Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

About HREOC navigation

15 May 2002

Whatever happened to reconciliation?

Dr Jonas speaks to members of the media at the launch of the 2001 Social Justice and Native Title Reports

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:

"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:

"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."

Media contacts:

Janine MacDonald (02) 9284 9880 or 0408 469 347
Jan Payne (02) 9284 9791

Last updated 15 May 2002.