KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY

EVELYN SCOTT

CHAIRPERSON

COUNCIL FOR ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION

AT THE
WHY RECONCILIATION CONFERENCE

HOSTED BY THE
MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (S.A)

TANDANYA CULTURAL INSTITUTE, ADELAIDE
SATURDAY 25 MARCH 2000

Thank you Professor Smolicz.
Mr Brindall, Ms Heugh, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I’d like to start with another special thank you to the children from Kalaya, who welcomed student delegates to Kaurna land yesterday, and have done it again so nicely for us today. In response, I wish to acknowledge the living culture of the Kaurna people, and the unique contribution they make to the life of the Adelaide region.

I’d also like to repeat in your presence my appreciation of Professor Smolicz and his committee for inviting me to be part of this important conference.
I think every one of Mr Brindall’s big load of portfolios has relevance for reconciliation, so I for one am glad that he was able to give us a glimpse of his perspective on the issues in opening the day’s proceedings.

Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday I delivered what amounted to a pretty heavy lecture to the student participants in this conference.
I virtually treated them as adults. I felt able to do so because, thanks in no small way to the work that many of you and people like you are doing, their understanding of the background issues of reconciliation is probably at least equal to that of many Australian adults.

If that sounds like a somewhat jaundiced comment on the way previous generations of Australia were educated about their own history ... it is. But it’s also a statement of my belief that we’re starting to get it right.

To illustrate both those points, let me take you to the social research that the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation commissioned last year.
The qualitative research was done by Irving Saulwick and Associates late in 1999, and the quantitative survey was conducted by Newspoll early this year.
You’ve no doubt heard of the research very recently. Some of its less positive results were used by the media and others to write down our chances of achieving agreement on a National Document for Reconciliation in time for the Centenary of Federation next year.

Let me say, before proceeding, that my Council is not deterred by the research, or by the public reaction to parts of it, from pushing ahead with our plan to produce a National Document for Reconciliation.
We know we need to take account of the views and concerns of all sections of our society.

But at the same time we have to come up with proposals which actually take the nation forward.
Australia wouldn’t get anywhere if we just tried to find the lowest common denominator of public opinion. We’d find ourselves with a document so bland it would be meaningless.

We will try to provide a bit of leadership on this, because we believe very strongly that tangible reconciliation outcomes by December 2000 are essential for Australia’s future as a harmonious, inclusive nation – one that lives out its ethos of a fair go for all.
So, despite the negative flak of recent times, we will launch our final proposals for a document at a major public event, Corroboree, in Sydney on May the 27th.
It’s then up to the nation and its leadership to rise to the occasion and embrace the document. We think there are enough positive signs in the research to suggest that a clear majority of Australians will be able to support what we come up with.
Now to the research itself, and especially particular parts of it that have some very interesting implications for education.

On initial questioning by Newspoll, 57 per cent of respondents agreed with the proposition that a reconciliation document might help relations between Aboriginal people and the wider community.

About one quarter of all respondents then agreed to a second interview after they had actually read our Draft Document for Reconciliation.
Of those, 74 per cent reported that they agreed with all or most of the draft document, having concerns only with particular sections of it.

Those are really a very encouraging findings, especially when you look at the Irving Saulwick and Associates research with focus groups.
Their work showed for a start that a lot of the people who took part in the focus groups had no prior idea about the reconciliation process, and many did not even know the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation had been up and running since 1991.
I suppose that’s consistent with a lot of other opinion polling, which tells us, for instance, that only a minority of Australians can name both Houses of Federal Parliament, and some 18 per cent (according to a 1994 poll) don’t even know we have a Constitution.

To be polite, there’s a lot of disinterest out there about the public life of the nation. Those of you who’ve been involved in the "Discovering Democracy" civics education project will be familiar with what I’m saying.

But another finding from the focus groups should give us heart. It was that many participants were very angry about the fact that they knew so little about the issues involved in reconciliation and the document. Let me quote from the Saulwick report.
"Many of our respondents were derisive in their comments about the nature and extent of what they were taught at school about Australian history. They were highly critical that the role of Aboriginal people in the development of Australia had not been taught; that they had no serious appreciation of the Aboriginal attachment to the land; that policies now seen to have been mistaken were not revealed and discussed."

In other words, many people who are sceptical or negative about reconciliation are saying themselves that they aren’t equipped with the background knowledge to make sense of the issues.

Significantly, the same people noted with approval that their own children seemed to be better taught in this area.
Getting balanced perspectives into the teaching of Australian history is one goal that the Council has worked very hard to achieve.
It’s pleasing to note that all major school systems had committed themselves to action on this front by early 1999, and its very pleasing to see that today’s parents are both noticing and approving the development.

In fact if we return to our Newspoll research, its just possible that there’s evidence that the reforms in history teaching, which really only started in the early 1990s, are already bearing fruit.

The Newspoll data shows that on a lot of the questions put to respondents, the 18-24 years age group is noticeably more positive towards reconciliation than its older counterparts.

For example, I said just now that 57 per cent of the population favoured a document. The proportion who favour a document among 18 to 24 year-olds is 72 per cent. That’s a very big difference.

And again, a disappointing 38 per cent of all people recognised the connection between current disadvantage and the way Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were mistreated in the past. In the 18 to 24 years group, that recognition factor is 51 per cent.

So it goes on. It seems that young people are more aware of the real issues involved in reconciliation, and they want it to happen in their own communities as well as in the nation as a whole.

Knowledge is a great counter to misunderstanding and prejudice, and although there’s a long way to go, these little-reported aspects of the research, I think, bode well for reconciliation into the future.

I would urge all of you who are involved in the education of our children to do your best to reinforce the trend I’ve identified.

An education that includes the whole of Australian history, including the story of Indigenous cultures before colonisation, and a balanced account of our history since colonisation, will give our children a far richer understanding of their national heritage.
It will make them individually better citizens, and it will help to dry up the swamp of ignorance in which so much fear and prejudice can breed.

Our improved understanding of Indigenous issues does not stem entirely from improvements in our education system. Older Australians also have been encouraged to rethink their positions, sometimes through the work of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and on other occasions through independent events.

One such independent advance came in 1992, with the High Court’s historic decision in the Mabo case.

Among 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 flourish, at least in some communities.

Some of the reasons for our improved understanding of Indigenous issues stem from the work of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, others, well, they just happened.
One such "accidental" advance came in 1992, with the High Court’s famous decision in the Mabo case. As you probably know, the court decided in that case that the British were wrong when they made that assumption, back in 1788, that no-one owned the land they were colonising.

Indigenous peoples did own the land at the time, and Eddie Mabo and his friends still own their land on Murray Island under what the court described as native title. What’s more, similar native title probably still existed in some other parts of Australia where Indigenous peoples could show a continuous cultural association with the land.
Of course not many Aboriginal people could, because of the long history of forced removal from their traditional lands, but the judgment certainly made a lot of Australians sit up and take notice. It was a great breakthrough.

Among 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 flourish, at least in some communities.

This was a major breakthrough. If the highest court in the land could hold these things to be true, then a lot of Australians had to sit up and take notice. They had to rethink old prejudices and assumptions.

The other big outside event that helped my Council’s work came in 1997, when the nation heard the full story of what we now know as the "Stolen Generations".

Many, many Australians had no idea about the full extent of this practice of taking children from their Indigenous mothers and sending them to institutions. They had no idea that the practice went on for many decades, and they were very saddened when they heard about the terrible effects it had on the thousands of families that suffered it.
The practice was tragically misguided, but its public exposure in 1997 again, like Mabo, forced many Australians to think a little harder about their own history, to reflect on how the last two centuries might look through the eyes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Once again, recognition of the need for reconciliation was given a boost.

Meanwhile, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was doing its bit to actually bring about reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the wider Australian community.

Some of what we’ve done has been up-front and widely publicised. Other things, we had to work for quietly and patiently, helping to build co-operation between other groups who could really get something practical done.

I think one of the most important decisions the Council has made was back in 1993, when it decided to set up and support a genuine People’s Movement for Reconciliation.

When people in local communities get together to hear each other’s stories, to understand each other’s cultures, to work through the issues that concern them – then they’re paving the way for real reconciliation in their own backyards.
It’s been one of the big jobs of my Council to get this message through to communities all over Australia, and to support local communities when their Indigenous and non-Indigenous people do get together to do those things.

From small beginnings in 1993, there are now hundreds of local reconciliation groups all over Australia, quietly but thoroughly creating understanding where there was ignorance, co-operation where there was antagonism.

This community-based commitment has spread through churches and other faith groups, into workplaces and a variety of other organisations that deal with people. Fortunately, I’m very happy to observe, the reconciliation ethos, and the spirit of partnership that it inspires, has spread into key institutional sectors, not least of them the South Australian education sector.

The People’s Movement for Reconciliation is now a powerful force within Australian society.

Those local groups, like events such as this conference, inspire me and my colleagues on the Council. They help to keep us motivated and moving forward as we strive to maintain the momentum for reconciliation at the national level.

Ladies and gentlemen, here in Adelaide last November I expressed my belief that the process of reconciliation had already had a positive impact on Australia.

I said we were on track to ensure that the remaining racists and bigots in our society will be even more marginalised – in the political and social life of the nation – than the objects of their own hatred were for so long.

I still believe that to be the case. Much has been achieved in educating and sensitising the public to vital issues around our Indigenous heritage and Indigenous disadvantage.

Obviously, my Council’s own research shows there’s still more to be done. If only 38 per cent of Australians can see the link between past dispossession and mistreatment and current disadvantage, there are still some bridges to cross on the path to real and lasting reconciliation.

But there’s another statistic. In 1992, some 42 per cent of Australians thought reconciliation was a significant issue.

In 2000, according to our Newspoll report, 81 per cent of the population agrees with the proposition that reconciliation is important for the nation.

When it comes to the crunch – when our final proposals for an uplifting and unifying National Document for Reconciliation go before the nation – will this recognition of the importance of reconciliation translate into support for the document?
That is probably one of the biggest moral and political questions we have faced in our 100 years as a federated nation.

If the answer is no, the process of reconciliation will be set back and Indigenous people will again be pushed towards alienation from the broader Australian society.
If the answer is yes, Australia will celebrate its centenary with a proud statement to itself and the world, a statement about its mature national identity.

I fervently hope that the answer is "Yes". Thank you.

Media Releases and Speeches

Home Page