NORTHERN  SYDNEY  REGION  RECONCILIATION  NETWORK

The Secretariat
Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee
Room S1.61, Parliament House 
Canberra   ACT   2600

SUBMISSION TO THE
SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCES COMMITTEE
COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL 
FOR ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION FINAL REPORT –
RECONCILIATION: AUSTRALIA'S CHALLENGE.

The issue addressed in this submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee is the adequacy and effectiveness of the Commonwealth Government Response to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Final Report - Reconciliation: Australia's Challenge.  

It should be noted at the outset that the Howard Government, with all its resources, took 22 months to produce a 23 page response to the Final Report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.   This is just over one page per month.  In consequence community groups staffed on a part-time basis by volunteers have had less than two months to evaluate what the Government Response says, and more importantly doesn't say, and frame a submission for consideration by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee. 

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE AND ACTION DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TOWARD NATIONAL RECONCILIATION

In the introduction to the Government Response the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that the "collective priority must be to strengthen support for the ongoing process to most importantly improve the lives of Indigenous Australians" (p. 3).   How does one "strengthen support"?  The obvious answer is through education, publicity and the provision of information to the public.  During the ten year term of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation this was done very well by the very attractive array of materials produced by the National and State Reconciliation Councils and distributed to educational institutions and Reconciliation groups across the country.  Funding for these important means of strengthening support has been withdrawn by the Howard Government.  What then has happened to the Government's part in the loudly trumpeted "collective priority ... to strengthen support"?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE NOT CONSISTENT WITH "NEEDS AND ASPIRATIONS OF INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS

The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation worked for ten years, consulting widely within the Australian community and overseas.  Unfortunately the last four years of the Council's term was marred by the Howard Government's attempts to influence the deletion of words such as "treaty" and  “self determination" from the Council's Final Report.  
Having failed in its attempt to have these terms deleted, the Government Response reiterates its own view and shows no sympathy for "the needs and aspirations of Indigenous Australians" for whom these terms have great significance.  

The Howard Government's insistence on rewriting the very carefully and thoughtfully worded Australian Declaration Toward Reconciliation is further evidence of this lack of sympathy.   This declaration was arrived at following wide consultation among Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.  In attempting to replace it with its own wording the Government has refused to hear what the majority of Indigenous Australians and significant numbers of non-Indigenous Australians are saying about Reconciliation.  

In the 9th point of the Declaration the Government rejects the Councils wording "We desire a future where all Australians enjoy their rights, accept their responsibilities, and have the opportunity to achieve their full potential" and replaces it with "We desire a future where all Australians enjoy equal rights, live under the same laws and share opportunities and responsibilities according to their aspirations".   Internationally Indigenous peoples are recognised as both sharing the same rights as all others citizens and having special rights.  By changing this wording the Government denies this core aspiration of Indigenous peoples in this country.  An aspiration that has been recognised in countries like New Zealand, Canada and  the United States.  In its place the Government seeks to impose a "one nation" agenda on Indigenous peoples and indeed on the whole Australian community.  

The Government's statement about "living under the same laws" is inconsistent with its earlier rewording of point 4 where it claims to "recognise the place of traditional law".  It is, however, possible that what the Government means is that traditional law has no place in the lives of  Indigenous Australians. 

Throughout the Reconciliation process the Howard Government has continued to play a divisive role.  This makes all the more galling its argument, in response to CAR's Declaration and to Recommendation 6, that the signing of a treaty or agreement would be divisive.  What is clear is that given the type of leadership the Howard Government has displayed their assessment is most likely to be correct.  Under different leadership, a treaty or agreement is more likely to be an important step towards National Reconciliation. 

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE LACKS DETAIL AND EVIDENCE OF "TARGETS, BENCHMARKS, MONITORING AND EVALUATION MECHANISMS

RECOMMENDATION 1

In responding to CAR's Recommendation 1, the Government refers to initiatives taken by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to address disadvantage among Indigenous peoples.  The Report says "COAG therefore agreed to the development of action plans, performance-monitoring strategies and performance benchmarks for Indigenous programmes" (p. 4).  However, apart from a reference to health performance indicators agreed to in 1997 no indication is given of progress toward these initiatives over the two years since the decision was made by COAG.  

The Report goes on to list changes that the Government claims have occurred in fields such as education, health, law and justice.  It then goes on to discuss the importance of monitoring, of benchmarks and of targets and strategies, however, beyond the assertion that reports will be made 
"[i]n the medium term" (p.7), no more detail is given of what the Government has achieved or more importantly , will achieve.  If  "performance monitoring strategies" are to be "developed by ministerial councils" (p.7), where are the clear timelines for these to be developed let alone the time lines for reporting on their achievement?  

Given the Government's record noted above, a question must also be asked regarding the extent to which Indigenous people will be involved in the process of planning and benchmarking programs to address disadvantage within their communities.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The response to the second part of Recommendation 3 is worth quoting. "The Government is generally supportive of the proposal to remove s.25 of the Constitution. Given adequate support for the proposal, the Government would be disposed to put the matter to a referendum at an appropriate time" (p. 20).  Having noted that section 25 of the constitution "does not have any practical effect in the governance of the nation" (p. 20), why does the Government need "adequate support" before it will think about a referendum?  As the republican referendum showed it is very easy to drum up opposition to constitutional change. It would then be equally easy to argue that there was not adequate support. How much support is adequate?  Why too is the Government only "generally supportive"?  This is very qualified support for one of the abiding aspirations of Indigenous people.  Finally the Government is only prepared to commit to possibly doing something "at an appropriate time".  Where is the timeline? This part of the Government Response is not just vague it is deliberately deceptive.  

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE SEEKS TO DISTANCE ITSELF FROM ANY POSITIVE ROLE IN THE PROCESS OF ACHIEVING RECONCILIATION

Much of the Government's Response lists figures and data from different portfolios in an effort to claim that it has already done much to assist progress towards National Reconciliation.  What the Government's Response does not do is give any clear indication of what it proposes to do in the future to assist progress towards National Reconciliation. This shortcoming is nowhere more evident than in its brief response to Recommendations 5 and 6 of the CAR Final Report, and in its laughably vague four line conclusion.

The Government's response to Recommendations 5 and 6 begins by sounding positive as it affirms that Indigenous people (sic) "were" the original custodians of this land and its waters, and agrees that there is much work to be done to advance Reconciliation.  

However, its statement about the need for "ongoing community debate and education" (p.22) completely ignores the ten years of work that has already  been done by the Council and seeks to put  off or water down any future dialogue.    

Recommendation 6 clearly asks for "legislation ... to put in place a process ... through which unresolved issues of Reconciliation can be resolved".  The Government responds in term of high sounding platitudes such as the need for "ongoing community debate and education", 
"a progressive issue by issue" approach, "partnerships at the local level", no "top down policy response" and  "a proliferation of agreements" between Indigenous groups and other agencies.  All of these statements are designed to ensure that no action can be taken and that the Government will not be involved. It then says there will be no treaty, imposing its view over the carefully thought out aspirations of Indigenous peoples.  The message is clear - the Government won't do anything to assist the Reconciliation process.

Along the way the Government asserts that it "will continue to listen" (p23) but by page 23 we have a right to ask when, if ever, it will hear anything other than its own voice.

CONCLUSION

In summing up it is the view of the authors of this submission that while the Government Response indicates some progress towards National Reconciliation the Response itself does not contribute to progress towards National Reconciliation.  Indeed the Response trivialises the hard work over more than ten years of thousands of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

The Government Response provides a good example of the statement on the cover of a recent ATSIC publication on Treaty - "Words are easy, words are cheap".   This Response contains the cheapest of words that reflect no commitment on the part of the Government to work towards a solution of the most pressing problem that has confronted this country for 214 years.

Submitted by Organisations and Local Reconciliation Groups of the Northern Sydney Region Reconciliation Network:

Guringai Local Aboriginal Education Consultative Group (LAECG),
North Sydney Institute of TAFE (Aboriginal Programs Unit),
Lane Cove Residents for Reconciliation,
Harbour to Hawkesbury Australians for Reconciliation,
Mosman Reconciliation Group,
Aboriginal Support Group Manly Warringah Pittwater,
Hornsby Area Residents for Reconciliation,
Bennelong and Surrounds Residents for Reconciliation,
Ku-ring-gai Reconciliation Centre,
Epping-Beecroft Residents for Reconciliation.  

Kerrie McKenzie, 
Co-Chair
Northern Sydney Region Reconciliation Network (NSRRN)

6/7 Bridge St, Lane Cove 2066
Ph (02) 9428 1197