America and China or wherever else they reside?
Or should they add to global cultural exchange
by maintaining and expressing their dual identities overseas?
The problem with Saul’s argument is that he takes the Zygier case to
not only tarnish the entire Jewish community by invoking classical anti – Semitic
allegations of divided loyalty and the enemy within, but he ignores the fact
that in our globalised world with transnational identities, multiple
citizenship – holding more than one passport – is increasingly the norm.
There is no contradiction in this reality with democracy and
human rights, evident by the growth of acceptance of dual citizenship around
the world and Australia adopting new laws allowing for dual citizenship in
2002.
The fundamental flaw in Saul’s argument is his assertion
that having a relationship with two countries (whether it be Kiwis in Australia
with our neighbours across the Tasman, or Jews in Israel) is about making a
choice between them, rather than being able to balance and maintain both, which
is what transnationalism and our global village allows, encourages and thrives
on.
Of course there are differences for Australia’s relationship
with New Zealand to Israel and her neighbours. Saul refers to Israel killing
scientists in neighbouring countries. Australian security agencies are less concerned
about close to completion attempts of New Zealand, New Caledonia or Papua New
Guinea to develop nuclear weapons at the behest of their leaders who have explicitly
called for Australia to be destroyed.
The failure of Saul’s argument, and the great offence it
causes many Jews, is that for the overwhelming majority of Australian Jews,
irrespective of whether they agree or not with specific policies of the Israeli
government, just as Australians agree or disagree with policies of their government,
identification with Israel as their cultural and spiritual homeland is part of
being a Jew. As it has been for millennia.
For want of a better analogy, it’s like telling overseas
Australians they can’t identify with or support their footy teams any more. Disconcertingly,
Saul invokes rationale espoused from darker periods of history calling on this
boundary to be imposed because fundamentally the loyalty of Jews cannot be
trusted.
Saul’s claim that “there comes a point where a Jewish person
cannot faithfully be both Australian and Israeli. One has to choose” is
fundamentally wrong.
While Pauline Hanson tried to revive such sentiments
towards Asians and other migrants in the 1990’s, this is an archaic notion and
today’s migrants in Australia and migrants all around the world have multiple
identities that coexist and are balanced.
Saul’s view of citizenship is like marriage – you can only
have one life partner.
Countries all around the world are acknowledging that
citizenship is more like parenthood – you can have more than one child without
that undermining your commitment to them, and we are all the richer for it.
Pericles Potamidis
I love my mother country The Hellenic Republic "ELLAS"! I LOVE MY COUNTRY Australia! Long live multiculturalism in Australia, a nation of immigrants. Greece is not a nation of immigrants, I am some would say a hypocrite, because I do not want Greece to ba a multi-cultural country. We are a small country, with a small economy, we cannot supply our own people with jobs and employment! We certainly cannot absorb a huge wave of Muslims without risking the loss of our own identity, culture and way of life!!!
