www.firstnationstelegraph.com
Reconciliation, Recognition and a Republic
by Dr Benjamin T. Jones 27 September 2013
T
he Australian constitution has served the nation well for over a century. With only eight changes since 1901, the document provides the
foundation of our democracy. Despite its many strengths, the constitution is out of date and out of step with modern Australia in two vital ways. It does not recognise the Indigenous peoples of this land and it still reserves the highest place of honour for
the monarch of Great Britain as our head of state. Creating an Australian republic and recognising Aboriginal prior occupation of the land may seem like different goals. The republic is often associated with inner city elites, an obsession of wealthy
Page 1
www.firstnationstelegraph.com
intellectuals. Recognition and reconciliation are sometimes seen as niche issues pursed only by committed Aboriginal activists. The reality is that both issues are connected and both are vitally important. The republic and reconciliation both cut to the core of what it means to be Australian. Who are we as a people and who do we want to be? How do we want to present ourselves on the world stage? There is a temptation to see the constitution as a bland legal document that merely outlines the mechanics of our democracy. It is far more than this. The constitution is a vital part of our national identity but it still holds relics of who we were not who we are. In 1901, Australia did not become an independent nation. Federation saw six British colonies unite to become a single dominion of the empire. To be Australian was only a partial identity, akin to being Victorian or Tasmanian. The dominant cultural identifier for white Australians was Britishness. There is ubiquitous evidence for turn of the century British race patriotism and the British cultural hegemony. Right through to the 1950s, national rhetoric reinforced the idea that we were British first and foremost and Australian second. When the constitution was drafted, the proposed federal government was to have no interest in Aboriginal affairs, leaving the states free to pursue their various often discriminatory and
Page 2
humiliating polices of ‘protection’. Aboriginal Australians were mentioned just twice in the original constitution. Section 51(26) stated that the federal government would not pass laws concerning them (confirming it as a state issue) and section 127 stated they would not be included in the national census. Following the historic referendum of 1967, Aboriginal Australians, like the prime minister and cabinet, are not mentioned at all. Australia has evolved and the world around has changed too. Australians are no longer British subjects, we no longer sing God Save the Queen or celebrate Empire Day. Although Australia will always have historic ties to Britain, just as the United States, India, South Africa and many other nations do. The difference between 1901 and today is that, like those other nations, we now act independently and see ourselves as independent. In the early years of Federation, Prime Minister Alfred Deakin described himself as an ‘independent Australian Briton’. Few would deny that today we are simply independent Australians. The constitution should reflect this. Just as our national character and identity has developed so has the relationship between the first Australians and the waves of migrants to come since. The 1967 referendum and the 2008 apology stand out as moments of great symbolic importance. Although much work is yet to be done, both events were an act of national recognition and repentance
for a great injustice done. As Gatjil Djerrkura wrote in 2003, ‘symbolism matters because it is a reference point … they speak to us and to other nations of our identity and beliefs’. The constitution needs to be updated to reflect who we are now and what our highest aspirations are as a people. We do not wish to be a nation that defers to wealth and privilege but one which honours talent and service. We do not want to be a nation that ignores its Indigenous peoples but one that honours and cherishes the ancient culture and continuing contribution of the First Australians to our national fabric. As Anthony Dillon writes in Project Republic, we do not want just a republic, but a just republic. Or in Mark McKenna’s words, this nation should aim to be a reconciled republic. Constitutional change is hard and referendums are easily sabotaged by fear and apathy. Republicans and Aboriginal activists are natural allies and should work together. Ultimately our task is one and the same. We desire a constitution that honours Aboriginal Australians not one that discriminates against them. We want a constitution that declares we are all Australians and we will walk together. Monarchy was at the heart of Australia past but equality must be our future. It is time to make our voices heard. Dr Benjamin T. Jones is a historian at the University of Western Sydney.