4. Noel Pearson's "Indigenous Games"
Andrew Bolt has rightly pointed out that Noel Pearson’s proposed changes to our Constitution, to include a ‘Voice to Parliament’ provision exclusively for Aboriginal Australians, is a racist proposal that will give some people more constitutional rights than others on the basis of their race (here and for non-subscribers here pdf).
This same conclusion, that Pearson’s proposals are ‘racist’, has also been reached by the Institute of Public Affairs (here and YouTube here).
As Bolt says, “this is a plan to divide us by race. It is a betrayal of everything that true enemies of racism worked for, for so long.”
This charge of “racism” is quite ‘problematic’ for the proponents of the Uluru Statement, which includes the proposal for ‘The Voice to Parliament’ and a specific constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people – how do they avoid being labelled ‘racist’ themselves when they clearly want to insert a new, race-based section into The Constitution that specifically recognises, and gives an advantage to, those Australians who identify as being of the Aboriginal race or decent?
Noel Pearson, as one of the architects of the Uluru Statement and something of an expert in semantics, thinks he can deflect the charge of ‘racism’ by claiming that the proposals are not about ‘race’ at all, but about ‘indigeneity’. Pearson has been reported as saying:
“Let me briefly rehearse the main grounds for objection to positive recognition, through the proposition of the indigenous voice enshrined in the Constitution,” Pearson said. “The first objection concerns the question of race. It is alleged the voice would be a racial insertion into the Constitution. This is the standard argument of Andrew Bolt and the Institute of Public Affairs. This objection is only possible through a dishonest conflation of indigeneity with race. The IPA maintains recognition is racial recognition rather than a recognition of the fact that Aboriginal and Islander peoples are indigenous to this nation. If our people were blonde and blue-eyed like the Sami of the Arctic Circle it would be readily apparent recognition has nothing to do with race”. – Noel Pearson, The Australian 28/12/2019, and :
“Opponents of an indigenous voice, such as the IPA have argued that such a change to the constitution would mean separate treatment on the basis of race…Our claim is on the basis of being indigenous to this country, not on the basis of race," Mr Pearson said. “Who would say to the Sami of the Arctic Circle… that their status is based on race and not that they are native to their homelands". - Noel Pearson, Canberra Times August 3rd 2019 - (our emphasis).
Unfortunately for Pearson, but fortunately for the many of us Australians who do not want ‘racists’ playing around with our Constitution, the choice of the Sami peoples as an example of ‘indigeneity’ is the Achilles heel in the logic of Pearson’s argument. Pearson has a habit of delving deep into dodgy, foreign jurisdictions in seeking inspiration in his quest to alter our Constitution (see Pearson’s Congolese connection for the Uluru statement), so our interest was piqued at Pearson’s interest in these mysterious, indigenous Sami people. Wikipedia informs us that the Sami people are an indigenous, Finno-Ugric people inhabiting large, northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and parts of Russia, and were previously known in English as Lapps (Lapplanders). The Sami migrated into the area they now call home sometime in the 1600-1700’s and that is the basis of their claim to ‘indigeneity’ in their homeland. The political status of the Sami is most fully developed in Norway, where they are recognised in the Norwegian Constitution and have their own parliament and a degree of independence from the control of mainstream Norwegian government and society.
The Sami are altogether an attractive role model for how Pearson sees Aboriginal peoples in Australia achieving constitutional recognition based on ‘indigeneity’ rather than ‘race’. Pearson obviously sees this as a way to avoid the legitimate charge of “racism” against his fight for Aboriginal constitutional recognition and his ‘Voice to Parliament’. However, a little digging on our part exposes some very interesting facts about Pearson’s ‘indigenous’ Sami and how ‘problematic’ they may turn out to be for Pearson in an Australian context.
On checking the official Norwegian government website concerning the Sami peoples, we learn,
“The Sami People : What Defines an Indigenous People?
“No general, internationally accepted definition of indigenous peoples exists…As a rule, indigenous populations possess a distinctive culture that revolves around natural resources, and their way of life differs socially, culturally and/or linguistically from the dominant population. Although indigenous people often comprise a minority within their countries, this is not always the case. In several of the countries of Latin America, for example, the indigenous population constitutes a substantial majority of the population. Article 1b of the ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (C169, 1989), ratified by Norway in 1990, defines indigenous peoples in the following manner:
“peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.
In Norway, it is clear that the Sámi population satisfies the criteria stipulated in this definition. One misunderstanding that occasionally emerges in the debate regarding Sámi rights to land and natural resources in Norway arises from the fact that, under international law, the term “indigenous people” implies that the population involved must have been the first inhabitants of an area, and that this archaeological or cultural-historical factor is crucial in determining who has the rights to what in the present. This view is not correct. In accordance with ILO Convention 169/89, the central issue is whether any current population group has an affiliation with a specific region dating back to the time when the present state boundaries were established in that region. Thus, it is what has taken place from today and dating back to the 16 and 1700s [when the Sami expanded into Norway] that is relevant in legal terms, [for the case of the Sami] and not whether any ties exist between populations from the Stone Age and current ethnic groups.” – [ our emphasis]
So using the logic as espoused by the ILO Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (C169, 1989) and adopted by Norway in the recognition of the Sami peoples, we would argue that :
- Yes, Australian Aboriginal people are indigenous to Australia [from :“peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of…colonisation” ],
- but so too are those Australians who descend from peoples living in the six Australian Colonies of Great Britain prior to January 1st 1901, when those colonies federated to become the nation-state of the Commonwealth of Australia [from: “peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs at the time of…the establishment of present state boundaries [i.e. from 1/1/1901 when the nation-state boundary of the Commonwealth of Australia was established] and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.” [i.e. we retain our British heritage, language, laws, customs, institutions and social economy].
So, it appears to us that Noel Pearson may have just kicked an own-goal and ceded the argument to many of the rest of us Australians, those of colonial descent, who have been arguing for what we have always known – that we too are indigenous (small “i”) Australians. We are happy to acknowledge the very long time that Aboriginal peoples have lived on this continent by respecting them as Indigenous (capital “I”) Australians, but we reject Noel Pearson’s attempt to use either “race”, or selective ‘indigeneity”, to relegate us “indigenous” Australians of colonial descent to a position of second-class citizens in OUR own country and in The Constitution, The Constitution which must treat ALL Australians equally. We claim that we too come under the ILO Convention description of being ‘indigenous’ by our ancestors having been present here, on our land, prior to the formation of the present boundaries of the nation-state of Australia in 1901.
We note the general acceptance of Torres Strait Islanders as being ‘indigenous’, even though the Torres Strait Islands were only annexed by Queensland in the years 1872 to 1879, thus firstly becoming part of the British colony of Queensland and, after 1901, part of the Australian state of Queensland in the nation-state of the Commonwealth of Australia.
So why should Torres Strait Islanders get a special “indigeneity” section allotted to them in our Constitution when they only joined the colony of Queensland long after many other Queenslanders of British, European, Asian and Pacific Islander descent had already been born, bred and lived as ‘indigenous’ Queenslanders in the years prior to 1872? Is Noel Pearson saying that groups can bring their “indigeneity” with them, like the Torres Strait Islanders, when they join the Commonwealth of Australia? Or are the Torres Strait Islanders being included in the ‘Voice to Parliament’ because of their ‘race’? Does Noel Pearson want to deny indigenous, born-and-bred Queenslanders of British, Asian, European and Pacific Islander descent stretching back to pre-1872, a membership to the “Voice to Parliament’ because their ‘race’ is wrong?
Like Andrew Bolts says, “this is a plan to divide us by race. It is a betrayal of everything that true enemies of racism worked for, for so long.”
1. Winners in Noel Pearson’s Constitutional Races - An Indigenous Sami family of Norway in the 1870’s.
3.Winners in Noel Pearson’s Constitutional Races - Modern Indigenous Sami of Norway, proud of their cultural heritage.
5.Winners in Noel Pearson’s Constitutional Races - Torres Strait Islander children of 1898, who get an official Indigenous guernsey for having parents of the correct ‘race’, despite only becoming Queenslanders in the 1870’s.
7.A starter in Noel Pearson’s Constitutional Races - Cocos Keeling Islander citizens who joined Australia in 1955, and have applied in 2019 for Indigenous status. Will they get a vote in Pearson’s ‘Voice to Parliament’ or are they of the wrong ‘race’?
…
9.A starter in Noel Pearson’s Constitutional Races - John Clunies-Ross, a Cocos Keeling Islander with Scottish heritage, who’s homeland joined Australia in 1955, has applied in 2019 for Indigenous status. Will he get a vote in Pearson’s ‘Voice to Parliament’ or is he of the wrong race?
11.Winners in Noel Pearson’s Constitutional Races - Stan Grant and his three children will qualify as members of the ‘Voice to Parliament’ -two votes for them - one in the Federal election and one in the ‘Voice’ because of their indigeneity (or race?). Only one vote for the rest of us.
2.Losers in Noel Pearson’s Constitutional Races - An indigenous Queenslander family in the 1870’s.
.
4.Losers in Noel Pearson’s Constitutional Races - Modern indigenous Aussies, proud of their cultural heritage.
6.Losers in Noel Pearson’s Constitutional Races - Queensland children of 1898, who’s parents unfortunately had the wrong ‘race’, despite the fact that their Australian indigenous heritage may reach back to 1788.
8.A non-starter in Noel Pearsons’ Constitutional Races - Despite 150 years of indigenous market gardeners of Chinese descent, like Mr Teng, working at Sydney’s heritage-listed La Perouse, they are not ‘indigenous’ enough to get a “Voice to Parliament’. Or maybe they are of the wrong ‘race’?
10.Non-starters in Noel Pearsons’ Constitutional Races - Sorry guys, even if you’re descended from the 1788 First Fleet, your unique Australian indigeneity and culture won’t get you a vote in the “Voice to Parliament’ as you are of the wrong ‘race’.
.
12.Loser in Noel Pearson’s Constitutional Races - Tracey Holmes, Stan’s wife. Despite the fact that her husband and her child are ‘Indigenous’ and can be members of the ‘Voice to Parliament’, she can’t. She is excluded on the basis of her ‘race’. She is a second- class citizen in her own family. And what about gender equality? Trumped by race?
13.A Winner & a Loser in Noel Pearson’s Constitutional Races - Megan* and Krystal* are best mates and run a cafe together. They grew up in the same street, listen to the same music, travel together, speak only one language, English, and are culturally both identical Aussies. But one of them believes their great grandmother may have been Aboriginal so she always ticks that little, “are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent?” box on application forms. Now Mr Pearson, isn’t the only difference between these two young ladies due to race, a twist of genetics where one of them believes she has some of the genes of a distance Aboriginal ancestor? Two votes for her, for Federal parliament and ‘The Voice’, but only one vote for her best mate. Do really think Mr Pearson, that Australians are so stupid that they would agree to your ‘racist’ plan?
*Their real names, but not their photographs.
Timeline of arrival of indigenous peoples on the Australia Continent and awarding of Noel Pearsons “Indigenous” Constitutional Winner Labels
65,000 Before Present : First Aboriginal peoples arrive in waves on the northern shores over many years [Indigenous Constitutional winner].
50,000 - 40,000BP : Aboriginal peoples ultimately spread out to occupy all of the continent including Tasmania [Indigenous Constitutional winner].
4,000BP : Another wave of settlers arrive, most likely bringing the dingo from India and/or a new language group that spreads across the continent and merges with the Aborigines already established here [Indigenous Constitutional winner].
2500BP est : Melanesians arrive in the Torres Strait Islands [Indigenous Constitutional winner].
1788 : British settle and colonise New South Wales
1788-1859 : The six Australian colonies of Great Britain develop with immigrants and native born peoples, often inter-marrying with Aboriginals, to make their own ‘indigenous’ Australian culture [Indigenous Constitutional losers according to Noel Pearson unless they have some Aboriginal ‘race’ in their genes].
1872-1879 : the Torres Strait Islanders join the Colony of Queensland [Indigenous Constitutional winners] but [Queenslanders of British, European, Asian and Pacific Islander heritage, born and bred in Queensland are Indigenous Constitutional losers].
1955 : Cocos Keeling Islands acquired by Australia - Muslim Malay and Scottish descendants apply for Indigenous status in 2019 [Potential Indigenous Constitutional winners]
Future Claims : Pitcairn, Norfolk, Christmas Islander descendants and Kanaka’s? - Go consult your lawyers!
Main Picture : From left: Julian Leeser, Noel Pearson and Damien Freeman (lawyers from Uphold & Recognise and here).