Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution

I think that today will go down as a significant moment in the life of this nation. At lunch time today the expert Panel appointed to advise the Government on how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people could be recognized in the Constitution delivered its report and recommendations to the Prime Minister. The report can be read at http://www.youmeunity.org.au/

In 2 Corinthians 5:18 Paul says that God has reconciled us through Christ, and has given us a ministry of reconciliation. The Basis of Union says that God’s desire for the whole creation, the end in view, is its reconciliation and renewal, and that the church’s task is to serve that end (para. 3).

This suggestion to change the Constitution is a practical step in reconciliation in Australia, one that has had the active support of the Assembly of the Uniting Church and of the Uniting Aboriginal and islander Christian Congress.

The panel consulted widely. It received 3500 submissions, and conducted more than 250 consultations with over 4600 present. It conducted a number of surveys and opinion polls, and the overwhelming evidence is that a vast majority of people supported the idea of changes to the Constitution that would recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and which would prevent discrimination on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin.

The actual suggestions are:

·                    To repeal Section 25 of the Constitution which allows the possibility that a State Government could disqualify a particular race from voting.

·                    To repeal the current races power (Section 51 (xxvi)) and its replacement with a new power (Section 51A) which would allow laws to be made for the well-being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (where the present power allows laws to be made that are detrimental to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples).

·                    This new power would be preceded by a preamble containing a statement of recognition.

·                    The addition of a new power recognizing English as the official language of Australia, but honouring the languages of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as part of our national heritage.

The next step is for people to engage in extensive debate, and to encourage people to be well-informed when the referendum happens.

Anti-whaling protests and street theatre

A lot of years ago I read an interesting article that compared the life and work of Martin Luther King, jnr and Father Daniel Berrigan. King, of course, was famous for his fight against racism and his use of non-violent action, and his willingness to go to gaol in an attempt to change the system. Dan Berrigan was an active opponent of the American involvement in Vietnam and of the use of nuclear weapons. He, too, spent a lot of time in gaol as a result of his actions.

The article – which I can no longer put my fingers on – makes the point that King believed that the American system was basically OK, but that there were parts of it that needed change and individuals who needed to change. Essentially he saw sin as structural and personal, and took actions which he believed would change those parts and people that needed changing.

Berrigan, on the other hand, thought that the sin around war and nuclear weapons was not simply structural or individual, but went deep into the culture of the country. Changing a law or a part of the system or a few people was not going to change this culture. So he and his friends engaged in street theatre, in attempts to highlight the sheer craziness of things. They poured napalm – which was being dropped on Vietnam – on draft cards in an effort to show the absurdity of being charged for destroying cards when people where being burned in this way. They broke into nuclear defence facilities and painted peace slogans on bombs.

I was reminded of King and Berrigan this week when the three men in Western Australia boarded a Japanese whaling vessel. The moral outrage has been extraordinary, and the government has responded by (i) defending its failure to insist that international law is followed in regard to whaling with the usual excuse about how complex this issue is and how much needs to be done behind closed doors, (ii) working very quickly to get the men released so the issue moved from the front page of the papers, and (iii) speaking about the amount tax payers will need to pay for their return to Australia in order to get tax payer sympathy on the Government’s side.

I think we have a major clash of approaches. The government insists that, yes there are a few minor issues with whaling but if we play the game right changes can occur. I think that the three men confront us with Berrigan’s issue: is the failure to act a deeply cultural one about a game that stinks, and the only way to force change is a form of street theatre that shows the absurdity of what is going on.  

Action ficks and redemptive violence

Over the short break between Christmas and New Year I indulged in my liking of action flicks, the kind where good usually triumphs over evil and there is a fair bit of martial arts action. This time it was Nikita, and the ongoing struggle for a few people to destroy a black op program out of control.

I often wonder about my liking of this kind of film; what attracts a person opposed to war and violence to such action and violence, and the tendency for these films to explore redemptive violence.

A sense of redemptive violence sits under much of the church’s understanding of the atonement. It’s what makes it possible for the church to live in a very ambiguous place around war and support for the military, and refusal to give peace-making a priority in its life.

I think that sort of theory of the atonement provides the implicit basis for a country as overtly religious as the USA to pursue pre-emptive strikes as the foundation for its foreign policy. Evil has to be named, shamed and destroyed, and violence is OK if used by the righteous in the service of the salvation of the world.

I think it is what often makes churches ambiguous about the death penalty, and keeps us quiet about the fact that far too many people – and particularly those who are poor – are in prison. Punishment and violence!

That seems so contrary to my understanding of the cross of Jesus, an act not of violence by God but of suffering servanthood that undermines all pretensions to Empire.

And yet there is something attractive about the way violence is used to protect and destroy in the movies (and in real life). It is always a deep temptation for us in our personal lives and for our countries; much easier than peace-making, reconciliation and the need to share with others in a struggle that gives life and not death. There is this seductive sense that things get put right, and good triumphs, and all the evil is on the other side and has been dealt with. And we don’t need the one who is Emmanuel, because we have everything under control.

I’m not sure I should, but I still enjoy those movies.

Aliens or neighbours, terrorists or refugees?

Once more there is sharp public debate about refugee and asylum seeker policy as news arrives of more people who have died. The political response to this issue is the usual rock throwing combined with expressions of sympathy worded to suggest that it is the fault of the other Party.

What fascinates me is that while options are discussed there is almost no exploration of the assumptions and the way in which refugees and asylum seekers are to be seen and valued. It is a reflection of the sort of world we live in where there is no space for a conversation about what we value and what we seek for human life; there is only space for issues and for technical solutions.

It is not that there are no values or ideologies; it is simply that they get hidden and assumed to be beyond discussion. In Australia the framework is terrorism and border security. What will protect our space; how can the government fulfill its major task – the protection of citizens?

I am sitting at my desk trying to write Christmas sermons and reflections. I know we are not quite to that part of the story, but I am forced to think about Mary and Joseph and Jesus fleeing to Egypt in the face of a murderous dictator.

I wonder what would happen to them today were they forced to flee the illegal settlers and the army who harass people in Galilee? I guess if they flew to Australia on holiday visa and stayed on (with many thousands of others) they might have a chance – at least a chance to be heard in a more reasonable climate than if they came on the boat with a tiny number of others.

I wonder why few people mention the fact that Australia is supposed to be bound by international law to accept and properly process people seeking asylum, even if we then send the unsuccessful people back home. Why do so few people think it strange that we believe it is moral to shove refugees off-shore, forcing other countries – with a fair bit of arm twisting – to deal with issues that belong to us as a nation? What happens when we see people as neighbours and strangers to be cared for, people who are actually loved by God? Why does the fact that we live in an economically, politically, and environmentally global community seem so contrary to the obsession with border protection without compassion?

Does it not mean anything to Christians that Jesus was born outside the town, had to flee to another country, and was killed outside the walls of the city? Refugee and asylum seeker.

Is Constitutional Reform already in trouble?

One of the earliest commitments of the present federal Government was to explore ways to change the Australian Constitution so that it is more inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. For the last year a Panel has been consulting right around Australia through face-to-face meetings and submissions. Public meetings have been held in 84 locations, and over 3500 submission were received.

All this feed-back has been subjected to comprehensive, independent analysis to see what level of support there is for various options for reform. That analysis has been considered by the Panel, and advice has been received from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and constitutional law experts. Newspoll has conducted national polling and focus groups.

The Panel has consulted with the Government, Opposition, the Australian Greens and the Independents, each of whom has been constructive in their contribution.

The Panel will present its findings and recommendations to the Government in the week beginning 16 January 2012.

After all this work it is disappointing to see George Brandis, the shadow attorney-general publish an article in the Australian today which indicates what the Opposition will and will not accept, and speculating about what might be in the report.

What happens to the attempt to hear the voices of many ordinary Australians? To speculate adds to division not the reconciliation and justice needed in this country. It suggests an Opposition driven more by a pre-determined ideological position than a willingness to genuinely engage with the Australian community around this issue. Far better for them to let the process unfold and then to enter the debate in an informed manner, then this divisive sort of speculation.

A denial of fullness of life.

In John 10:10 Jesus says that he has come that people may have life, “and have it abundantly.” This has become for me a central beginning point for reflection on the shape of the Christian life. What does it mean to have abundant life or fullness of life? What does human well-being look like?

The Basis of Union of the Uniting Church affirms that “Jesus is head over all things, the beginning of a new creation, of a new humanity. God in Christ has given to all people in the Church the Holy Spirit as a pledge and foretaste of that coming reconciliation and renewal that is the end in view for the whole creation” (paragraph 3).

Reconciliation, renewal and abundant life; these sit at the heart of the desire of God and the nature of the church.

Last night I went to see a documentary in a theatre in Newcastle. It was the only public showing of the film “Our Generation,’ a viewing sponsored by the Wollotuka Centre at Newcastle University. The film explores the impact of Government policy, and particularly the Intervention, on the Aboriginal people of Eastern Arnhem Land.

This is the story of the denial of human well-being. It is a story of thinly veiled racism, and the continuation of assimilation policies hidden under fancy words. It is about the denial of the ability of Aboriginal people to exercise control over their own lives, and to be Aboriginal people rather than black reflections of European society. It is about the denial of the rights of Aboriginal people to be treated as citizens, with the race discrimination Act being suspended to allow the Intervention. It is about an attempt to steal people’s land, and broken promises and blackmail – do what we tell you or there is no money for basic things like housing and education. It is about multiple breaches of the UN statements on Indigenous rights which the Australian government says it believes in. It is about the denial of language and culture, and inappropriate and imposed solutions. It is about the continuation of Government policy that spends money on white advisors and managers and almost nothing on the people.

Buy a copy for yourself for Christmas. Buy a copy for your local Federal member. Take some friends to see your local member and tell her/him to end the Intervention immediately and consult in a genuine way with Aboriginal people.

Running up against the edges

There are many moments in the Uniting Church’s sexuality debate that I remember with real clarity. Some I remember with humility and deep joy as I found myself pushed out of my old comfort zones, and others I remember with shame as I watched faithful followers of Jesus insulted and treated like crap.

There is one moment I remember as if it was few moments ago. I can still see the colour and tones, the voices and the people. It was in Melbourne. The Assembly was immersed in the debate about sexuality and leadership. The Congress leadership was deeply concerned that its voice was not being heard, and spoke of the need to respect the covenant that existed between Congress and the rest of the Church. They asked the Assembly not to do anything against the wishes of Congress members.

Somewhere in that ongoing debate I suggested that the primary covenant at stake was baptism and what it meant for membership and ministry. Any other covenant had to be shaped by that one.

It’s the next bit I remember so well. As we stood around at lunch time my Congress friends really gave me a hard time. They told me I understood almost nothing, and needed to go with the old people and be taught again about covenant. That was a painful time, a time of running up against the edges of my faith and commitments. I thought I had already worked out what baptism meant, but needed to learn some more.

I confess that I feel like I am in the same spot at the moment around the issue of marriage and gay and lesbian people. I feel like I am in a very uncomfortable, abrasive place. I keep thinking the issue is simple: marriage is by definition about a man and a woman. And yet I know that I have friends who are the equivalent of the ‘old people,’ who want to teach me something else about marriage and definitions. I keep feeling that I need to rub up against the edges of where I sit. I keep wondering why I sit where I do, and why on this issue I am in an odd place. Why are my edges where they are? I feel like I am betraying friends, and wonder why on this issue that is a risk. Why are some voices so hard to hear on this issue; why is tradition so strong?

Anyone else know?