In the wake of the Referendum, the question arises: Is Reconciliation, as hitherto conceived, dead?

The Reconciliation Australia organization advances five dimensions of Reconciliation. Ordered somewhat differently here, they are:–

• Historical Acceptance
• Institutional Integrity
• Equality and Equity
• Unity
• Race Relations

In venturing the following brief critical appraisal, I am in no way being dismissive of Reconciliation Australia’s goals. But I think it’s important to look at them afresh in the light of the Referendum debacle.

Historical Acceptance: It may be that the odd official Apology, together with a mish-mash of Treaties in a few jurisdictions, is the best that can be hoped for in the overarching party-political arena. There are, however, other avenues available. The Truth-Telling project by itself affords no guarantee that the wrongs of the past will never be repeated, but without it there can be no true acceptance of our shared history or any chance of meaningful compensation for past iniquities. The broader Australian population needs to be informed of what happened, with education programs and arts projects playing key roles. It is also important to explain why this (and other!) history matters, but to do so in such a way that people embrace it (both the good and the bad) and use it in enlightened and honorable endeavors.

Institutional Integrity: To my mind, Reconciliation Australia’s use of this term is somewhat strange, and I suspect they really mean “institutional integration”. Whether or not there has been a slip of the tongue here, it is worth examining both concepts. The term “institutional integrity” connotes ideas of probity within indigenous institutions. It would be unfair to expect higher standards of competence and ethics in indigenous institutions than in those in the wider community, but it is prudent to pre-empt criticism and deny detractors a weapon in their arsenal of bigotry, especially when certain areas require the support of non-indigenous Australians in order to make progress. Such support is jeopardized when the perception is one of sabotage from within. (Of course, this is the case for all institutions seeking cooperation with others, regardless of ethnicity.) It would be wonderful if the benchmark for institutional integrity were set by Australia’s First Nations people. There is nothing wrong with seeking expertise from outside the indigenous population on the way to achieving this goal, should it be deemed necessary to do so. Institutional integration, on the other hand, is more about connections between indigenous and non-indigenous institutions. In this context, liaisons with established and sympathetic non-indigenous institutions (whether by way of mentoring or staff exchange programs) could prove beneficial to the success of fledgling indigenous enterprises. Reconciliation Australia advocates the supporting of non-indigenous institutions by indigenous ones, but it is also worth exploring opportunites for the former to incorporate, and benefit from, the insights and experience of Australia’s First Nations people.

Equality and Equity: Even before the Referendum, these were highly problematic. The obstacles to closing the gap are legion, and many appear intractable. This just means we have to redouble our efforts, commit more resources and devise new approaches. There is acknowledgement in some quarters that a degree of indigenous self-determination may hold hope for improving the lot of Australia’s First Nations people, but, unless concrete and efficacious strategies are devised and implemented fairly soon, the spectre of crime, domestic violence and incarceration will occupy the minds of the broader community and its politicians and hence subvert moves towards self-determination. (One can of course discern a catch-22 situation here.) The issues of self-determination, land rights, and connection to country are unique to our indigenous population. So too are the atrocities inflicted on them by successive generations and governments. Necessarily, it is appropriate that Australia’s First Nations people be treated differently in some respects from other people. It needs to be explained how such “privilege” does not undermine equality and equity in the society as a whole. According to my analysis, the Referendum has shown that too many voters and politicians are unwilling to accept such a proposition. The elephant in the room has grown. It is absolutely crucial that it be addressed — effectively, convincingly and decisively. I have alluded to this in my proposal for an alternative Voice.

Unity: There are already positive signs that many Australians view our First Nations cultures and heritage as an integral part of our shared national identity. This trend should be nourished in the education system, the movie industry, exhibition spaces and community events.

Race Relations: A propensity for intolerance is one of the most entrenched and destructive flaws in the human species. It appears to be undergoing a deplorable surge in a variety of spheres in many countries. Here in Australia there are moves by Government to address the scourge of racism, although one could be forgiven for thinking that this is not without an element of hypocrisy, given the bipartisan antagonism to asylum seekers. Be that as it may, all attempts to vilify, disadvantage and attack people on the basis of their ethnicity need to be thwarted at every turn. This will be an ongoing endeavor that will never be 100% successful, but tolerance of racism should never be an option.

With this survey in mind, let us return to the question: Is Reconciliation dead?

One dictionary definition of the word “reconciliation” is: “the restoration of friendly relations”. In the current context, it’s probably more productive to focus more on the idea of friendly relations than on whether or not we are restoring something to a former state. Still, we need to be aware of the usual connotation of the word. On its Website, Reconciliation Australia states: “At its heart, reconciliation is about strengthening relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and non-Indigenous peoples, for the benefit of all Australians.”

Viewed in these terms, Reconciliation is only as dead as we allow it to be. To insist that Reconciliation entail both Voice and Treaty, and that without them there can be no meaningful relationships between Australia’s First Nations people and the rest of the Australian population, is to be unduly restrictive and counterproductive. Even with the caveats touched upon in the above survey, there is ample scope for the creation, nurturing, deepening and expansion of mutually advantageous relationships between the two groups.

In reappraising the concept of Reconciliation, it might be helpful to reduce it to its essential elements. I offer the following schema for consideration:–

• Past
• Acknowledgement of our shared past
• Fair compensation for damage inflicted
• Present
• Appreciation of present inequities
• Remediation of current plight
• Future
• Mutually respectful engagement in future
• Full expression of their culture by Australia’s First Nations people

This formulation could prove helpful in guiding a strategic approach to realizing a state of Reconciliation.

I haven’t elaborated on these elements as yet. To a certain extent at least, they should be self-explanatory. The elements as listed neither prescribe nor preclude specific arrangements such as a Voice, Treaty, monetary compensation, land rights and mechanisms related to self-determination. Further, it is important to appreciate that each of these elements is not necessarily the province of Government alone.

I submit that in the absence of any of the elements listed we may still have some sort of understanding between the two parties but it cannot constitute true Reconciliation. Always, though, it is the prerogative of indigenous Australians, being the injured party, to determine what they will accept as constituting Reconciliation.