AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Indigenous Law Bulletin

Indigenous Law Bulletin
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Indigenous Law Bulletin >> 1997 >> [1997] IndigLawB 60

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

Cerexhe, Carolyn --- "Historic Reconciliation Convention" [1997] IndigLawB 60; (1997) 4(3) Indigenous Law Bulletin 23


Historic Reconciliation Convention

by Carolyn Cerexhe

The Australian Reconciliation Convention took place from 26 to 28 May, on the traditional land of the Kulin peoples in Melbourne, and was organised by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. The Convention was the most significant gathering of indigenous and other Australians since 1788 and was a profound experience for everyone attending. Over the past few months leading up to the Convention approximately 10,000 people took part in regional meetings and at least 1800 people attended the Convention itself. There was noticeably strong participation from people working in churches, indigenous education, the arts, industry and law, keen to work for solutions together with indigenous people. The diversity of people present revealed an extensive and vocal groundswell within the Australian community against the recent emergence of strident racism in public debate and in government circles.

The Convention was structured into a series of large plenary sessions in the auditorium, and special interest seminars held in smaller adjoining rooms. Seminar topics were grouped under three broad headings: Reconciliation in the community: how do we make it a reality?; Human rights and indigenous Australians; and Documents of reconciliation and constitutional issues.

The two predominant issues during the Convention were the Commonwealth and State Governments reaction to the High Court decision in the Wik case, and the tabling in the Commonwealth Parliament on 26 May of Bringing Them Hone, the Report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ('HREOC') into the Stolen Generations (the 'Stolen Generations Report').

Throughout the Convention, the participants expressed universal opposition to the Prime Minister's '10 Point Plan' to legislate against the determination in the Wik case and to gut the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Noel Pearson reconfirmed the consistent support by indigenous people for maintaining pastoralists' legal rights. But he also emphasised that Mabo [No.2] and Wik had provided an opportunity that must not be missed for indigenous peoples to settle the issue of land rights, within the present generation.

As the Stolen Generations Report was tabled on the first day of the Convention, Commissioners Mick Dodson and Sir Ronald Wilson were able to launch the Report and speak to its contents on the next day. In the face of the Commonwealth Government's refusal to provide compensation, the launch speeches of the Commissioners were momentous and compelling. Sir Ronald made the point that, whatever reasons people had had for being involved in the removal of children, these reasons are not relevant to the finding of genocide - the attempt to destroy a people, a culture. Mick Dodson criticised the 'personal sorry' that the Prime Minister had made on the first day of the Convention saying that this was 'simply not enough' and that, as leader of this nation, he must speak for this nation.

In a seminar on Reconciliation in the Community: Police and Custody, criminologist Chris Cunneen noted that processes of criminalisation mean that young indigenous people are still being removed from their communities, creating a new 'Stolen Generation'.

On Tuesday, the second day of the Convention, there was a wonderful ceremony for the 30th Anniversary of the 1967 Referendum. During the ceremony the crowd gave a lengthy, rip-roaring, standing ovation as twenty-six men and women, veterans of the successful campaign in the 1960s, slowly made their way on stage. In his speech, the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, a former justice of the High Court, commented that the Referendum 'marked the first great turning point in the relationship between Australia's indigenous people and the nation of which they form such an important part.' He added that 'the removal of s51(xxvi)'s exclusionary clause rightly and unambiguously placed on the national Parliament primary responsibility in respect of the nation's indigenous people.' But the Commonwealth Government now seems to be shedding this responsibility and, as Dr Faith Bandler put it, 'must have the courage to reset its priorities.'

The same morning, three international guest speakers shared their experiences in the struggle for indigenous rights: Dr Ted Moses from Canada, Mililani Trask from Hawaii, and Professor S James Anaya from mainland USA. Dr Ted Moses noted that it is only when reconciliation is achieved that states 'will be able to achieve legitimacy and successfully reach their full democratic development'. Mililani Trask's tales of the tribulations of the indigenous Hawaiians struck a great chord with the audience. As she said, the Hawaiians have had an apology from their Government, but they have no reconciliation process, whereas we have a reconciliation process, but no Government apology. Professor Anaya commented on the leadership role that Australia formerly held internationally, due to its active encouragement of discussion about indigenous self-determination in the United Nations in the early 1990s.

The warm support for these international speakers highlighted the attention indigenous people in Australia are now giving to the international arena. Patrick Dodson, Chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, summed this up, saying 'We have opened the venetian blinds on our verandah that show us the world'. But while international developments were of great interest, there was an affirmation that Australia's indigenous people will develop forms of self-determination which are appropriate to their own circumstances. There was a confidence among the indigenous participants, an easy determination to forge their own way, and continue exploring their own identity. In many ways it can be said that self-determination is already a reality, in the hearts of these strong people.

Politicians expressed a range of responses at the Convention, for example:

Cheryl Kernot, Leader of the Democrats:

'Make no mistake about it-our country is at the crossroads.'

Kim Beazley, Leader of the Opposition:

'These issues are innately difficult for politicians to deal with.'

John Howard, Prime Minister:

'I am an optimist about the process of national reconciliation in Australia.'

It remains to be seen how the political will, and the words, of the politicians will translate into action.

Although indigenous peoples could choose different responses to government antagonism and indifference to their suffering and dispossession, at the Convention they resoundingly and repeatedly reaffirmed the goal of the 10 year reconciliation process which was put in place with the establishment of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 1991. The audience responded immediately when Frank Brennan asked non-indigenous Australians in the audience carry out an immediate act of reconciliation, by turning to an indigenous person near them and saying their own 'sorry' to them. Sir William Deane called on everyone 'to realise that one of the great advances of the last 30 years has been that the bond between those Australians who participated in the crusade leading up to the 1967 referendum has expanded to encompass vast numbers of Australians, both indigenous and non-indigenous, who now, in their different ways, are committed to pursue the cause of true justice and equality for our country's indigenous peoples.' While the stimulation of this people's movement was a central feature of the Convention, Patrick Dodson commented that the Convention also placed reconciliation 'firmly at the centre of the national political agenda.'


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IndigLawB/1997/60.html