‘Racism’ or ‘racist’ are not terms that I use.  They are too broad in their reach, and they are too often applied as unfair and unwarranted labels of abuse.

But as I understand it, ‘racism’, at least in its pejorative sense,  involves more than a recognition that people can be in some way classified according to race.  It entails a belief that people of some racial backgrounds are in some way inferior to others, or may be discriminated against, on the ground of their race.  And history is replete with stories of the misery that this vice has led to.

In order to support the proposed constitutional Voice, you do not have to invoke any notion of ‘racism’.  You merely have to acknowledge some history that is beyond argument. 

The people we describe as First Nations were those who came here starting, say, 60,000 years ago.  They did not ask those of European or other descent, who have come here since 1788, to do so – the blink of an eye in the Aboriginal time frame.  And they have suffered much since as a people, so that the later arrivals have felt obliged to seek to help them in the course of governing the nation.

There is no argument about any of that.  No one would suggest that the creation of a Ministry for Aboriginal Affairs was a ‘racist’ act, or that references to ‘race’ in the Constitution means that it is ‘racist’ legal document.

It is not ‘racist’ to say that people of different races may be different – or have different needs.  If it were, what happens to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (or Women)?  That ministry exists because the history of this nation shows the need for government, especially the Commonwealth, to provide forms of assistance to Aboriginals above what government provides to others.  The Constitution, s 51 (xxvi) expressly gives ‘the Commonwealth power to make laws with respect to the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.’  Once this constitutional difference in needs for people of any race is recognised, the rest looks just like detail.

I have not seen a coherent case for denying the First Nations the proposed remedy of the Voice.  All we the people are being asked to do is to make express our implicit obligation to help the original owners of the land. 

But if people wish vote against the proposal, what is their preferred way of dealing with the issue?

In my view, and putting motive to one side, those who seek to inject ‘racism’ into this argument commit what is called a ‘category mistake.’  That is, they represent facts of mental life as belonging to one logical category when they actually belong to another.

A shorter way of putting it is that you don’t compare apples with pears.  Lawyers would say that a decision in one case is not a precedent for the next case if that case involves a different issue

Another form of mistake is to compare being conservative, which is fine, with being reactionary, which is not so fine.

You might be reminded of those politicians who voted against saying sorry to the First Nations.  They said they would not accept any imputation of personal guilt. 

That was another form of category mistake, so it is not surprising that they are among the nay-sayers now. 

In saying sorry, the descendants of the late arrivals were not accepting any imputation of personal guilt.  It is just a brute fact of historical life, as Hannah Arendt observed, that there is such a thing as political responsibility.  That is quite different from what any individual member of the group has done, and it cannot therefore be judged in moral terms or brought before a criminal court.

Every government assumes political responsibility for the deeds and misdeeds of its predecessor….every generation is burdened by the sins of the fathers, as it is blessed by the deeds of the ancestors.

Ask the people of Germany or Japan.

Or those who run the Commonwealth Games.  We Victorians will have to bear that stain for long after I shuffle off.

Now, the problem that our nation faces in how to deal with the First Nations of course arose from conduct that was ‘racist’ in its vilest form.  But I do not see how the present discussion can benefit by wielding a bald accusation of ‘racism’ in any direction.  There is simply no need to inject heat, much less party politics, into a political or moral issue that is both simple and serious.

The inference I draw is that those who invoke ‘racism’ at this time do so from mischief. 

I may be wrong in that, but I don’t think I am wrong to say that if they succeed, this nation will be found politically responsible for another failure of governance that is said to relate to race.

And that will be bad for everyone – not least for those who procure it.