Indigenous leader Patrick Dodson has mounted a passionate defence of a proposal to outlaw racial discrimination in the constitution, asserting many indigenous people are still confronted with intolerance and racism on a daily basis.
Professor Dodson also rejected claims that the panel ''over-reached'' its mandate with the proposal, insisting it is neither radical nor new, and would simply bring Australia into step with other countries, including Canada and South Africa.
His remarks last night came as Anne Twomey, the director of the constitutional reform unit at the University of Sydney law school, warned that the ''complexity and extensive reach'' of the panel's recommendations could result in their failure if put to a referendum.
Delivering the inaugural Mahatma Gandhi Oration in Sydney, Professor Dodson, a co-chair of the expert panel, said he remained hopeful of a ''informed and mature conversation'' on the proposal to recognise the original Australians in the nation's founding document.
While commentators have argued last week's ugly protest by activists from the Aboriginal tent embassy has damaged the cause of constitutional recognition, Professor Dodson said it was simplistic to condemn outright their behaviour ''without considering the sense of oppression that some of our people still feel towards our governments on a whole range of matters''.
During the lecture, Professor Dodson lamented Australia's inability to lift the vast majority of indigenous people to anywhere near parity with non-indigenous Australians.
On the constitution, Professor Dodson rejected concern raised by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott that the proposed outlawing of racial discrimination would amount to a ''one clause bill of rights''.
''This is a relatively simple matter of recognition of the first peoples of this land. Whilst this would be belated, it would set a new foundation for our future relationship,'' he said.
In a paper analysing the proposals, Professor Twomey said if the panel's recommendations were adopted, it would be up to a court to decide whether a law was for the advancement of indigenous Australians.
''On the whole, Australians have proved most reluctant to shift such assessments from the Parliament to the courts, as has been seen by the failure to introduce a bill of rights,'' she said.
While legislation prohibiting racial discrimination had existed for decades, if such protections were placed in the constitution and were interpreted in unintended ways by courts, the only way of correcting the problem would be an expensive and difficult referendum, she wrote.
Professor Dodson said it would be better the referendum not to be put if there was not bipartisan support.
''If there is no-cross party support for the proposition, then it will more than likely fail if pursued'' he said.
