June / July 2008, Volume 7 / Issue 6

Editorial

Since the Federal Government’s Apology to the Stolen Generations, the question that frequently follows any discussion has been: what next? In particular, many people have questioned what the Apology means for reconciliation in Australia. Consequently, we at the Indigenous Law Centre have devoted this edition to exploring these questions.

Recently, Kevin Rudd flagged constitutional change as the next possible step in reconciliation between black and white Australia. Indigenous Law Centre Director, Megan Davis, writes on the difficulty of constitutional reform manifest in the historical conservatism of Australia’s polity.

Pat Dodson suggested at 2020 this year that we urgently need to develop a new philosophical framework to underpin the reconciliation process. Tim Goodwin’s article provides a similar perspective, eschewing the usual polemical nomenclature on unfinished business and positing the Locke Project — a treaty, agreement or other formal document — as the foundation in renewing the reconciliation process and the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia.

John Davis, an educator from South East Queensland and working with Dr Chris Sarra, writes on the role of education in reconciliation. Davis suggests a mandated national curriculum where reconciliation’s symbolism can gain momentum and be truly embraced as a part of our national identity. According to Davis, a national curriculum provides a unique opportunity for our nation to develop a holistic understanding and acceptance of the rights of Indigenous people as an important part of our political, social, physical and cultural landscape.

Andrea Durbach questions the philosophical underpinning of reconciliation and argues that reconciliation has been largely symbolic in endeavours to meet an illusory objective. Durbach believes that this is a result of the failure to define reconciliation and a failure to link its progress to articulated principles for action.

Dr Sarah Maddison writes on the importance of national representation. Maddison considers the options for representation from a parliamentary option to an extra-parliamentary mechanism. Maddison explains the importance of representation for Indigenous Australia.

Sean Brennan writes an interesting piece on one of the  areas of law and legislation Indigenous peoples believed would be a key plank of reconciliation – Native Title. Native Title has been extremely disappointing for Indigenous Australians. Brennan describes in a short piece how state and federal governments have used compulsory acquisition laws to continually claw back Native Title.

Finally, Greg Marks writes on sovereignty. Marks observes that other jurisdictions have been able to reconcile Aboriginal sovereignty with the Westphalian concept of sovereignty in international law. However, Australia has failed in an attempt to live with and provide a legal and constitutional framework of Australia, though Indigenous peoples continue to understand the need for that, particularly in the context of reconciliation.

On a final note, the Indigenous Law Centre welcomes our new editor, Zrinka Lemezinka, who will produce the next edition of the Indigenous Law Bulletin.

The Editors

Archives of the ILB from Volume 1, Issue 1 (1981) to 6 (23) 2006 are available online at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB and http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/.

SPECIAL FORUM: RECONCILIATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

Government Exproriation for Private Profit Hits Aboriginal Land Hardest
by Sean Brennan

Indigneous Rights and the Constitution: Making the Case for Constitutional Reform
by Megan Davis

National representation: Why It Matters
by Sarah Maddison

Reconciliation: Moving from rhetoric to reality through the education revolution
by John Davis

‘Little more than a clanging gong’:
the promise and progress of reconciliation
by Andrea Durbach

The Locke Project
by Tim Goodwin

Ownership, sovereignty and coexistence:
Introductory remarks to ILA/HREOC seminar Indigenous Peoples and Sovereignty 14 November 2004
by Greg Marks