Recognition debate has become an embarrassment

Most voters are pragmatists, and they want to know the answer to one simple question.

What is it that proponents (inside or outside the Constitution) want to recognise?

Proponents are reluctant to ­reveal what it is Aborigines want recognised. The deception ­inherent in the recognition debate is immense.

Let me inform you what sensibly could be recognised: that an Aboriginal people existed in Australia before European settlement. Such a statement could sit in a preamble to the Constitution, literally and figuratively preceding the Constitution.

The following formulation was contained in the Gillard government Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013.

“The people of Australia, recognises that the continent and the islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ­peoples.”

They were here first. Beyond that, there should be nothing.

The people who now constitute Australia have come from 180 or so countries. There is no ­“people” other than Australian citizens.

Australians no longer share a common heritage (British) or race (Anglo-Celtic). Australians share the history of the place called ­Australia, an official language, the law and civic traditions. Substantive equality before the law is guaranteed, especially following the 1967 version of recognition. There is no guarantee that every person will thrive: for those who cannot, there is welfare.

The treaty is a trick. It will not help a single Aboriginal child get to school, study, pass exams and get a job.