Australian politics, society & culture

Share

Foregone conclusions

The opposition to the Uluru statement is dispiriting and frustrating but predictable

The crusaders of the far right have delivered their sentence: the Uluru statement is to be dead, buried and cremated before it can infect the fairness and decency of the ignorant masses.

The elitists of the Murdoch press, the Institute of Public Affairs, the Coalition rump and the other usual suspects tell us that the consensus for an Indigenous voice in the Constitution and moves to implement a treaty between the original inhabitants and the immigrants of Australia is utterly unacceptable to the majority. It would be soundly defeated at any referendum, so it should be abandoned forthwith.

What they actually mean is that the proposals are utterly unacceptable to them, and they will move heaven and earth to spread enough doubt and fear to their captive audiences that their prediction will be self-fulfilling. And, given the history of referendums in this country, they may well be correct. But that does not mean that their arguments, such as they are, have any real merit.

Take the idea of a treaty – hardly a new one, it has been around for over a century, and has been taken seriously by those who are interested for about 40 years, when the great public servant HC “Nugget” Coombs and others started working for what they called a Makarrata. As we have since been informed, the concept from the Yolngu people of north-eastern Arnhem Land can loosely be defined as a ritual symbolising of the restoration of peace after a dispute – reconciliation, in fact.

The Tories insist that a treaty cannot be agreed upon by two groups within one country, despite the obvious fact that such countries as the US, New Zealand and Canada have managed to do so quite satisfactorily. But beyond that, their objection is based on denial. They like to pretend that there was no real dispute in the first place – Australia was not invaded but settled, or at worst colonised, so a treaty of any kind is superfluous.

Well, it depends who you ask. It is true that white Australia never actually declared war on black Australia, although many early proclamations went very close to it. But for that matter Japan never declared war on the US before bombing Pearl Harbor.  

Large numbers of Indigenous Australians thought they were fighting various wars: after all, the insurgents were taking their land, their culture and in some cases their people, and it was clear that the aim was to drive them into submission.

If that wasn’t war, it certainly wasn’t peace, so when it was over a Makarrata was the only appropriate conclusion. The refusal of the white reactionaries to acknowledge this reality and instead run a scare campaign about division, apartheid, even separate nations, has been predictable enough, but still dispiriting and frustrating.

And of course the other bit – calling a constituted advisory body a third house of parliament – is either deeply ignorant or deliberately deceitful. A generous and courageous prime minister – a Gough Whitlam or a Paul Keating, for instance – would have slapped down the Neanderthals and got on with negotiating in the determination to reach mutual agreement and understanding.

Malcolm Turnbull, as always, temporised. The fear is that his government will offer a token recognition (the equivalent of a few beads, mirrors and bolts of brightly coloured cloth) that the Aboriginal delegates will indignantly reject, and we will be back where we started or even further behind. But, of course, that is just what the crusaders of the right want.

About the author Mungo MacCallum

Mungo MacCallum is a political journalist and commentator. His books include Run Johnny Run, Poll Dancing, and Punch and Judy. Visit his blog, The View from Billinudgel.

 
×
×