29 March 2001
Why practical reconciliation is failing Indigenous people
The annual Social Justice and Native Title reports of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Dr William Jonas were tabled in Federal Parliament yesterday.
Both reports express concern at the current lack of progress in the reconciliation process and identify a range of commitments that need to be made at the national level to achieve meaningful reconciliation.
"It has now been 10 months since the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation released its four national strategies for reconciliation and four months since their final report was tabled in Parliament, yet where is the commitment to ongoing processes from government?" Dr Jonas asks.
"The reconciliation process has the potential to be as significant as the process that led to federation. It is critical that we turn the goodwill that currently exists into tangible results for Indigenous people," says Dr Jonas.
Dr Jonas calls for a commitment to overcoming Indigenous disadvantage as an urgent national priority. "The current approach of 'practical reconciliation' simply manages the inequality faced by Indigenous people. It is insufficient to reduce, let alone overcome, the disadvantage faced. Where are the benchmarks and targets?" Dr Jonas asks.
Dr Jonas also argues that overcoming disadvantage alone will not be sufficient. "Reconciliation is a human rights issue," Dr Jonas says. Dr Jonas argues that an approach that is not based on a full acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past and which does not respect the human rights of all Australians will not succeed.
The Social Justice Report contains 14 recommendations setting out a human rights-based framework for reconciliation, calling for:
- the negotiation of a framework agreement (or treaty) at the national level, and negotiation of agreements at the regional and local levels, to protect future rights and address historical injustices;
- a parliamentary inquiry to determine a mechanism for the entrenchment of a prohibition of racial discrimination in the Commonwealth Constitution within the next five years and to examine mechanisms for a Bill of Rights;
- processes to increase the accountability and transparency of governments for policies to overcome Indigenous disadvantage; and
- processes to facilitate the effective participation of Indigenous peoples in decision making processes.
The Native Title Report finds that the Australian law of native title provides insufficient protection to the relationship that Indigenous people have with their traditional land and sea country. "The responsibility lies squarely with government to ensure that Indigenous cultures are adequately protected in the Australian legal system, in full compliance with human rights principles", Dr Jonas states.
"Terra nullius was found by the High Court to be abhorrent to our contemporary values. Yet the recognition of native title still does not acknowledge the deep spiritual economic and social connection between Indigenous people and their land."
The report criticises the full Federal Court decisions in the Miriuwung-Gajerrong case and the Croker Island case. The characterisation of native title as a set of fragmented rights rather than a fundamental relationship to the land and sea renders native title vulnerable to extinguishment.
The report also argues that the amended Native Title Act provides little opportunity for native title holders to participate in the decisions that are likely to have an adverse impact on their rights.
Summaries and full copies of the reports are available on the HREOC website at: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/social_justice/index.html and http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/native_title/index.html
Media contacts: Janine MacDonald 0412 783 631 Margie Cook (02) 9284 9677 or 0418 637 230
Last updated 2 December 2001.
