Less than eleven months from the proposed Referendum on ‘Recognise!’, what is to be ‘Recognised!’ is still unclear.

One would have thought that, whoever dreamed up this initiative, would have had Plans A, B and C ready, perhaps cascading options for the selection by the Australian electorate, ranging from a full gamut to just one or two options.

Plan A could have included an elaborate insertion into the Preamble of the Constitution, the removal of discriminatory clauses in the Constitution (which were not seen as such when they were included in 1967), a Treaty and recognition of Indigenous nations, and of political sovereignty. Plans B and C could have been canvassed, whittling down the options.

One problem seems to have emerged, that what the Indigenous elites are content with, tinkering with the Constitution, provides no joy whatsoever to the ‘radicals’, some of whom want a Treaty, while some spurn a Treaty and want full political sovereignty, now. Some want a recognition of separate Indigenous nations before a Treaty (i.e. so that those nations can be the parties to sign a Treaty), while others see the recognition of separate nations first, as the basis for genuine sovereignty.

One longstanding problem in Indigenous aspirations is the tendency to, as it were, dream up a five-second brain-flash and then run a passionate and uncritical advocacy of it. There is rarely a process of careful analysis of a proposal’s pros and cons: each one in turn is treated as – at last ! - the True Magic Bullet, the One which will make all the difference. Notions of a separate State, or a Provisional Indigenous Government – or earlier notions of a Treaty of Makarrata - are good examples of this rush.

Take the proposal for a Treaty, for example: what should be in it, and says who ? And if there is to be recognition of a multitude of nations first, what do each of them want (or their spokespeople, whoever they may be, yet another huge and unexamined hurdle) in their particular treaty ?

Regrettably, passion is no substitute for hard thinking.

Nations, Treaty, Sovereignty: each is unexamined, like a Black Box, but assumed to have magic properties, each an ‘Open Sesame !’ and lo ! the world is transformed.

But each is vastly more complex. Take ‘nations’ for example. Aboriginal groups organised themselves around families, nuclear and extended families, or clans or ‘local descent groups’, each the major land-holding group jealously guarding its foraging territory, each with its own ‘totems’ or particular affinity and identification with a natural species or phenomenon: black snake, honey ant, rain, mullet. In many senses, ‘clan’ is thus another term for ‘nation’, now as it was in Vattel's day.

Amongst the Narrindjeri in SA, there were around 140 such nations, so how many were there, or still are there, across Australia ?
Amongst the Ngarrindjeri, the 140 clans differentiated themselves into maybe ten dialect groups, each clan speaking the language but with dialectic differences, perhaps signifying the length of time that they had been separated. Ngarrindjeri dialect groups often went to war against each other, at least annually, usually in alliances between dialect groups. Marriages often took place between people from different dialect groups, using women as a means to keep the peace.

The Ngarrindjeri dialect groups regarded themselves, and were regarded by outsiders, as belonging formally to an all-encompassing unit, more appropriately termed a tribe (and often named by outsiders, e.g. 'Ngarrindjeri', 'Kaurna'). They were in turn usually at war with neighbouring ‘tribes’.

Clearly, across Australia, some ‘tribes’ are really clans or dialect groups, and some separate ‘tribes’ – such as the Western Desert ‘tribes’ - are more akin to many dialect groups within a single tribe altogether covering a couple of million square miles.

A generation ago, I put together a composite genealogy of the families – ‘clans’ – from a particular Mission/community, and put the name of the clan or descent group up in a top corner. I gave a copy to a young Aboriginal leader from there, he looked through it and noticed the clan names: “What’s this ?” My explanation didn’t seem to mean anything to him. So much for ‘nation’.

As for a treaty – or treaties - between a sovereign government based in Canberra and perhaps each ‘tribe’, dialect group and/or clan, i.e. ‘nations, three problems immediately arise:

• what should be in one (and who decides that), and do we go through the process as if it were 1788, or 2016 ? If a Treaty is to define future relations between groups, then what are the comprehensive and distinctive aspirations of each ‘group’, Indigenous and non-Indigenous ? Since we are all equally Australians, how do our aspirations differ now and into the future ? How does one lot of Australians sign an agreement with another ? And how could this deliberate and historically binding discrimination between groups bring them together any time in the future ? How does discrimination bring about ‘reconciliation’ ?

• who would be signatories on behalf of each ‘tribe’, dialect group or clan ? Even within families, ancient rivalries and grievances throw up competing claims for dominance, let alone between extrended families. Let alone between ‘tribes’.

and

• What magic content would a Treaty deal with that can’t be dealt with by a common representative government ? Equal rights ? Already got – tick. Substantial land rights ? Already got - tick. Special affirmative action programs ? Already got – tick. What then ? Some declaration of how evil whites are ? Some grovelling apology for being ?

So identifying who and what is going to be a huge, time-consuming and perhaps ultimately pointless task, for many, many people. Then the possibly fruitless task would begin to work out what each entity wants in 'their' Treaty. And who will speak for these resurrected groups in Treaty negotiations ? Who would sign ?

Whatever is decided on by Indigenous people, presuming that many are interested enough in having any input, apart from a few self-chosen elites, this all has to be agreed to by a majority of Australians in two-thirds of all States - following the Brexit referendum in Britain, and perhaps alongside other plebiscites and referenda for homosexual marriage and a republic.

Then there’s Indigenous Sovereignty. What is Sovereignty ? Complete control of territory and population, independence from any other sovereign rule, and total reliance on one’s own resources for public funding, for a start. This raises just a few questions, perhaps unbeknownst to Indigenous ‘thinkers’:

* Where ? Complete control of what territory ? Many bits of territory, or one big bit ?

* Control over whom ? All Indigenous people in Australia ? Everybody in predominantly Indigenous areas, including non-Indigenous people ? Control over Indigenous people in cities as well ? Would this mean some slight adjustment not just in where many Indigenous people would be allowed to live, but to whom they would be answerable, and under whom they would be required to live in their new surroundings.

* Can Indigenous urban people opt out and remain in non-Indigenous Australia ? Would they have to renounce their Indigenous status ? Would reconciliation and recognition then have to presuppose renunciation ?

* Would many non-Indigenous people have to move out of newly-defined Indigenous territory, or could they remain as aliens ? What status would partners in mixed marriages have ?

• Independence is fine, but how do you pay for it ? Would the ex-urban Indigenous population, now re-located in a separate State, perhaps against their will, be required to pay sufficient taxes to keep the other 70 % of Indigenous people, some on their own country, some ‘persuaded’ to re-locate, in the style to which they have become accustomed ? Where would a newly independent Indigenous Nation find thirty billion a year ? Where is the Magic Pudding ?

And what if some, or perhaps most, of the Indigenous population doesn’t want to move, or to be ruled from Oodnagalarby by a bunch of self-chosen ‘leaders’ ? Horror: what if most Indigenous people don’t want a bar of ‘Sovereignty’ ?

We all have brain-flashes occasionally but most last only a few minutes at most. They collapse under the enormous power of reconsideration and are forgotten.

Joe