The Australian
Divisions dampen hopes for treaty
  By STUART RINTOUL 
  31may00

  BARELY a day after the reconciliation march
  that may have changed the dynamic in
  Aboriginal policy, the politics of division have
  emerged to dampen expectations. 

  Early yesterday, Liberal wet Brendan Nelson
  warned that a push for a treaty would be a
  Godsend to Hansonism. In the partyroom
  yesterday, John Howard was congratulated for
  refusing to apologise to indigenous people.
  Last night, Patrick Dodson spoke of "a scaring
  of the horses campaign" that had quickly
  surfaced on the issue of a treaty.

  In white Australia, there is a demand for quick
  answers on what a treaty would involve. In
  black Australia, the answer (mistaken as a
  retreat from the complexity of the argument)
  is that the detail will take a decade to be
  negotiated.

  However, in Broome last night, Dodson, who
  will inevitably be a key player in any move
  towards a treaty, nominated several areas as a
  starting point. They were: CONSTITUTIONAL
  amendments to recognise indigenous peoples
  as the first peoples; CLARIFICATION of
  customary law interests; COMPENSATION for
  the stolen generations; SOME form of regional
  governance arrangements for indigenous people.

  Each of these issues would face Coalition defeat.

  While Corroboree 2000 has been compared with the Vietnam War
moratorium
  marches, Dodson, the "father of reconciliation", did not think he had
made a
  mistake by boycotting the event.

  "No, I didn't make a mistake, because it is precisely where I believed
it was," he
  told The Australian. "Because there was nothing bedded down with
government
  and we've still got the up-hill battle to get them across the line and
stop the
  fear-mongering that they engage in."

  The treaty process that Dodson has proposed � supported by his brother
Mick
  Dodson in his keynote address at the weekend � would begin with a
treaty
  commission of eminent Australians, including former governors-general,
former
  prime ministers and former high court judges representing
non-indigenous
  Australia and an Aboriginal leadership still to be determined.

  This treaty commission would begin a process of dialogue, "before you
get
  anywhere next to agreeing on a treaty".

  Among the issues it would consider would be a framework agreement to
enshrine
  Aboriginal rights and interests in the Constitution "rather than it
just being left to
  the whim and fancy of the government of the day to say we'll have a
discussion
  with the natives about this, or we won't." Hovering in the background
are two
  hurdles: the first is the prospect of a referendum on the question of
whether
  there should be a treaty with indigenous people. Dodson is realistic
about its
  chances: "Given the history of referendums in this country, it is
likely to go down."

  The second is the long process of representative discussion in
Aboriginal
  communities.

  Asked whether the treaty process might resemble the mass meeting of
Aboriginal
  people at Eva Valley in the Northern Territory seven years ago to
discuss native
  title, Dodson said he thought it would be "more complex".

  "To actually pursue this, you would have to adopt something like the
Inuit did (in
  Canada)," he said. "This would include a consultation process,
official negotiators,
  accountability structures and a resourcing arrangement to assist the
process to
  occur.

  "It took some time," he said. "These are complicated, difficult
issues. But
  compared to another 100 years of blueing and arguing, what's a 10-year
period."

  The issue of a treaty has been the big sleeper in the reconciliation
debate. In
  Melbourne last week, an Aboriginal leader whose people are caught up
in a native
  title case wondered: "They are with us now, but will they support land
rights?"

  The Prime Minister, who believes he called the cards better than his
opponents on
  the republic, is shuffling again on a treaty. He believes he has
mainstream
  Australians with him. Labor is already showing signs that this is an
issue it does
  not want to commit to when an election victory seems achievable. They
are
  informed by the knowledge that Bob Hawke, infused with good intention,
  committed to a treaty within two years at Barunga in 1988 before
retreating to a
  10-year reconciliation process.
-- 
**********************************
'Click' to protect the rainforest:
Make the Rainforest Site your homepage!
http://www.therainforestsite.com/
**********************************
------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words:    unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."

RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ 
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/

Reply via email to