In one of the more surprising moves by the new Gillard government, under Julia Gillard has pledged a referendum on whether to recognize indigenous peoples in the constitution. There is also a move afoot to do this in New South Wales. However, the federal level referendum will be more difficult to achieve given the majority of voters needed in a majority of states. Aborigines have long sought recognition in our national and state constitutions because these fundamental laws have either ignored their existence or permitted discrimination against them. They also argue that the story of our nation is incomplete without the histories of the peoples who inhabited the continent before white settlement.

Arguably, the Constitution was drafted by a racist nation. The result was a constitution that referred to Aborigines only in negative terms. Section 127 even made it unlawful to include ”Aboriginal natives” when counting the number of ”people” of the Commonwealth. An unsuccessful attempt was made to recognise indigenous peoples in the constitution at the 1999 republic referendum. The states then took the lead, bolstered by the advantage of not needing to hold a referendum. Victoria and then Queensland have reformed their constitutions by way of a simple act of Parliament. The change introduced by Premier Kristina Keneally into the NSW Parliament last week follows the same approach. The passage of the bill is assured after being supported in heartfelt speeches by Keneally, Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell and the indigenous minister, Linda Burney.

These are fine words, but it must be remembered that they are just words. The section will do no more than make a symbolic change to the state constitution. Kevin Rudd was hailed as a hero for having finally gotten to the point to saying sorry to the stolen generations. However, the actual living standards of aboriginal people in terms of health care, education and literacy, rates of imprisonment and other indicators of social well being have not seen any marked improvement since Mr Rudd;s apology. Despite the fact that symbolism can be important, it can also obfuscate the true nature of the problem by glibly apologizing without any act that supports the sincerity of the apology.