Renewing the commitment to a fair go for all: Part 1

There have been many developments in Indigenous rights over the past five years that have great historical significance. The most important is the inquiry into the "Stolen Generation". That inquiry was the most important undertaking of the Commission since its establishment in 1986. It brought to public attention a great national wrong that had never been acknowledged and addressed.

The inquiry’s report presented the evidence of laws passed by parliaments in all Australian states and territories, of policies set out in writing by ministers and administrators and of practices reported to political and bureaucratic superiors. It documented the historical record. It also presented the actual stories of people’s lives and experiences, in their own words. These accounts turned dry laws and policies into flesh and blood and, more than anything else, convinced today’s Australians, as they convinced us, that what had happened was a gross violation of human rights.

The report made important findings. It also made recommendations commensurate to the gross human rights violations it documented. Commendably, federal, state and territory governments accepted many of the recommendations that related to oral histories, counselling services and reunions, although implementation has been slow and patchy. In addition, all state and territory governments except the Northern Territory accepted the recommendation for a formal apology and joined with most opposition parties in their parliaments to pass formal motions of apology and sorrow. A national apology by the national government remains essential and I am confident that it will be given in the near future – probably by the next Prime Minister, whichever party he or she comes from. In the meantime, hundreds of cases will continue to work their way through the courts, at great public cost and little public benefit, because another of the inquiry’s recommendations, for a cheap, quick, easy and effective process to assess and determine compensation claims, has also been rejected.

The second most significant development in Indigenous rights has been native title. The High Court’s Mabo decision in 1992 accorded Indigenous people for the first time legal recognition of the continuation of their customary law after British colonisation of Australia. The later Wik decision clarified the Mabo principles in relation to pastoral leases.

The present federal government opposed native title when in opposition and has acted to curtail it while in government. In an atmosphere of crisis following the Wik decision, an atmosphere generated by the federal government itself through an inaccurate and emotional media campaign, the native title legislation was amended to remove important rights of traditional owners.

The present federal government has emphasised a basic-needs approach to Indigenous affairs. It has said that it rejects symbolic gestures and that it gives priority to health, education, housing and employment. It has reduced the role of Indigenous organisations in service delivery and rejected the language and policy of self determination. There are no statistics yet available to see whether these new policies are working and indeed we should not expect instant results. Too often policies and priorities are changed before they have a chance to work because governments demand quick fixes where none exist and so do not persist when persistence is required. But I fear that these new policies will not work.

Experience over the past thirty years demonstrates that services for Indigenous people have the best chance of succeeding when they are designed and delivered by Indigenous people themselves. Noel Pearson has spoken many times this year about the need to free Indigenous people from welfare dependency and for them to take responsibility for their own people and communities. The government has warmly applauded Mr Pearson’s analysis and comments and says that they are consistent with its policies and priorities. The government's changes to Indigenous programs and services may be attacking welfare dependency but it is doing so by removing support and leaving people high and dry. And the changes to service delivery are moving in precisely the opposite direction to that Mr Pearson recommends, away from Indigenous community responsibility, not towards it. They are removing responsibility and the means to exercise responsibility.

In this context we cannot be surprised that the reconciliation process, commenced ten years ago with such hope and with unanimous parliamentary support, is ending with hopes unfulfilled. Indeed I consider that relations between Indigenous Australians and the national government are back where they were 35 years ago, before the 1967 referendum. Thirty-five years of painful effort by governments of both sides of politics destroyed in just five.

The government’s dismal failure has only one good consequence but it is the critical one. That is the surge of genuine, deeply committed public support for reconciliation with, and justice for, Indigenous Australians. The bridge crossings throughout Australia, beginning in Sydney last May and culminating in Melbourne and Perth, demonstrate that in a public political way. Almost a million people walked for reconciliation in those bridge crossings, probably a record number participating in a political cause. But even more re-assuring for me is the commitment I have found among Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, businesses and local governments in country areas of Australia to develop new ways of working together for the benefit of all.

I do not doubt for a minute that we will be reconciled with each other, that there will be great improvements in the protection and fulfilment of human rights for Indigenous Australians and that we will be a far better nation for it. But that achievement will be won by the people of Australia. It will not be led by the present government. The challenge for governments now, perhaps the most we can expect of them, is not to obstruct the process, not to get in the way.