Category: Security

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heidi Norman, Professor of Aboriginal political history, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, Convenor: Indigenous Land & Justice Research Group, UNSW Sydney

First Nations people please be advised this article speaks of racially discriminating moments in history, including the distress and death of First Nations people.

---

On a cold day 25 years ago, a bitter wind swept up from the south, pushing against an endless throng of people crossing one of Australia’s most famous landmarks.

Some 250,000 people were walking across Sydney Harbour Bridge in support of Indigenous reconciliation. It was an event called Corroboree 2000.

It took more than six hours for the mass of people to make their way from north to south, into the city. Across the nation, in small towns and in the capital cities, bridge walks symbolised overcoming a difficult past and coming together.

But Australia’s relationship with First Nations people in the years since has been sometimes tumultuous, occasionally optimistic and often vexed. What legacy did the event leave?

A ‘decade of reconciliation’?

A “Decade of Reconciliation” started with the unanimous passage of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act through the federal parliament in 1991. “Reconciliation” was to be achieved between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by the centenary of Federation in 2001.

The act made a national commitment for the federal government to address both “Aboriginal disadvantage and aspirations”.

It didn’t, however, specify what reconciliation was or what a reconciled nation would look like. The 2001 deadline would come and go without any way of knowing if it had been achieved.

The amorphous nature of the concept likely contributed to the widespread political support for reconciliation. But whether it meant addressing Indigenous rights, or disadvantage, or both, was often decided down political party lines.

Some First Nations activists were unequivocal in their criticism of reconciliation. It was widely perceived as a poor substitute for Bob Hawke’s 1984 promise of national land rights, and later, Treaty.

The late Uncle Chicka Dixon renamed the movement “ReCONsillynation”. The “con” was the call to “walk together” as an alternative to Treaty and land rights.

Instead, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was established in 1991. Its approach to reconciliation was largely about building knowledge and understanding among non-Indigenous Australians about Australian Indigenous lives, experience and history. This was seen as essential to advancing justice.

Changing hearts and minds

For more than a decade, the council worked to achieve its vision, recruiting thousands of participants to the cause. It produced educational materials to guide learning about First Peoples histories and cultures. It also promoted reconciliation activities in the community.

Community-led reconciliation activities proliferated quickly. Some of these continue today, helping establish a foundation for truth-telling.

Huge historical events were unfolding alongside this work. In 1992, the Mabo decision in the High Court ruled Australia was not terra nullius (land belonging to nobody) when it was claimed by Britain in 1770. This led to native title laws, which have made it possible for some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to claim ownership of their traditional lands.

In 1997, the Bringing Them Home report highlighted the trauma caused to generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait children across Australia by removing them from their families. They are known as the Stolen Generations.

The report recommended all Australian governments apologise to Indigenous people for their involvement in the policies and practices of forcible child removal.

By 1999, all states and territory governments had apologised. The federal government had not.

A contested history

These seismic shifts in public conversation inevitably came to feature in federal politics.

In the 1996 election, the two leaders – Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating and Liberal leader John Howard – outlined very different political visions based on opposing approaches to Australian history.

While Keating was in office, he combined two causes – native title and the republic – hoping they would help generate a new story of the nation’s foundation.

He sought to replace the positive, comforting and Anglo-centric view of Australian history. He highlighted the impact of colonisation on Aboriginal people and cast doubt on the morality of British occupation.

Howard largely framed his history in opposition to Keating’s. Whereas Keating’s history dwelled on identifiable historical wrongs, Howard famously said Australians should “feel comfortable and relaxed about their history”.

For Howard, there was much to be proud of in the story of the nation’s past. He accused the Labor party of peddling “the rhetoric of apology and shame”, or what came to be known as the “black armband” view of the past.

Despite the recommendation of the Bringing Them Home report, Howard didn’t apologise to Indigenous people. He championed “practical outcomes” instead of “symbolism”, although ultimately failed to deliver either.

A historic culmination

With all these debates brewing throughout the 1990s, Australians used the new millennium to make their own large, symbolic gesture.

Corroboree 2000 was held over two days in May. At the first event held on May 27, Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders met at the Sydney Opera House. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation presented non-Indigenous leaders with two documents: the Australian Declaration Towards Reconciliation and the Roadmap for Reconciliation.

All the leaders who took part left their handprints on a canvas to show their support.

But in the intervening years, the shape of reconciliation and what Indigenous people could expect from it changed.

Reflecting the Howard government’s emphasis on practical reconciliation, the council’s final report emphasised that “overcoming disadvantage is central to the reconciliation process”. The original brief for reconciliation to also address “Aboriginal aspirations” was forgotten.

Howard gave a speech at the event and expressed “regret” for the past treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but he did not apologise. This left many in the crowd unhappy.

The apology would eventually come in 2008 from Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

Where are we now?

In his recent election victory speech, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasised national unity. He again placed reconciliation at the forefront of the Australian government’s Indigenous affairs agenda, saying:

we will be a government that supports reconciliation with First Nations people, because we will be a stronger nation when we close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

It was a far cry from his 2022 victory speech when he promised the full implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

In the aftermath of the Voice referendum, the Albanese government says it is focusing on First Nations economic independence and empowerment, along with continuing to “Close the Gap” in experiences of disadvantage.

So 25 years on from the bridge walk, reconciliation remains a feature of the government’s response to First Peoples’ calls for recognition and justice.

But reconciliation can be seen as a safe harbour to merely rebuild consensus, when more ambitious Indigenous affairs agendas stall or fail.

Heidi Norman receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Anne Maree Payne has previously received research funding from Reconciliation Australia.

– ref. Corroboree 2000, 25 years on: the march for Indigenous reconciliation has left a complicated legacy – https://theconversation.com/corroboree-2000-25-years-on-the-march-for-indigenous-reconciliation-has-left-a-complicated-legacy-252805