Nothing radical in Uluru proposals

There is nothing in the proposals that disturbs our existing constitutional order. Indeed in only one respect are the proposals new or novel. Rather, they appear to be a response to conservative demands that the constitutional order to be kept as it is.

When Aboriginal people constructively and thoughtfully consider their position in the context of wider community concerns they deserve better than knee-jerk responses to the word treaty and confusion about a national Aboriginal voice being another chamber of Parliament.

In 1980 there was a national Aboriginal voice. It was called the National Aboriginal Conference, the NAC. It was made up of Aboriginal and Islander people elected from single-member electorates across Australia.

It was potent voice. I know. I was minister for aboriginal affairs at that time. It vigorously criticised me and the government from time to time but it was a great reality check.

Having a national Aboriginal voice established by Parliament to give advice is scarcely a revolution. But Aboriginal people have ample reason for wanting an opportunity to comment on proposals that affect them. Admissions of failure by policymakers across all recent Parliaments have conceded that a bottom up involvement in program design and delivery is needed.

Across the last four Parliaments all governments have made hasty changes of policies impacting on Aboriginal people and communities. All have occurred in the context of not having heard, let alone listened to, the voices of those in the know, the Aboriginal people themselves.

Is giving people a chance to be heard so radical? Surely it is a conservative position to want Parliament to look and listen before it makes yet another legislative leap?

The word treaty causes a flutter in some conservative breasts. It always has despite the fact that Canada, the United States and New Zealand have numerous treaty relationships with their aboriginal peoples without the destruction of the constitutional order.

When the NAC started to ask for a treaty in my time as minister, 1980, we specifically asked the NAC to drop the word. We knew it would evoke a dramatic and potentially destructive response from state leaders at that time. 

We were happy to talk and pursue agreements so asked the NAC to find another word. It was the NAC that came up with the term Makarrata, a Yolnu word meaning coming together after a fight.

2017 is a long way from 1980. Australia has advanced a long way. In 1980 there was no Mabo decision. There was no common law recognition that tribal groups, as collectives, have rights flowing from their own law and culture connecting them to country. We are way ahead in 2017. Agreement making under the native title framework is everyday.

We will never close the gaps without Aboriginal participation at the core of what we do. In the febrile state of our national politics, where tearing down the other side is a key strategic driver, it can be hard to get rational responses if an opportunity for political advantage can be seen.

As a citizen, I beg our politicians to consider carefully what Aboriginal people are saying.  None of it is a threat to the wider community or our polity.

Fred Chaney was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs from December 1978 until November 1980.