Why? Because all too often when the argument for symbolic change is advanced, the very same reasoning you just illustrated is used. "Oh, it's a useful first step". The problem is, public policy operates on the basis of a cost/benefit relationship, for better or worse. Therefore, actions which are beneficial to a government's image are enacted, funded and publicised first and in many cases, to the exclusion of future policy. Not only does this put style over substance, but it means that once a government has been seen to 'tackle' an important issue, they often see no need to do anything further, thinking that in the minds of voters, the issue has been dealt with even though nothing much has been done. I doubt anyone could name one piece of substantive Indigenous policy passed by the Labor government after the Apology.
If anything the opposite should happen; substantive change should occur first, ending with a final symbolic gesture as a consummation of all the progress made.
I agree that is what would happen in an ideal world - however "substantial change" to the current status quo is easier said than done, especially considering the fact that the vast changes needed to Close the Gap is unlikely to be effected in single terms. The fact that even symbolic changes are meeting such resistance is a reflection of the wide-scale entrenched disregard for Indigenous Australian issues. How do we expect a government and a people, who aren't willing to change a mere date, to prioritise and tackle the massive burden of Indigenous issues?
Yes, the Rudd government probably did not effect many substantive Indigenous policies - but in contrast the Howard administration, who refused to apologise, effected some policies and decisions that seemed actively
hostile to Indigenous Australians: tightening Native Title laws, voting against the UNDRIP, and abolishing the ATSIC amongst others. It just goes to show that in many cases, symbolic gestures represent values and attitudes on a larger scale, which is why Australia Day and constitutional recognition are matters of such significance in this debate.
TBH, as to precluding substantive action: really, nothing much is being done right now anyway, whichever way the Australia Day debate goes. Might as well get this issue sorted.
But what I normally see, past all the celebration and enjoyment, are people proud to call themselves Australian. People who, despite outward appearance, do indeed value the principles that the nation of Australia was founded upon.
The reason why that day is appropriate is because as I said, it heralded the establishment of the Australian state. That state, still in existence today, stands for certain principles. Constitutionalism, free speech, free enterprise and so many other contemporary values of relevance today. While there's much to celebrate about Indigenous history, any of that history forging a connection with contemporary Australia is tenuous at best.
Australia was founded upon the very much realist considerations of the British Empire to preclude French expansion, to replace the lost territory of the USA, to facilitate trade and to pretty much dispose of convicts. I don't believe the settlers were considering many moral principles when they settled Australia and, if they did, the courtesy was not extended to Indigenous Australians nor the British convicts, many of whom were mercilessly abused by those in power. Political freedom and constitutionalism was not really a thing either - early colonial Australia was practically an autocracy under the Governor until the Legislative Council was established, and even then only the interests of some groups were considered.
Morals change over time and I don't believe the values and principles the First Fleet represented is suitable for contemporary Australia, the least of which is our egalitarianism. Today, Australia's national identity is decidedly independent from Britain - hence why the original third and fourth verses of our national anthem was removed - and the date of our national day should aim to reflect that.
It's quite another to question the legitimacy and authority of the modern Australian state using the very political and civil freedoms it bestows. Perhaps this is a by-product of my time studying law but make no mistake, saying that this country is 'stolen land' is far more loaded than simple rhetoric. It implies a certain illegality under international law which I should point out, has never been substantiated in a court of law on any level. Of course, we should acknowledge wrongs, but an attack on the sovereignty of the Australian state is far more than that.
But in the technical sense, Australia
wasn't settled legally. The "settlement" of Australia was based on the legal fiction of
terra nullius denying the Indigenous Australians were even human, that was rejected by the High Court of Australia in Mabo v Qld (No.2). Even though now the ownership is just "native title" and restricted for a number of pragmatic reasons, it's pretty much implied that Australia
is stolen land. It's impossible to restore the land to exclusive Indigenous control now, but the least we can do is acknowledge their traditional ownership and respect their wishes.
Even from a non-legal perspective, the coercion, deception or outright annihilation that was used to dispossess Indigenous Australians of their traditional lands is absolutely egregious and goes against all the moral principles that we claim to stand by. Either way, I don't believe anyone (other than the rarely found extremist) is demanding the dismantling of the Australian state or that all non-Indigenous Australians "go back to where they came from"; mostly it's just the acknowledgement and remediation of past wrongs and current injustices.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Poll