SPEECH
BY
EVELYN SCOTT
CHAIRPERSON
COUNCIL FOR ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION
AT
"FROM LITTLE THINGS, BIG THINGS GROW"
THE
INDIGENOUS CHILDREN’S SERVICES UNIT CONFERENCE
THE MERCURE
INN, TOWNSVILLE
WEDNESDAY
15 MARCH 2000
Thank you Angela.
Fellow guests, delegates. It’s great to be here among people who are
actually getting things done, on the ground, for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people. I hope that, by the end of what I have to say,
you’ll appreciate that the effort you put in to improving services for
Indigenous children is also making an important contribution to reconciliation
in this country.
Before I go on though, I’d like to thank Shirley Johnston for her welcome
to country. As we always do at the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation,
I want to acknowledge the living culture of the people, and the unique
contribution they make to the life of this region. I’d also like to
say a special "thank you" to you Bindal kids. That was a really
interesting dance, and I think you did it very well.
Ladies and gentlemen, when I looked at the theme for your conference
I thought to myself "Well, of course that’s true, but aren’t there
a lot of things that can go wrong, a lot of problems to be solved, on
the way from being a little thing to a big thing. It sometimes seems
like a miracle that we make it." Then I got to thinking how well
that applied to the wonderful journey of reconciliation between Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the rest of the Australian community.
In fact, I thought, reconciliation is a bit like an avocado, except
that reconciliation might take a little while longer to bear its full
and abundant fruit. With that comparison in mind, let me take you briefly
through the story of the reconciliation process, and why work such as
yours is so important to it.
The seeds of reconciliation are fairly easy to identify. They’re the
result of a cross between the real need for reconciliation and
the gradual realisation, among the Australian people, that such
a need existed. You can trace the need for the process right back to
1788, when the British began the long process of taking over the continent.
The need grew stronger as each new Indigenous community was disrupted,
its people taken from their traditional lands, its children taken from
their mothers, its law, culture and language suppressed, its physical
health devastated by European diseases.
In time, the need took on another dimension. As the European way of
doing things began to dominate, it became possible to see just how badly
off Indigenous peoples were, as measured by the Europeans’ own yardsticks.
It wasn’t only in health, of course. We all now know that Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people are easily the most disadvantaged
group in our society in terms of housing, education and employment as
well. And along with all that, we have the indefensible situation where
Indigenous people – kids in particular – make contact with the criminal
justice system at a level that’s way out of proportion. These injustices,
these inequities, made up a real need for something to be done to repair
relations between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and
the wider society. Then along came the realisation of that need.
It’s a matter of debate when that started to happen.
Some say the referendum of 1967 was the turning point. Certainly, within
the decade after 1967 some important things happened – like the Racial
Discrimination Act in 1975, the Northern Territory land rights law in
1976, and the beginnings of federal programs for Indigenous people like
the one that now funds your work. Others say the realisation was later
and more gradual, as more and more people began to see the links
between past injustice and present disadvantage. Many of those links,
between the history of cultural, economic and physical mistreatment
and the present pain of social and economic disadvantage, were laid
out in graphic terms in the 1991 report of the Royal Commission into
Aboriginal Deaths in custody. That report is probably where the need
and the realisation of the need were finally brought together to produce
the seeds of reconciliation. In fact the very last recommendation of
the Royal Commission was that the nation attempt a formal process of
reconciliation.
The Federal Government of the day acted quickly to plant the seeds by
establishing the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. The soil seemed
to be promisingly fertile when the move was backed by all the political
parties, and Parliament voted unanimously in favour of the necessary
law. Now we’re nine years down the track, and my Council has only a
few more months before we go out of existence on January the first next
year – the Centenary of Federation. So how have the seeds of reconciliation
fared? What fruit has the tree of reconciliation borne, and can we look
forward to a richer harvest? In the Council’s first two terms, it established
the issues that had to be addressed in the reconciliation context, and
set about building public awareness and support for the process.
Very early on, the Council experienced the sorts of highs and lows that
I was talking about when you grow from something little to something
big. The year 1992 was a good example. In that year, the tree of reconciliation
grew an extra branch and received a huge boost in nutrients, only to
see the branch sadly wither, and the nutrients largely washed away in
a cyclone. Let me explain.
The new branch was the commitment by COAG – all the heads of government
in Australia – to improved outcomes in service delivery to Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Australians. That was absolutely in line
with one of the things the Council was asked to do – to promote a new
national commitment to overcoming Indigenous disadvantage. The sad thing
was that within about four years it was clear that little has been done
to act on that commitment, and there’d been precious little movement
in the indicators of disadvantage.
Now we find ourselves, in the year 2000, calling again for a renewed
national commitment in this area, and the Council believes that such
a commitment is a very important step if the momentum for reconciliation
is to be maintained. That’s not to downplay some good things that have
happened in the intervening years. Your own program is a very good example
of the kind of partnerships that can be developed – in this case between
the federal department, QCOSS and Indigenous communities – to achieve
practical outcomes at the same time as respecting and nurturing the
cultural integrity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
There are other examples of such partnerships between governments, the
community sector, business and Indigenous organisations. The nationally
agreed Health Framework Agreements are one such example, and there are
many more at the local and regional level. The Council for Aboriginal
Reconciliation believes that these partnerships, that ensure Indigenous
participation in the planning and delivery of services to Indigenous
communities, are definitely the way ahead towards improved outcomes.
But they need resourcing and they need a consistent policy framework
– and that’s why a blueprint for a renewed and serious national commitment
to tackle disadvantage is part of our Draft Document for Reconciliation.
The other major event of 1992 – the big dose of nutrients for reconciliation
– was really much more significant than the COAG commitment, because
it had so much symbolic significance as well as some practical effects.
I’m talking, of course, about Mabo. The High Court’s decision was a
breakthrough of immense importance. Here at last we had recognition,
in the imported Common Law, that there really was a place for Indigenous
rights, in this case the most fundamental right of all. Among all its
other ramifications, the judgment was supremely important in telling
all Australians that they had an Indigenous heritage, that Indigenous
law and culture not only had existed, but did still exist
in some areas.
Without Mabo, we might still have been some years away from applying
the notions of cultural respect and sensitivity that are at the heart
of your work today. But as I said, this great advance was caught in
a cyclone – the fierce public debate that erupted when vested interests
like the mining and pastoral industries swung into action. They decided
that the protection of their own patch, however remote the threat to
it, was more important than the great opportunity that Mabo provided
to re-define this nation in terms of its entire heritage. The debate
about Mabo had a reasonable outcome in the Native Title Act of 1993,
but the hysteria engineered in the meantime had a serious effect on
the momentum for reconciliation.
None of this deterred Patrick Dodson, my predecessor as Chairperson
of the Council. He and his colleagues worked quietly and patiently,
with governments, with Indigenous communities, with business and industry
(even with the mining and pastoral industries) and in the community
at large. They were building an appreciation of the key issues involved
in the reconciliation process, for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians. And it began to work.
By late 1996, surveys showed that three-quarters of the population responded
positively to reconciliation as a concept and to some specific elements
such as a document or documents of reconciliation. In 1992, support
had been measured at little more than 40 per cent. Big things were beginning
to grow from little things, and part of the picture was the arrival
of the people’s movement for reconciliation, when Patrick launched "Australians
for Reconciliation" in 1993. Enormous public interest in the 1997
Australian Reconciliation Convention confirmed the research findings.
The dramatic events at the Convention also caused a huge increase in
membership of the people’s movement, which became and remains a major
force for the ultimate success of the reconciliation process. Release,
at the same time, of the "Stolen Generations" report shocked
the nation into a rethink of old, complacent ideas about Indigenous
peoples. It added more momentum to reconciliation, although some response
to this and to the High Court’s Wik decision created big problems for
the Council and for reconciliation. Nevertheless, the new Council appointed
for the final three-year term resolved to forge ahead, to restore the
growth of the reconciliation tree, to build on the inspiring work of
the Council under Patrick Dodson.
Our goals were – and are – to promote the emerging partnerships that
promise so much for Indigenous communities, to make sure that the reconciliation
process continues beyond our life as a Council, and to produce a Document
for Reconciliation in time for endorsement by the nation as part of
the centenary of Federation celebrations. As you know, we launched our
Draft Document for Reconciliation in June last year. Reaction from the
media and the public was hugely positive, and the House of Representatives
unanimously passed a resolution commending the public consultations
about the draft to its own members and the public. The motion also expressed
Parliament’s support for the major event we plan for May the 27th this
year (the 33rd anniversary of the 1967 referendum) to launch our final
proposals for the document.
The Council is currently in the throes of producing those final proposals.
We spent most of the second half of last year in one of the biggest
rounds of public consultation ever attempted in this country, getting
the most possible feedback on our draft. Some 100 public meetings were
held under our auspices in all parts of Australia including, of course,
many in regional and remote areas. Many other organisations held their
own meetings to discuss the draft, and we have feedback from them as
well as from hundreds of individuals who took the trouble to send their
views in to the Council secretariat. We had all the feedback collated
and professionally analysed, and now we’re in the middle of a series
of special meetings to fine tune our proposals in the light of all that
input form the Australian people. We know from our independent research
that public support for reconciliation – and for a document of reconciliation
– has held up remarkably well. I believe that when we launch our final
proposals for a Document for Reconciliation in May, they’ll have the
weight of informed public opinion behind them. We’ll in effect be presenting
Australia, and its political leadership at all levels, with an exciting
opportunity to strengthen the spirit and unity of Australia at the centenary
of our Federation as a nation.
I think it’s most unfortunate that recent media reports have created
confusion about the function of a Document for Reconciliation and its
relationship to the whole process of reconciliation. Media reports have
suggested that there’s some sort of deadline – the centenary of Federation
– for reconciliation. There are a couple of things that need to be clarified
about that. First, Parliament did not set such a deadline. The preamble
to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act says it would be "most
desirable" that a formal process of reconciliation could
be achieved by the centenary.
The Council was set up to oversee and promote that formal process, and
a document or documents of reconciliation was an option which the Council
was asked to consult about and advise the Minister. Neither the legislation
nor the Council has ever suggested that a national Document for Reconciliation
would mark the end of our journey towards reconciliation – far from
it. Mr Ruddock, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation
was correct in noting that I and the Council have often said that the
task of achieving genuine reconciliation would go on beyond the end
of Council’s life, on the first of January 2001.
I want to make it clear, however, that by making that point, we are
in no way downplaying the enormous significance that an agreed national
document would have as part of Australia’s centenary celebrations. Such
a document can become a powerful beacon showing us the way forward,
a major symbol of national commitment to the remaining tasks of reconciliation,
and a proud statement of a mature national identity. Council will press
on with its work on the document, and with Corroboree 2000, the major
event to launch our proposals on May the 27th. Those proposals will
then become official recommendations to the Federal Parliament. We will
report to the Government and the Parliament in good faith, and in the
heartfelt hope that the response of our national Parliament will prove
to be a gateway on the path to reconciliation. We believe that the people’s
movement for reconciliation has grown into a big enough thing to give
great force to our recommendations. We also believe that Australia will
be a better place if it, as a nation, has grown big enough to embrace
the ideas we put forward.
Thank you.
Media
Releases and Speeches
Home
Page
|
