The Challenge of Aboriginal Advancement: A Speculation (2002+)

• The past
• Current proposals
• Cultural obstacles
• Parallels
• The future
• Grasping the nettle

Addenda

• A: 'Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution': More Symbolism?
• B: A 'Cultural Blending' Scenario for Indigenous Australia
• C: Improving the Position of Australians with Indigenous Ancestry
• D: Base 'career and financial benefits' on needs and means, not on ancestry
• E: Inadequate proposals for advancing the position of Australians with indigenous ancestry
• F: Indigenous Recognition

An Hypothesis

An hypothesis is suggested that some aspects of their cultures are now (and historically always have been) a major factor in the material disadvantages suffered by Australians with indigenous ancestors - referred to here as 'aborigines', a term which is not intended here to apply to Torres Strait Islanders. Moreover their communities still face great difficulties in creating a viable future.

This paper does not seek to insist on any particular 'answer' - but merely suggests that little is likely to be achieved until aboriginal leaders / people consider the implications for economic success of the behavioural and institutional implications of their cultures.

An Addendum (added in 2010) considers the relevance of this hypothesis in the light of proposals for a referendum to recognise Australia's 'first peoples' in the Constitution, and other public policy questions.

The Past

It is understood that Australia's first settlers were from SE Asia who arrived in successive waves about 40-60,000 years ago - and subsequently maintained hunter-gatherer lifestyles typical of human societies of that era.

With the introduction of European settlers in the 18th century Australia's aboriginal peoples were: often dispossessed; long denied education; exploited by some (and helped by others); discriminated against by legislation (eg denied the vote until about 35 years ago); paternalistically protected without reducing their need for protection; given extensive public resources through ineffectual organizations or as charity; and otherwise ignored.

Genocide? A more extreme version of this history (ie that aboriginal communities were subjected to a process of quasi-genocide) has been tending to lose support [1, etc].

On the other hand it has been suggested that there would be advantages in regarding the frontier conflicts in Australia which accompanied European settlement as genocide (and draw a parallel with the Holocaust) to encourage a shift in national consciousness towards political humanism. This is seen to be needed because there are 'illiberal and exterminatory tendencies' at the heart of Western civilization [1]. However, the present author's detailed comments with the latter reference suggest that:

• communities who are the victims of genocidal attacks do recover - so viewing aboriginal peoples as genocide victims does not explain their continued disadvantage in Australia;
• such issues should be analyzed objectively, rather than subjectively, because:
  • demonstrating objectively whether injustices have done (and by whom) is a better way to resolve such concerns than is examining how those involved perceived what was going on;
  • there seems to be no certainty that forcing those who have suffered trauma to relive it aids their recovery;
  • destructive ideologies (such as Nazism which gave rise to the Holocaust) may arise from philosophical idealism (ie from assuming that reality is, or should be, determined by one's subjective understanding of it);
• cultural challenges are a better explanation of, and way to reduce, the current disadvantage facing Australians with indigenous ancestry than an examination of historical trauma;
• the strength of Western societies does not derive from 'illiberal or exterminatory tendencies'. Adverse consequences for others emerged from the growth and expansion which resulted from that strength. However this must apply to any civilization or species - and was less in the case of Western societies

There is little doubt however that aboriginal peoples have experienced only slow progress - though isolated individuals overcame the natural obstacles they faced, as well as some artificial obstacles.

Artificial obstacles arose presumably because (a) aboriginal peoples did not 'fit in' to the environment created by the economically-capable European community that was introduced in the 18th century and (b) it was believed (wrongly) that education would do no good. Unfortunately the people who slowed aboriginal advancement by denying education (and also others who tried to accelerate it with primarily 'social' re-engineering  irrespective of aboriginal people's real needs and ambitions) were not blessed with perfect wisdom or fore-knowledge.

Stolen generations? Debate about the extent of forced assimilation of aboriginal people's into Australia's mainstream (European) culture has occurred in relation to the (so called) 'stolen generations' - which involved children (especially those of mix race) being removed from aboriginal parents in the early 20th century in the belief that they were at risk and removal would improve their life prospects. They were placed in foster care, and the results in many cases were poor. Claims have been made that many thousands were 'stolen' (ie removed without parental approval) - though the latter aspect may not stand up to critical evaluation [1]. Furthermore the effect which this process may have had on equipping some aboriginal people for effective participation in mainstream society (and politics) does not seem to have been examined.

The aboriginal leader Noel Pearson argued in 2001 that dependency on passive welfare (which was supposed to help) and alcohol are now damaging aboriginal communities. The latter conclusion was also supported by Court of Appeal president Tony Fitzgerald in a report to the Queensland Government and (in a different way) by an Indigenous Women's Council (see Fitzgerald Report on Cape York Justice).  

However this is only part of the story as the likely causal chain is:  

That culture is a major factor in a community's potential for economic success is considered in a different context in Competing Civilizations  and also in Comparative Development Theory: Indonesia / Australia.

The cultures of Australia's aboriginal peoples were highly developed (ie complex and sophisticated), and adapted to the environment which existed prior to the arrival of European settlers.

However it seems those traditional aboriginal cultures were not well adapted to their new environment. In particular they seem to contain features which impede economic gains as outlined below.

However any serious discussion of, or attempts to reduce, the disadvantages that may be implicit in aboriginal cultures seem to be discouraged by implying that doing so is racist (see also Complexities in the Refugee Problem).

For example:

• a key obstacle to reconciliation between mainstream and aboriginal communities is seen to lie in the lack of a formal apology from the former for the latter's historical experiences. However there is a reasonable case that a major part of the latter's problems lies in its traditional attitudes and beliefs - which required aboriginal communities to travel an immense cultural distance over many generations. If there is no receptiveness to any discussion of this dimension of the problem, is it reasonable to expect others to 'apologize' for the resulting stresses?

• the removal of half-caste children from some aboriginal families (the 'stolen generation') is popularly portrayed as an abuse of human rights rather than as a well-meant effort to rescue abused children from what was (at the time) realistically seen as a dangerous / hopeless predicament;

• it was suggested that it was racist not to treat the aboriginal tradition of payback (killing those responsible for other's deaths) as equally valid as dealing with offenders through a process of law [1] [Comment: Surely traditions that encourage families to take their own revenge are likely to create an ongoing cycle of violence]

• charges have been laid against a member of the Senate for suggesting (aggressively) that there were problems in aboriginal cultures (Russell M. 'Senator to face race trial',  Courier Mail,  14/6/02);

• government agencies were forced to return aboriginal children to abusive families because of fear of being labelled racist [1, 2];

• it was seen to be racist to suggest that family pressures on those with ability to commit public money created problems for aboriginal organizations in managing public money [1] - though in Indonesia (and other Muslim nations) the dominance of family loyalties over community obligations seems to be widely regarded as a factor in corrupt administration;

It has been noted that there has been a great deal of 'talk about cultural sensitivity and autonomy' - with the implication that this needed to be taken further. Unfortunately this 'talk' can obscure the critical question of whether culture is a major determinant of people's ability to be be materially successful. This can lead to the perception that, if aboriginal people's have not succeeded, the only possible explanation must be discrimination and racism [1].

A further complexity is the risk that such 'talk' also leads to racial discrimination. For example:

• cultural separatism, which some aboriginal groups advocate, could constitute racial discrimination - if individuals were to be forced on the basis of their race to live within cultures which disadvantaged them so that aboriginal leaders could maintain power over them. For example:
  • the case of of a 15 year-old aboriginal girl forced to have sexual relations with a 50 year old man to whom she had been betrothed by her parents illustrates the clash between cultural rights and human rights (Brunton R 'Women in chains', CM, 10/10/02)
  • an aboriginal man asserted his conjugal rights over a 15 year old girl ('Victim trapped between two worlds', A, 9/10/02). But no aboriginal leaders spoke out against this. This is a conflict between cultural rights and human rights. Coming from India it is clear that cultural rights are changing - and where lower caste's and women were once exploited this is now unacceptable (Thite M 'Tradition does not excuse sex exploitation', A, 12-13/10/02)
• unjust accusations of 'racism' against those who might seriously discuss the practical advantages and disadvantages of particular cultural features potentially provides a kind of 'moral shield' for those who might practice real discriminatory racism;

One observer has suggested that the violence against women and children which pervades aboriginal communities may be an indirect result of a refusal to recognize that aboriginal cultures contain no concept of 'community' (and thus do not breed 'community leaders' to suppress such behaviour) - because doing so would have exposed the weakness of 1970's indigenous-liberation politics [1]. 

Other views: 

Research suggested that violence arose from customary law - rather than from the imposition of European standards (and was considered normal and acceptable by those affected) so that social dysfunctions within aboriginal communities would not be eased by greater autonomy [1]. 

The growing legal practice of recognizing customary law (which involves and can be used to rationalize violence) has the effect of perpetuating the violence that cripples aboriginal communities - and creates second class citizens [1]

Concerns about sexual violence related to aboriginal culture are misplaced. The problem is that traditional aboriginal culture where roles were determined by sex, knowledge and skill have been displaced by a culture where power is based on access to government funding. Bureaucracies are to blame [1]

'Men's business' in remote aboriginal communities often led to males freely breaking the law and committing appalling crimes. Young men who are initiated feel they can do anything they like [1]

Realistic attempts to address the core of aboriginal disadvantage has probably been made even more difficult over the past 20-30 years by post-modern ideologies which (in a dramatic over-reaction to flaws in earlier epistemologies) have adopted the concept that 'truth' is largely or entirely a social construct (ie 'knowledge' primarily reflects the assumptions that particular groups make for their own political advantages). This leads to the view that cultures are mere matters of personal preference which have no practical consequences.

An aside: In the international arena, a similar assumption may be a major contributor to the 'conspiracy theories' that lead to risks of conflicts (see About Conspiracy Theories).

These assumptions led to attempts to develop remote aboriginal communities living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle on traditional lands - an 'experiment' which some observers suggest has isolated aboriginal communities from mainstream society and led to most of their current deprivation [1]

Current Proposals

For much of the past 30 years hope for aboriginal advancement revolved around native title - on the assumption that people require land to gain respect. However, despite its advocates' enthusiasm it is not clear how native title can lead to very much in the way of economic opportunities.  The consensual view after 10 years of experience seemed to be that native title on its own has changed the position of aborigines in Australia's community but has not improved it.

Ironically, the major strategic beneficiary of native title has probably been Australia's mainstream community. The latter's dependence economically on natural wealth in land and resources had kept them from developing economically, and made Australia (in the words of a previous Prime Minister) into a potential 'banana republic' and the 'a… h... of the earth'.

Mainstream Australia's ability to depend on natural wealth has been severely curtailed in the 1990s by the sterilization of land and resources through native title - and, to some degree, this massive developmental burden has been laid on the shoulders of aboriginal Australians (see comment on the Resource Curse hypothesis).

Noel Pearson has argued that to overcome disadvantage aboriginal peoples need to be able to cope with / prosper in the modern world [1] - a goal which he later described as compatible with simultaneously maintaining traditional cultures [1].

A quite different view is that the problem is due to aborigines' inability to live within traditional cultures due to dispossession (eg consider the views of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Taskforce on Violence in Indigenous Communities)

A similar view has been put forward by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner, William Jonas ('Native title the key to real equality', Australian, 22/5/02) who appears to favour a form of separate development (a self-imposed apartheid?) based on what was seen as the inherent rights of aboriginal peoples (which was said to lead, through native title, to: economic opportunities; equality for aboriginal culture; and appropriate governance structures for aboriginal communities).

Combining both these viewpoints to some extent, Reconciliation Australia sponsored an impressive depth of research into:

• aboriginal self governance (see abstracts from Indigenous Self Governance Conference 4-5 April 2002) because this is seen as a key factor in the improved prospects of native peoples in North America, and poor governance can frustrate economic success; and
• access to banking services (see Banking on Indigenous Communities) because, such economic success requires more than good self governance.   

Unfortunately neither the cultural modernisation nor the cultural separatism views offer easy solutions.

Even what could be called the 'Native Title Plus' agenda (as illustrated by the work of the Reconciliation Australia) faces serious difficulties. Dependence on socially and culturally corrosive welfare payments would not be removed, and many aboriginal communities would continue to live in quasi-apartheid pockets of  third-world disadvantage within Australia.

Why: While it is apparently being recognized that more than self-governance is needed for economic success (so banking access is being examined), the problem is that MUCH more than self government would be required (see below), and it is grossly simplistic to assume that access to finance could be enough.

Illustration: It was argued that there has been a long term difficulty in commercializing the products of Queensland science because of a lack of venture capital (eg Franklin M, 'Germ of an idea grows bigger than Texas', Courier Mail,  15/6/02). However the real gap Queensland faces lies in the lack of skills and organizations able to succeed with innovation (eg commercialization of technical ideas). If there had been such a pool of commercial competency, then capital would have been readily available. Changes in the financial system (eg the provision of 'venture capital' funds as Queensland's government intends - see Odgers R. 'State fund of $100m for biotech ventures', CM,  10/5/02 ) can never overcome the much more complex real problems (see Queensland's Biotechnology Bubble).

A major school of thought in development theory was that which focused on 'missing strategic factors'. This involved the assumption that if the key missing factor was only provided, then all would be well. However in practice the result was that developing regions wasted whatever 'missing strategic factor' was provided (eg capital, skilled people) because a lack of balanced / integrated development meant that that factor could not be properly used.

Furthermore even to the extent that (say) self governance and access to finance are necessary ingredients, these need a great deal of care to ensure that they are not only culturally but also economically effective. For example, a rule of law confers great economic advantages on European communities but is not generally relied upon in East Asia. It is not clear that Reconciliation Australia's Self Governance conference considered what style of governance would allow aboriginal Australians to gain economic success.

A likely impact of the 'Native Title Plus' agenda of governance and finance initiatives will be found to be inadequate (because of limiting effect of the hundreds of other constraints that are not addressed).  This will apply even if the substance-abuse issue that Noel Pearson has seen as the most critically important (see 'Substance abuse must be stopped', Australian,  11/7/02) is added to the agenda. The real problem is that this inadequacy may not be recognized for yet another wasted decade.

Far faster means of removing ALL aspects of aboriginal disadvantage simultaneously are needed today not in 10 years time - and suggested below.

Other proposals for creation of champions for aboriginal communities at senior levels in the bureaucracy are likely to lead to further frustration because (at best) the support which such 'champions' would be able to mobilize is not what aboriginal communities are likely to really need (eg see 'Freshly baked idea goes stale' which refers to the effect of due administrative procedures on a project proposed under the Cape York Partnership scheme).

The major challenge is that prospering (in the present environment) requires amongst other things (a) the ability to be near the leading edge in understanding and applying the mechanisms of the natural world (science and technology) and (b) an orientation to, and social institutions, which enable economically productive changes (eg financial institutions and business enterprises). 

Cultural Obstacles

Not every culture lends itself to the latter achievements.

Under the author's undoubtedly too limited understanding, it appears that though aboriginal cultures have significant traditional strengths (eg sense of community, relationship with the land), they also have features which are likely to impede independent success within Western economic models. These include: 

• lack of individualism - which is a particular problem because rationality is a very powerful means for problem solving - which does not work well at the level of communities as a whole because the complexity / interconnection of the issues that arise. The East Asian communitarian models show that (given other demanding conditions) this obstacle can be overcome (see Transforming the Tortoise (Chapter 4); and Asia Literacy). However because cultural obstacles aren't discussed, no one seems to have done any work on possible options for aboriginal communities; 

• lack of emphasis on private property (especially communal ownership of land [1]). Without private property access to the lending securities needed to participate in a money based economy is limited. Property rights have been argued to be vital to lifting poor peoples out of poverty - by providing means to participate in the formal economy [1]

• a tendency to learn in the concrete, rather than in the abstract - which creates difficulties in dealing with science, and with planning; 

• an attitude to time which does not clearly distinguish past and present [1], and an orientation to the past (ie towards who they ARE) rather than towards future progress. These are particularly critical issues because economic productivity (ie achieving high value added to pay high wages, profits and taxes) does not result from being efficient, but from having competitive advantages - which requires constant change and learning as individuals, enterprises and communities.;

• an apparent lack of leadership - which is a critical constraint because of the vital importance of change for economic productivity. A lack of effective leaders has been seen to arise from (a) living in survival mode and (b) the lack of a concept of the public good [1]. However it also seems likely that aboriginal elders see their role as reinforcing the past rather than creating a future.

In 2009 claims were made about dysfunctions in traditional cultures, including: (a) pursuit of family loyalties over common good; (b) traditional medical practices block preventative / curative medical processes (c) a philosophical assent to tragic terms of human life (d) a belief that things are as they were meant to be - thus rendering notions of social progress or any sort of change quite alien; and (e) an orientation towards self help / self redress including frequent recourse to violence [1]

The basic problem of economic underdevelopment is the same world-wide - namely that peoples do not have the cultural or institutional tools to make the constant changes required to be economically productive. 

This is not to say that everyone has to be the same - but that societies have to create successful means for achieving economic change (either by adapting to the Western models or by finding other models). 

Rapid development in East Asia show that alternatives to the Western models do exist - but the alternative East Asian economic models are no less demanding in their own way, and also suffer weaknesses which, though different, may be even greater than those in Western models (eg see China's Development: Assessing the Implications). 

Thus education, investment, advice etc are not sufficient to overcome disadvantage unless there is rapid progress in addressing the cultural and institutional dimensions. The innovative Cape York Partnership that Noel Pearson inspired using the theory of 'social entrepreneurs' and Reconciliation Australia's 'Native Title Plus' agenda may not achieve much.

And the complexity of the challenge can be illustrated by Noel Pearson's proposals for giving aboriginal elders legal power over others in their communities to control social dysfunctions (eg alcohol abuse, conflict). The restriction on individual freedoms he proposed would re-create to some degree the social and political environment of tribal society - an environment that would be fatal to independent initiative and to the constant change needed for economic success under Western economic models.

Parallels

The major obstacle to advancement usually seems to lie in people's own attitudes.

For example, Islamic societies tend to have a belief that all outcomes are the result of the will of Allah - and thus do not attach enough importance or credibility to the possibility that they themselves can make a difference. They thus tend to fail economically, and then extremists blame their failure on their lack of obedience to Allah (and some of those societies than collapse into a fundamentalism which disregards all human knowledge except that found in the Koran). 

The solution for Islamic societies might be to consider the Genesis claim, which is part of their heritage, that God created a reality in which humanity is a significant creative influence.

[See also Culture Makes a Difference in Complexities of the Refugee Problem and Competing Civilisations]

Australia has a new challenge similar to that aboriginal communities face, as indicated by the 'One Nation' phenomenon. This political phenomenon reflected the fact that marginal (regional, coastal and metropolitan) communities failed to cope with the effect of massive economic change and were thus socially disadvantaged (see Assessing the Implications of Pauline Hanson's One Nation ).

However Australia's elites, rather than being sympathetic to their plight and moving to ensure that they could cope, often confined themselves to criticising and marginalizing the disadvantaged for the ignorance that was the source of their weakness - which was exactly the same as their predecessors did with aboriginal peoples.

However it was difficult to do anything different, because many of the (One Nation) disadvantaged (like their aboriginal predecessors) also haven't wanted to hear that they might have to 'get their act together' to escape from their plight. Rather they simply wanted to re-create their past.

The Future

There are growing global difficulties with modern mainstream economic models - eg in terms of unstable financial systems, and excessive environmental pressure due to economic and population growth. Thus alternatives will need to be developed - which in part will involve recognition that humanity's creative influence in the world brings ecological responsibilities - an area in which aboriginal communities probably have contributions to make. A key issue here may be to invent practical alternatives that would moderate the way in which money drives change and growth.

None-the-less alternative economic models that must be found can't be all that different to the current mainstream without bringing disaster - because creatively processing large quantities of materials and energy is now essential to sustaining current human populations. Thus finding a way to participate in this successfully will remain a key challenge facing aboriginal (and 'One Nation') communities. Ongoing change will further complicate the position, because (to be anything but permanently marginalised) it is not only necessary to catch up with what the leading edge of the mainstream world has been economically, but also necessary to catch up with what it is becoming.

It can be noted that a key to the economic 'catch-up' which East Asian societies are achieving (which no others achieved) was that they targeted Western societies most productive industries, rather than following expert advice about undertaking low-quality activities that were 'appropriate' for less developed societies and that would have permanently kept them relatively poorer.

Educating individuals one at a time will achieve progress .... eventually. For faster progress, learning by whole communities through identifying attractive opportunities from change is likely to be needed.

Methods whereby 'catch-up' might be achieved (through accelerating grass roots learning) are available (eg see Developing a Regional Industry Cluster - though this is presented solely in terms of 'economic' development, and has not been adapted to the needs of aboriginal communities).

However the fact that this article identifies a focus on 'real estate' as the first of Seven Secrets to Failure is probably not irrelevant to the now-diminished expectations about what can be achieved via native title.

Grasping the Nettle

One critical problem aboriginal communities face is that others try to 'do it' for them [1].

For example: A report by the House of Representatives standing committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs identified many different program activities through which government could help these groups ("We can do it: the needs of urban dwelling Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders", August 2001).

The committee did not even appear to consider whether aboriginal peoples' main disadvantage could be that 'they couldn't do it' for themselves. 

And: discussions about aboriginal disadvantage may be a major contribution to it [1];

Similarly the Productivity Commission's report on Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2003, gave a list of 7 priority areas for improvement [1] - all of which were perfectly reasonable. The only problem was that the Commission took the view that aboriginal people should wait until political leaders get around to doing it for them.

The other side of this problem is that aboriginal communities have been prepared to play the dependency game - concentrating on disadvantages and telling government what government or others should do for them, rather than concentrating on opportunities and doing it for themselves.

However this should not be seen as a one-way street. As noted above, aboriginal cultures contain many attractive and highly functional features, and Australia generally faces significant changes requiring adjustments. Thus, in addition to pro-actively learning to advance themselves, aboriginal communities might consider identifying how features of their traditional cultures would be of more general relevance and then doing some 'educating' of their own.

June 2002 (based on paper first drafted 20/12/01 and modified subsequently)

• Response from Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Secretariat + Reply

• Further note on apparent inconsistency

Improving the Position of Australians with Indigenous Ancestry - email sent 21/1/11

Noel Pearson,
Director,
Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership

Re: Aboriginal referendum a test of national maturity, The Australian, 26/1/11

Your article both expressed reservations about the prospects for success of the proposed referendum, and suggested the need to recognise the status of indigenous peoples without fracturing the notion that all Australians are equal citizens.

My interpretation of your article: Mark Leibler suggested that the referendum is needed to complete unfinished business, but not everyone will get what they want. Patrick Dodson saw a need to acknowledge indigenous peoples in a proper and respectful way, while Ken Wyatt believes there is little appetite for significant change. I was reluctant to participate in the expert panel because: (a) conservative leadership is usually needed for successful constitutional change; and (b) the federal ‘new political paradigm’ was turned into a quagmire. Rudd shook Australia’s faith in competent governance. However as the Opposition endorses constitutional reform, there may be hope. Some see a need to change Australia’s constitution in the light of social and cultural change, while others object to change (eg thinking that ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”). The constitution has served 97% of Australians well, but not the 3% of indigenous Australians. There would be no need to change it, if (for example) Australia became a republic. Some see that 1967 referendum fixed problems in the constitution by voting for Aboriginal citizenship. However this merely made the originally-negative constitution neutral, for original Australians. There is a need to recognise the status of indigenous peoples without fracturing the notion that all Australians are equal citizens. The proposed constitutional amendment must be one in which all see themselves as winners. This requires that the expert panel proposal must first be subjected to a preliminary vote of indigenous Australia, and if they do not support it then it should not be put to referendum. Also any referendum should be separated from elections to ensure it is not politicised. The referendum will be a test of the maturity of indigenous Australians and their leaders, as much as of Australians generally.

I should like to endorse your radical proposal for reasons outlined in 'Recognising Aboriginal peoples in the Constitution': More Symbolism?. Any constitutional amendment that did not make clear that Australians with indigenous ancestry have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else would: (a) be unlikely to get general acceptance; and (b) be likely to disadvantage those subjected to positive or negative discrimination. The referenced document also suggested that the most effective way to improve the position of Australians with indigenous ancestry could be to provide them with leadership (eg through the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership) in examining the effect that cultural assumptions have on people’s ability to be materially successful.

In relation to other points made in your article it is submitted for your consideration that:

• The Rudd Government was by no means to first to show that governments can be incompetent (see Failure was not confined to the Rudd Government);
• Making Australia a ‘republic’ could not be achieved without constitutional changes (see Politicisation of the ‘Crown’). The foundation of Australia’s system of government is that the ‘Crown’ holds all executive power but uses it only on advice from elected governments. Under any republican system the head of state could be expected to have their own (different) political agenda and power base, and thus create potential conflicts requiring extensive constitutional changes;
• There would seem to be an incompatibility between your suggestion that all Australians be regarded as equal citizens and your suggestion that any constitutional change recommended by the expert panel be first submitted to a vote by a particular group of Australians (ie those with some measure of indigenous ancestry). Moreover, as I understand it, ‘voting’ was not the traditional methods whereby decisions were reached in indigenous communities. A better alternative might be to ensure that proposals from the expert panel are communicated clearly to Australians with indigenous ancestry, and that they are given every opportunity to make their reactions to those proposals widely known. A constitutional amendment that was generally perceived to be inadequate by the individuals whose ancestors it was intended to acknowledge and whose position it was intended to normalize would be unlikely to be endorsed by the community generally.

John Craig