AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Aboriginal Law Bulletin

Aboriginal Law Bulletin (ALB)
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Aboriginal Law Bulletin >> 1991 >> [1991] AboriginalLawB 60

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Aboriginal Law Bulletin --- "Editorial" [1991] AboriginalLawB 60; (1991) 1(53) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 3


Editorial

On 16 August, 1991 the Senate passed the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Bill 1991. The Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Robert Tickner, had succeeded in obtaining bipartisan support for the Bill with both houses unanimously agreeing to its enactment.

Whilst all members spoke in favour of the Bill, some statements made during debate could prove indicative of the ultimate fate of the reconciliation process and cause considerable concern for Aboriginals with reservations about the process.

The Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Wooldridge, outlined the Coalition's position on the reconciliation process:

"..first, the opposition does not particularly believe in grand plans in this area and, secondly, the opposition is concerned not to raise the hopes and expectations of Aboriginal people only to have them dashed."[1]

Clearly, the Coalition will have difficulty in coming to terms with any recommendation from the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in favour of a document. Their commitment would appear to be superficial, especially in light of their recent electoral promise to cut ATSIC's funding by 10%, even though ATSIC is to have a central role in the reconciliation process.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody warned that the reconciliation process "should be open ended in the sense that neither side sets preconditions in advance."[2] If the Parliamentary debates are any indication, this will hardly be the reality.

Mr Truss stated that he did not believe reconciliation should involve any negotiations about land rights (an issue that most Aboriginal people would consider fundamental):

"Land rights do nothing to improve health, education, the onset of alcoholism, unemployment or social degradation. They do nothing for the spiritual welfare of people who left their land generations ago; nor will the treaty achieve anything."[3] [our emphasis]

This stance was taken by a number of speakers, including the Hon. Mr Taylor, who claimed he would "reject this legislation ... if it is seen as yet another vehicle to national land rights claims."[4]

Some Senators also qualified their support. Senator Knowles, after referring to the 'voracious sacred site industry' which he believes blocks employment and economic development, announced:

'We will never achieve understanding and the Council of Reconciliation will be wasting its time, .if the Mansells and the Brophos are effectively given licence to appropriate the beliefs of other Aboriginals in order to impose their own agenda .... These people, particularly Mr Mansell, who is more white that I am in summertime, is given more credence as to what Aboriginal people want than the Aborigines themselves."[5]

Senator Knowles not only denigrated the spiritual beliefs of Aboriginal people, but only gave his support on the proviso that certain people were excluded from the reconciliation process. The deplorable action of attacking an individual's Aboriginality needs no comment.

The fact that those proposing qualifications support the Bill at all is testimony to its vague terminology and lack of any specific goals. The bi-partisanship has been built upon misconceptions over the aims of the 'process of reconciliation'. Those opposed to Aboriginal self-determination see the process as a tool to finally integrate Aboriginal people. At the same time, the Government is claiming that the process will enable the general population to become more fully educated about Aboriginal issues, thus allowing a 'document' to be a possible outcome when (and if) public opinion changes. While statements such as those quoted above demonstrate the need for a general public information program to enable some of the more specific outcomes of the process to become less unacceptable, it is disturbing that the Bill was enacted with such a discrepancy in interpretation of the meaning of 'reconciliation'. This discrepancy will undoubtedly undermine the quality of bipartisanship. This is evident from an observation from Senator Campbell:

"If we go down the track of trying to create a treaty, or building up a political ground swell for a treaty or using the reconciliation process to put national land rights on the agenda, then that non-partisanship will disappear very quickly."[6]

Yet the building of a political ground swell' is what Robert Tickner has represented to Aboriginal people to be the major advantage of the process!

While a bipartisan approach may be important to ensure no cheap political points are scored at the expense of Aboriginal people, it is pointless to strive for a bipartisan approach that is based on different interpretations of what the central issues are. If this occurs, the Reconciliation process is sure to fail.


[1] Hansard, House of Representatives, 30-31 May 1991, at 4499.

[2] Johnston E., Final Report, Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, Vol.5, AGPS, 1991, p.63.

[3] Hansard, House of Representatives, Op cit at 4849.

[4] Ibid at 4851.

[5] Hansard, Senate, 15 August 1991, at 402.

[6] Hansard, Senate, 16 August 1991, at 559.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLawB/1991/60.html