Yesterday wasn’t the first time that someone has played fairly unseemly politics with a referendum for indigenous referendum. But it was the worst.
Last year shadow Attorney-General George Brandis demanded a referendum not be held under a Labor government, ostensibly on the basis that only Tony Abbott could convince conservatives of the case for recognition. It was a patently false statement, given Brandis’ close friend John Howard had disastrously failed with an indigenous recognition referendum in 1999 and Newspoll found in 2011 there was 75% support for recognising indigenous people in the constitution. Brandis was indulging in pure political opportunism on an issue that everyone agrees should be above politics.
But Brandis is merely a shadow minister, a mediocre lawyer with a hypertrophied ego. Yesterday it was the Prime Minister seeking to insinuate, while in the Northern Territory, that the main impediment to a successful referendum was Tony Abbott. “We can take people to a referendum but if one side of politics is going to arc up about it then we have a problem,” Kevin Rudd told ABC Darwin. Asked about the timing of a referendum, Rudd said “these are questions, I daresay, which are appropriately addressed to Captain Negative, Mr Abbott, more generally and that is whether he’s prepared to be positive in bringing forward a rapid conclusion to the content of the question for the recognition of the First Australians.”
From that, one would get the impression Abbott had cast into doubt the whole process.
“So far he’s worked constructively on this,” Rudd then graciously allowed, contradicting himself. “I believe that we really need to get this thing done.”
Rudd went on to say he wanted Abbott to join him on the “journey” of the referendum.
As Rudd knows perfectly well, Abbott proposed a referendum to recognise indigenous people in the constitution in 2010 and supported the process initiated by Julia Gillard after the election that year to develop an amendment. Abbott’s approach to indigenous issues generates considerable hostility within, particularly, Aboriginal communities, but there’s no doubt that he has taken indigenous issues more seriously than most other politicians in the Parliament.
And that is not necessarily the most popular position to take for a conservative leader, given the indifference or active animosity of many in the party membership, and of some Coalition MPs: recall that frontbenchers Peter Dutton and Sophie Mirabella both boycotted Rudd’s apology to the stolen generations that Abbott now lauds as a key moment in reconciliation. And while the Liberal leadership was arguing over whether to join the reconciliation walk in 2000, Abbott went ahead and did it.
Moreover, Rudd has form on using such issues politically. It’s now forgotten that in delivering the apology in 2008, Rudd sprang on then-Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson in the speech a proposal for a bipartisan National Policy Commission on Indigenous Housing, despite having met with Nelson before the apology to discuss its wording. Hopelessly wedged on indigenous issues — he had enough difficulty getting his colleagues to back the apology — Nelson agreed to the body. Rudd and Nelson met once on the commission, but later efforts by Nelson and his office to engage with Rudd or his office were rebuffed, and repeated correspondence ignored, until the issue broke into open conflict when Nelson proposed to nominate Mal Brough.
Now Rudd is trying the same approach in an effort to paint Abbott as the recalcitrant on indigenous recognition. The label may apply to many of Abbott’s colleagues, but it fits poorly with the man himself given his demonstrated commitment on the issue. Abbott is right to criticise Rudd for such a cynical attempt to politicise it.
My god, I agree with That Man!?!!
Still not sure of the entire context behind the comments Rudd reacted to with promises of letting people do what they want with their land, but it sounds like the narrative is almost bipartisanly hijacked from “Indigenous autonomy which may or _may not_ include profitable industry (including mining” and in the _specific_ case of something like mining, “a fairer distribution of profits” that is again a smaller and specific part of any particular community’s welfare, to “LET THE POOR PEOPLE HAVE MORE MINING WE WANT GINA something something TWIGGY GREAT STRAYANS JOBS, and so forth.
Heaven forbid this caring do gooder concern and crazy respect for culture, understanding and exchange of values radicalism result in some consideration of the land.
Thanks Labor.
I think it’s worth using Campbell Newman as a model for what a federal LNP leader might be like, his actually existing policies have meant massive reductions in indigenous support networks in areas like Cairns that have the highest homeless rate in the country. Abbott will agree with me when I say you can’t trust what he says or what he writes down, so lets be constructive here and trust in the policies of existing LNP governments.
Come on Bernard, I think you need to get real on this. Abbott’s form so far it to resolutely oppose and denigrate anything the ALP and especially Rudd propose. And he will eventually do the same here.
Abbott will agree we should be having the rreferendum, then whinge incessantly about how the ALP goes about it. Abbott has not failed ONCE to politicise every single issue, subject, theme and event so far, and somewhere between bluntly and atrociously.
So what do you want from Rudd? Roll over and expose himself to the scathing Abbott, Pyne, Bishop et al attack team and accept a one-sided politicisation under the current environment?
When poison is being sprayed at you from all players on all subjects from the other side Bernard, you would also eventually transition into an attacking defence mode.
I am not saying at all that the Rudd speech on this is the optimal or even desirable result, I am saying that it is today the inevitable result.
Kev knows Tony better than you or I Bernard, and he is actually on the receiving end of his vitriol, deserved or not. Tony will need to be goaded here, forced to a bipartisian participation.
Swings and merry-go-rounds. What goes around, comes around…
Rudd’s “cynical form” versus Abbott’s “Intractable negativity”
I think your boy wins, Bernard, when it comes to referenda.
And wasn’t that Rudd’s point?
But not Bernard’s point.
True, Rudd was being tricky on this yesterday. But it was a ploy to flush out some policy from the Abbott camp, to get some clear commitment on something, anything. At least now Abbott has affirmed his support and no-one, especially the Aboriginal community, can be in any doubt on his position.