Whatever happened to reconciliation?

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Dr William Jonas has expressed serious concerns about the federal government’s commitment to reconciliation in his annual review of the government’s performance, the Social Justice Report 2001. This report and his annual review of native title developments, the Native Title Report 2001, were tabled in federal Parliament yesterday.

“It is difficult to identify any public material that demonstrates that the federal government has engaged in a good faith process to consider the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation’s (CAR) recommendations by reviewing current programs and policies and consulting and negotiating with Indigenous people about ways to improve them,” said Dr Jonas.

“Not only has the federal government not explicitly responded to the CAR documents, it has quite deliberately sought to shut down debate and avoid any engagement about the documents by using its stated commitment to practical reconciliation.”

In his review, Dr Jonas also expressed concerns at:

o The limited focus of COAG’s response to reconciliation, which seeks to address disadvantage but not rights recognition or other symbolic issues;

o The ‘assimilationist’ goals of practical reconciliation, which seek to “maintain rather than transform the relationship of Indigenous people to the mainstream society”; and

o Limitations in the federal government’s approach to family violence, which requires more holistic and strategic long-term approaches, including recognition of cultural rights and self-determination.

“It is reasonable to expect that at the end of a ten year, multi-million dollar process Indigenous people would receive a formal response from the government,” said Dr Jonas. “We should also expect national coordination of reconciliation to prevent a repeat of the mistakes of the past, especially in ensuring adequate accountability, transparency, effective monitoring and long term planning.”

To address these concerns Dr Jonas has called for a Senate inquiry into the reconciliation process and in particular into the documents produced by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the recommendations of the Social Justice Report 2000.

In the Native Title Report 2001, Dr Jonas expresses concern at the failure of the Native Title Act to deliver lasting outcomes for Indigenous peoples.

“As an embodiment of social relations, the native title system places Indigenous interests at a lower level than non-Indigenous interests, every time. As an embodiment of economic relations, the native title system removes Indigenous people’s effective control over their only asset: exclusive rights to land and sea country. And as an embodiment of political relations, native title fails to recognise traditional decision-making structures,” said Dr Jonas.

The Native Title Report 2001 expresses concern at the administration of the right to negotiate provisions by tribunals and governments; as well as inequitable funding levels within the native title system that disadvantage native title representative bodies. “Critical functions of native title representative bodies are not reflected in funding levels,” said Dr Jonas. “This under-funding limits the options for Indigenous people in protecting their native title rights.”

Dr Jonas also examines the capacity for framework agreements to be better used to elaborate standards for co-existing interests in land. “Framework agreements provide an opportunity for native title parties and non-Indigenous parties to interact, rather than having a relationship imposed by government policy or legislation,” stated Dr Jonas. “This can provide greater certainty and stability in relationships and present a viable option for commercial entities to do business with Aboriginal people.” The Social Justice Report 2001 also considers:

o Progress 10 years on from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody – noting that while there have been many improvements in the decade since the inquiry, the situation generally has deteriorated significantly with continuing high rates of over-representation in custody, significant increases in rates of imprisonment of Indigenous women, and a nationwide trend towards tougher law and order policies that is ‘one of the most distressing developments since the Royal Commission’;

o Mutual obligation and welfare reform – finding that the mutual obligation approach to welfare reform is over-stretched in relation to Indigenous peoples, as it does not give adequate attention to the broader social, economic and historical factors that contribute to Indigenous disadvantage and marginalisation;

o Indigenous governance and capacity building in communities – providing detailed case studies of current initiatives and finding that commitments to them have been minimal and require longer-term funding and resources;

o Diversionary schemes for juveniles in the NT and WA – noting that the first twelve months of the NT’s Pre-court Juvenile Diversion Scheme has been highly encouraging with some flaws that must be addressed. In contrast, the WA scheme is particularly poor and requires urgent change; and

o Mandatory sentencing in WA – finding that there remains an ongoing need for WA to remove these arbitrary and unnecessary laws. “The lack of progress in addressing the concerns of the Royal Commission offers us a stark reminder of what is at stake in this country with reconciliation,” Dr Jonas said in his Social Justice report. “As a society we cannot afford to look back in 10 years’ time on the reconciliation process with the same regrets we now do on the Royal Commission.”

o Recommendations of the Social Justice Report 2001 are available at: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/sjreport_01/recommend.html

o For copies of the Social Justice Report and Summary visit: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/sjreport_01/

o For copies of the Native Title Reports 2001 and Summary visit: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/ntreport_01/

Related Articles:

• Syria February 2012: Two Perspectives
• EGYPT: THE GROSS INSECURITY OF THE DHIMMI
• Female Circumcision in the Maldives, the Islamic Movement and Islamophobia
• Australia Day message
• Republicans/Democrats: Is there a Christian Alternative?

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.