Tony Abbott's enthusiasm for appropriately recognising indigenous Australians in the constitution is praiseworthy and the proposed constitutional change ought to be passed with widespread community and political party support during this parliamentary term. To do so should be a very high priority. It is well past time.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
However, he has chosen initially to sell the changes in a potentially dangerous way. He has framed the changes as not about altering the constitution but completing it. He has probably done so in the search for an approach that might resonate with Australians who are risk-averse when it comes to constitutional change by referendum. The last successful referendum took place almost 40 years ago, in 1977. Overall success is rare and the success rate is less than 20 per cent of those proposals that actually get to a referendum. Many fail to even get that far.
The Prime Minister's tactic to try to soothe any concerns looks at face value to be a clever one. He may see it as just playing with words. It may, therefore, be just a pragmatic approach that suits the times. If it becomes a campaign slogan (''Completing the constitution''), it may even be adopted by the opposition and other advocates of a yes vote. The underlying idea is that these changes ought really to have been in the original version of the constitution in 1901. In this way of thinking, the task now is to complete the work that was left unfinished in the 1890s.
The idea of a completed constitution may be attractive but it is a dangerous one for advocates of any future constitutional change. To complete something, according to dictionary definitions, is to end, conclude or finish it. Alternatively, something that is complete is perfect, full or entire. Such language is inappropriate when discussing a constitution and reformers should beware of this even if it improves the chances of passing any constitutional change in the short term.
Reformers always need a good angle and this Abbott angle is quite a good one. Opponents of constitutional change will always exaggerate the dangers of change. The record shows that this has been the case in past referendum campaigns. The no case is usually easier than the yes case to make because the unknown can always be made out to be risky. The future is unknown country. Reformers are often vilified as the ''change for change's sake'' brigade.
Constitutions shouldn't ever be described as complete or incomplete. Rather they are evolving just as communities evolve. Constitution-making should be ongoing. The constitution should be difficult to change. This is recognised in the section 128 rules that demand a double majority (of the whole population and of the state populations) in a referendum.
But constitutions should always be on the table and not on the mantelpiece. They should be alive, not dead. They are living documents reflecting community attitudes rather than relics of a time many years ago. As community attitudes change, it makes sense for constitutions to change. Realistically, constitutional change will lag behind social change. But constitutional change should come eventually. Reformers should be up front about challenging opposition to change and ready to make the arguments for change, as difficult as that might be.
Though the overall success rate of referendums is low, the conservative parties can boast a much better record than Labor when it comes to sponsoring constitutional change. This improves the chances of these proposals in relation to indigenous people being accepted by the community. Conservative parties are inherently better at reading and reflecting the conservative leanings of the community.
But progressive parties and groups should hold the line on how issues are framed because their long-term electoral success demands that the community is open to change in many forms. Politics may be the art of the possible but this should not mean that the short-term should be allowed to crowd out the longer-term.
The Prime Minister may or may not have thought through the wider implications of his choice of words for his proposed changes . If
he has not then he should think again. Give him the benefit of the doubt. But very few words are uttered in politics these days without being road-tested in focus groups.
If Abbott has thought through his approach, then reformers should reject the wider implications of ''Completing the constitution''. It may have a nice ring to it but it incorporates a very conservative message about constitutional change. Future constitutional reform should not be dogged by a reading of history that says that there is no need for further change because the Australian constitution was completed in 2014-15.
Rather than ''Completing the constitution'', what Australians should be about in this referendum is ''doing the right thing'' by putting in place a ''constitution for a modern Australia''. This means ''allowing our constitution to evolve'' in the 21st century.
The founding fathers did the best they could in the 1890s when they drafted a constitution for a new nation. They did a good job but they did not kid themselves that they had produced a document that was close to perfection. Such thinking is harmful to Australian constitutional discussions.
We should be open to changing our constitution just as the founding fathers were. That is why they included provisions for changing our basic document in section 128. Change is not a bad thing and that should never be inferred just for the sake of a catchy slogan. All reformers should put their heads together to come up with one that is better.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.
john.warhurst@anu.edu.au
