home | news l

Unfinished Business: the Australian formal reconciliation process - book review

By Jill Webb

Andrew Gunstone, 2007, Unfinished Business: the Australian formal reconciliation process, Kew, Victoria: Australian Scholarly Publishing, ISBN 878 1 74097 149 2

In this book, Unfinished Business: the Australian formal reconciliation process, the result of many years' research, Dr Andrew Gunstone explores the political history of the 1991-2000 Australian reconciliation process, the decade of Reconciliation that was supported by all sides of government, and was guided by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, or 'CAR' as it was known.

So, a history book, perhaps an academic book for those with a more academic interest in history, politics, reconciliation. While it is of course all of these things, it has the potential to be a valuable resource to a much broader audience.

The book begins by analysing the three broad goals of the reconciliation process: to educate the wider Australian community about Indigenous issues and reconciliation; to foster a national commitment to address Indigenous disadvantage; and to investigate the desirability of developing a document of reconciliation and if considered desirable to advise on the content of such a document.

The book argues that none of these goals were achieved by 2000, the end of the process. Each of these goals is investigated in depth, analysing processes and outcomes. While commentators on reconciliation have tended to focus on the impact of a conservative Howard government on the demise of the reconciliation process, this book draws out and discusses several key interrelated factors that limited the overall effectiveness of the process. I'd like to focus on a few of these.

To begin with, Gunstone argues that the reconciliation process was proposed at the end of the 1980s partly to divert attention away from the then Hawke Labor government's failure to implement two key Indigenous demands, land justice and a treaty - commitments that had been made to Aboriginal people. While Indigenous leaders continued to call for land rights, treaty, and sovereignty, the reconciliation process actually worked to marginalise these issues.

Secondly, there was ongoing confusion about the very meaning of the word reconciliation, coupled with what Gunstone describes as an acrimonious and confusing debate about the comparative importance of practical versus symbolic reconciliation. Practical reconciliation is characterised as a need to concentrate on improving socio economic outcomes such as health, education and housing, In effect, a return to policies of assimilation and greater government control. Symbolic reconciliation included the need for an apology and bringing people together to march for reconciliation. While this debate raged, Indigenous people continued to call for what we might call substantive reconciliation, addressing issues such as Indigenous rights (including treaty, sovereignty, land rights and self determination) and existing power relationships. Unfortunately, the practical versus symbolic debate and the attention it received by both sides of government and the broader community, effectively sidelined (again) the substantive issues of Indigenous rights being called for by the Indigenous community.
Two other factors kept these core rights issues off the agenda. These were:

• the impact of nationalism on the reconciliation process; the focus on a single national identity, such as becoming a "united people" and "walking together". The nationalist framework failed to recognise that historical factors such as invasion, massacres, the taking of land, removing children- have continuing repercussions today and highlight differences and potential ongoing conflict between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. A nationalist discourse emphasises unity rather than difference, so again the issues of sovereignty, land justice and self determination, issues that demand acknowledgement of difference, could not be accommodated.
• the limited notion of justice used throughout the process, a notion that incorporated predominantly socio-economic issues, such as those associated with so called 'practical' reconciliation, rather than issues such as Indigenous rights and existing power relationships; a notion of social justice rather than substantive justice.

Throughout the whole process there was a focus on improving relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people - better communication and improved relationships, without addressing the wrongs of the past, the ongoing injustice, recognising Indigenous rights and working for justice.

So there is a fairly strong theme here, the very nature and structure of the Reconciliation process, combined with the broader interrelated factors I've mentioned, all effectively sidelined the key issues that Indigenous people continued to demand, land justice, sovereignty, treaty, self determination.

What is the legacy of this?

I'm currently chair of ANTaR Victoria, a grass roots activist organisation that started in 1997 in response to the federal government's moves to wind back native title with Howard's 10 point plan. As Andrew Gunstone rightly points out in his book, this was also the time of the Australian Reconciliation Convention and Pat Dodson's call for a People's Movement.

ANTaR is primarily a people’s movement, with a focus on engaging, informing and educating non-Indigenous people to actively support Indigenous rights, particularly the right of Indigenous peoples to determine their own future.

I also sit on the Council for Reconciliation Victoria. In both of these forums we continue to debate the meaning of reconciliation, and usually there are as many opinions as people involved. There are those who strongly argue that we must focus on improving relationships and those who say reconciliation is not possible without addressing the core justice issues.

In our work at ANTaR Victoria, we continue to focus on educating and raising awareness in the broader non-Indigenous community. We aim to develop an awareness of and a willingness to address both individual and institutional racism. Alongside this we strive to encourage more and more people, a critical mass of people, to work with us to demand change. Substantive change that will address the core justice issues of land justice, treaty, and self determination.

Elizabeth Evatt said in her speech at the Australian National University this year that human rights, equality and justice must be at the heart of reconciliation.

However, our membership has steadily dwindled since the 2000 Bridge walks. When we actively supported the Black GST, an Indigenous led campaign focussing on genocide, sovereignty and treaty, we lost members of our committee and broader community members The campaign was seen as too political. We were told these words were too confronting for the general community.

This is where Andrew Gunstone's book, as a resource, is extremely valuable. Did the decade of reconciliation in effect soothe the non-Indigenous community into thinking that reconciliation was something relatively easy, something nice like walking alongside Aboriginal people? There are those in reconciliation groups today who believe that reconciliation means meeting Aboriginal people and becoming their friends. I don't believe this is enough and Gunstone's thoughtful and thorough analysis indicates it's not enough.

There are many valuable insights here about the impact and effect of the formal reconciliation process that will assist us in rethinking our strategies and campaigns.

Reconciliation is not just about being nice to each other. What is the role for white people in this process? As Noel Pearson said a few weeks ago, rather than denial or moral vanity, the optimum position for non-Indigenous people to take is that of acknowledgement - of the past and its legacy in the present, recognising that Indigenous people endure great hurt and confront barriers as a result of racism. We as non-Indigenous people need to take responsibility for the fact of racism, and work to answer and counter it.

Reconciliation will not come unless we as non-Indigenous people are willing to do this, acknowledge that we as members of the dominant colonial, and now privileged culture, contribute to the structures that support and maintain racism and injustice.

But knowing this is not enough. We all need to undertake a journey of discovery that requires us to go deep inside ourselves to interrogate our whiteness, examine our own ignorance, attitudes, opinions, and behaviours. We also need to understand that it is our attitudes and behaviours that perpetuate and reinforce the ongoing racism and disadvantage in this country.

In the press over the past year we have seen an increasing focus on Indigenous disadvantage, appalling conditions in Indigenous communities, appalling statistics on all social indicators, health in particular. Many solutions have been put forward, but very few among the non-Indigenous commentators suggest that we need to go back to the core justice issues.

NACCHO, the peak national body on Indigenous health, continues to say that land is the best medicine. And we know from research that countries that have a formal treaty with their Indigenous peoples have better health outcomes amongst the Indigenous population.

Unfinished Business gives valuable insight into why these issues have dropped off the agenda, and with this knowledge we are better equipped to ensure we work to get them back on the agenda.

2007 has seen some significant anniversaries marked in Australia, the 10th anniversary of the Bringing Them Home report, the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and the 15th anniversary of the Mabo decision.
This has generated an enormous amount of discussion in the media over the past months on Indigenous issues, much of it centering around concepts of reconciliation.

From my fairly brief analysis, there has been increased reporting of what Indigenous leaders have to say, and an increased focus on the substantive core justice issues.

Indigenous leader Mick Dodson states, "Fifteen years after the High Court's Mabo decision, Australian governments were actively and systematically opposing the recognition of native title. We must assert our sovereignty and, in so doing, we must prioritise the place of traditional owners and native title holders in our decision-making processes and our resistance strategies”.

I hope this book gets all of us thinking about the meaning of that term ‘reconciliation’, and reminds us of the substantive issues, the core issues of Indigenous justice that were at the heart of the original goals of the reconciliation process, land justice, sovereignty, treaty and self determination. They are as important, if not more important today, than they were in the late 1980s.

This book could be described as a history book; it provides a careful and detailed analysis of a particular decade in the history of reconciliation. But it's much more than this. The core issues at the heart of the beginning of this decade, raised by Indigenous leaders in the 1980s, are still the core issues, the unfinished business of today.
Although an academic book, Unfinished Business is also much more. It is not just for those with an academic interest in reconciliation; it is thought provoking, challenging and very readable, a valuable resource for all of us interested in and engaged in addressing the substantive justice issues and finishing the business.

In June 2007, in Melbourne, Justice Michael Kirby said in a speech he gave on the 1967 referendum that the referendum was a great symbolic event, but while the intention was to enable the Commonwealth to make laws to benefit and advance Aboriginal Australians, the Commonwealth (under the existing constitution) can also make laws that are against Aboriginal people and their interests. In its current form, it does not require justice and equality for all Indigenous people in Australia. Justice Kirby says the goal of justice and equality for Indigenous people can only be met by the Australian people and those whom they elect to Parliament. He says we Australians need to accept responsibility as a free people to put things right.

Perhaps if he had read Andrew Gunstone's book, he might have finished by suggesting we read it as a valuable resource, as we take responsibility to put things right.

Jill Webb is the Chairperson, Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) Victoria, a Council Member of Reconciliation Victoria and a member of ANTaR National Committee of Management.

This review was originally published in the Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, 2007, Volume 10, Issue 4.

Further information: books issues page - includes news index and external links

|| click to go to the top of this page