The death of reconciliation?
By Sue Boland
It's a wonder that Prime Minister John Howard didn't choke on his insincerity on the night of the Coalition government's re-election in 1998 when he said, "I want to commit myself very genuinely to the cause of true reconciliation with the Aboriginal people of Australia by the centenary of Federation".
Insincere though they were, his words had the desired effect, at least upon the liberal anti-racists. Despite the government's actions during its first term in office, and despite former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer's description of Aboriginal land councils as "bloodsucking bureaucracies" during the election campaign, many liberal anti-racists were fooled into thinking that the Coalition government had turned over a new leaf and renounced its racism.
However, it wasn't long before the "new" John Howard was shown to be the same as he has always been.
Unreconstructed
Howard was exposed as an unreconstructed racist when the Australian on February 28 revealed that he would not stick to the December 31 deadline for adopting a document on Aboriginal reconciliation.
Howard described the deadline as a big mistake and said that "too much store has been put in the document [of reconciliation] itself". He said the process of reconciliation would take years and people should not be preoccupied with milestone dates as indications of progress.
Howard said that his government was more interested in practical issues, such as progress in health, education and employment, than in symbolic issues like reconciliation. The government's record of slashing funding for Aboriginal services which concentrate on these "practical" issues reveals Howard's insincerity.
If Howard really was more interested in practical issues for Aborigines than symbolic ones, he wouldn't have abandoned the December 31 deadline. The deadline was meant to ensure that the reconciliation process wasn't just about symbolism.
The draft document for reconciliation, due to be released on May 27, has two parts. The first is a declaration of principles and the second contains four national strategies to advance reconciliation by addressing such issues as health, housing, education and employment. Abandonment of the deadline means abandoning any commitment to improvements in these areas.
Howard also announced that a permanent new foundation for Aboriginal reconciliation will be set up to replace the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, which is due to dissolve on December 31. This doesn't appear to be a serious proposal, however, because the government hasn't decided whether or not the new foundation will receive initial funding from the government or will have to rely on the private sector.
'Elites'
In arguing for his position, Howard has repeatedly claimed that he is representing majority opinion, and that it is only the "elites" who are preoccupied with Aboriginal reconciliation.
But the Newspoll opinion poll commissioned by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and published on March 8, is more ambiguous. Its results show both rejection of and support for Howard's statements.
Contrary to Howard's claims, this survey found that 81% of respondents believe Aboriginal reconciliation to be important. However, only 40% supported a government apology, with 57% opposing it.
The survey revealed a great deal of public confusion about issues of racism and Aboriginal disadvantage. For example, although 52% acknowledged that the living conditions of Aborigines are generally worse than those of other Australians, only 41% regarded Aborigines as a disadvantaged group.
The survey also found that more than 70% agreed that government programs are needed to help reduce Aboriginal disadvantage, but 61% said that Aborigines get too much special government assistance and 68% believe that Aborigines don't do enough to help themselves.
These poll results are not surprising when you consider that the Howard government and One Nation have campaigned strongly to popularise the view that the poor living conditions suffered by Aborigines are "their own fault" and not a result of systemic racism.
Howard government ministers have claimed that specialist services which target the disadvantages suffered by Aborigines, women or migrants are "not effective" and should be "mainstreamed". By this they mean that there shouldn't be an Aboriginal health service separate from the services which exist for the rest of the community.
If Howard could get away with implementing such a program, the living standards of Aborigines, especially Aborigines in remote areas, would be driven backwards rapidly. In many areas, there were no health or education services until Aboriginal services were created, and in many areas, Aborigines were denied access to general services.
However, the contradictory responses of survey participants also indicate that a strong anti-racist campaign could successfully counter racist ideas. Many people are concerned at the appalling living conditions which Aborigines suffer.
Unfortunately, the anti-racism movement that developed against One Nation never ran a campaign to expose the racism underlying the government's agenda — it was only the left of the movement that did this. Some moderate anti-racists were even content to call simply for diversity and tolerance, without consistently tackling the racist program of either One Nation or the Howard government.
No apology
Given that the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has bent over backwards to make its document of reconciliation acceptable to the government, many were puzzled about why Howard is not prepared to endorse it and why he is so adamantly opposed to an apology.
To understand why Howard argues this position, you need to understand the history of the official reconciliation process.
When the federal Labor government was elected in 1983, the Aboriginal rights movement was still strong and the majority of people supported Aboriginal rights. There were high expectations that Labor would take action to improve the lives of Aboriginal people. But the ALP didn't deliver; it scuttled hopes of national land rights legislation, for example.
Labor failed to deliver in other areas also and in the 1987 election its vote plummeted. Labor kept government only on preferences.
The goal of reconciliation between Aborigines and non-Aborigines was put forward by Labor as a way of bringing all classes together in a national consensus. It would simultaneously assuage demands for justice for Aborigines, distract attention from Labor's neo-liberal economic and social policies, and allow it to claim the high moral ground.
And all this would cost very little: Labor's reconciliation was heavy on symbolism but short on substance. Labor legislated to water down the High Court's Mabo ruling on native title, for instance, at the behest of the big mining and pastoral companies.
In the end, such grand unifying projects weren't enough to save the Labor government and it lost to the Coalition in a landslide in 1996.
Wedge politics
Lacking Labor's strong influence over the unions and social movements (including that of Aborigines) which has allowed it to weaken public opposition to its economic rationalism, the Coalition government has instead used "wedge politics".
In this classic divide-and-rule approach, the most oppressed are blamed for their own problems, and for those of other sections of the population. Poor Aboriginal health and employment was blamed on problems within the Aboriginal community, not on insufficient funds; in fact, the funds paid to Aborigines were painted as being at the expense of better services to non-Aborigines. Aboriginal people suddenly became "privileged".
Howard doesn't want to give credence to the idea that Aboriginal people are still an oppressed group. If he endorsed the reconciliation document, or made a public apology, it would undercut his argument that Aborigines don't suffer any special disadvantages and he wouldn't be able to get away with axing Aboriginal services or denying Aborigines land rights.
The timing of Howard's announcement that he is abandoning the reconciliation deadline is also significant. He first indicated his position in late January, although it wasn't widely reported until late February.
In January, the federal government was facing massive opposition to the GST, it was on the nose for refusing to help the National Textiles workers, and Howard's tour of rural and regional areas had failed to quell anger about rural services cuts. Howard's renunciation of reconciliation and provocative statements that it's not "appropriate for current generations to apologise for former generations" look, in this context, served as diversions.
But despite Howard's rejection of the deadline for reconciliation, there is still enormous public goodwill. However, the history of the official reconciliation process shows that the more reconciliation is painted as mere symbolism, the less strongly people support it.
In 1999, Murandoo Yanner from the Cape York Land Council, told Green Left Weekly, "The thing that unifies most Australians is poverty ... Both [black and white people] work hard, we both live very poor lives, we both have trouble getting health benefits, we both suffer enormously from lack of land and lack of wealth in a country where 5% hold 90% of the wealth ... I think if people addressed that, as poor people, and overthrew the unjust and unfair capitalist system that really exploits the majority, we could see a lot more reconciliation — you would not be reconciling because of differences but because of commonalities."
No wonder the government sees Yanner as a dangerously militant Aboriginal activist. If Yanner's approach — of black and white unity against injustice — was adopted, neither Liberal nor Labor would get away with their pro-business policies. There would be the basis for addressing the oppression of Aboriginal people without getting caught up in the politics of scapegoating and a chance for reconciliation in deed, not just in word.