References Committee Reconciliation Inquiry

Statement at the Senate Legal
and Constitutional References Committee Reconciliation Inquiry Media Conference

by Dr William Jonas, Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission

The terms of reference
for the inquiry into reconciliation that was established yesterday by
the Senate directly responds to the concerns raised in my latest Social
Justice Report to the Parliament.

Recommendation
11 of the report called for the Senate to establish an inquiry into
national progress towards reconciliation. Recommendation
12 of the report called on the government to table a full response
to the Social Justice Report in Parliament within 15 sitting days of having
tabled the report. If the government failed to do so then the recommendation
also called for the Senate to establish an inquiry into matters of concern
arising out of the report.

It is notable that
the motion establishing this inquiry was introduced on the 16th sitting
day in the Senate after the Attorney-General's representative tabled the
Social Justice
Report 2001.

The timing of the
motion indicates to the government that the Senate takes the concerns
raised in the Social Justice Report about reconciliation seriously
and that they will endeavour to hold the government accountable for its
performance in this crucial area. And ultimately, that is what this inquiry
is about. It is about accountability and making the position of the government
on reconciliation transparent.

It is truly unfortunate
that the Senate has had to establish this inquiry. Ultimately, this inquiry
comes about because of the government's choice to not formally respond
to the Social Justice Commissioner's annual reports which monitor their
performance on Indigenous issues and make recommendations and proposals
for improving their performance; combined with their failure to respond
to the documents of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation more than
two years since they were handed to the Australian people at Corroboree
in May 2000 and some twenty months since the final report and recommendations
were tabled in federal Parliament in December 2000.

In the Social
Justice Report 2001, I express great concern that not only has the
federal government failed to respond adequately or comprehensively to
the recommendations of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation or the
Social Justice Reports, but that they have also quite deliberately sought
to shut down debate and avoid any engagement about them by stating that
they are instead committed to 'practical reconciliation'.

Practical reconciliation
amounts to 'business as usual'. It involves little innovation or change
to service delivery arrangements to address Indigenous marginalisation
in a holistic manner. It simply manages the inequality that Indigenous
peoples experience, rather than providing a detailed, comprehensive plan
for overcoming this disadvantage. It is a cruel illusion of equality
that perpetuates Indigenous people's position at the bottom rungs of our
society.

There is in fact
very limited material available which explicitly identifies the government's
views on these recommendations. We know generally that they are committed
to 'practical reconciliation' but not specifically their response
to the Council's documents or the Social Justice Report.

In pursuing this
approach, the government has responded to only one of the six recommendations
of the Council's final report - through the limited focus of the Council
of Australian Government's framework for addressing Indigenous disadvantage.
And we know that the various Ministerial Councils that operate within
the COAG framework have committed to establish action plans and benchmarks,
but we do not know:

• what is in these
  action plans;
• what are the targets
  which government are committing to meet;
• what role Indigenous
  people have played in determining the priorities and setting the targets;
  and
• particularly in
  light of the Commonwealth Grants Commission's extensive report into
  Indigenous funding need, how these actions plans address funding arrangements
  within departments, across departments and across governments.

More generally, we
have little evidence whether government departments have engaged in any
form of policy review to take into account the recommendations for change
made by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the Social Justice
Commissioner.

We can expect that
this necessary inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee
will compel the government to provide us with this basic information that
they have resisted providing to date. It will ultimately allow us to know
what their level of commitment to the reconciliation process is, plain
and simple.

Over the past two
months I have conducted a series of regional launches across the country
for the Social Justice Report 2001 in which I have expressed concerns
about the lack of national progress towards reconciliation. I have been
joined in those concerns by a great number of people at those launches.
The level of interest that I have seen at these launches indicates to
me that there is broad community concern and interest about reconciliation.

There is a serious
danger that the reconciliation walks from 2000 will be the high watermark
of support for reconciliation, as national attention slowly dissipates.
Vital to the continued growth and success of the reconciliation process
is a more active leadership role by the Commonwealth in order to prevent
a repeat of the mistakes of the past, especially in regard to ensuring
adequate accountability, transparency, effective monitoring and long term
planning.

We must remember
that the reconciliation process was implemented as an initiative of government,
not of Indigenous people themselves, and one to which Indigenous people
responded and acted in good faith. It is now long overdue for the government
to demonstrate its good faith by providing a formal response to the documents
of reconciliation.

Last
updated 29 August 2002.