Far too little, far too late

John Howard’s backflip on the issue of Indigenous reconciliation puts Olympic gymnasts to shame.

Howard announced, a few days ago, that “if re-elected, I will put to the Australian people within 18 months a referendum to formally recognise indigenous Australians in our constitution - their history as the first inhabitants of our country, their unique heritage of culture and languages, and their special, though not separate, place within a reconciled, indivisible nation”. He continued, “I would aim to introduce a bill that would include the preamble statement into parliament within the first 100 days of a new government” (source 1, source 2, source 3 and full speech).

This is coming from a man who has repeatedly refused to offer any gesture of apology, any formal or in-formal acknowledgement of past wrongs, and who attempted to thwart any progress or actions of others.

It’s a contentious issue, and one that is quite complex. At its height, in 2001, when Howard refused to walk over the harbour bridge as symbolic gesture of reconciliation, I was 17. I remember thinking, “Why should I apologise? I wasn’t the one who perpetrated the injustices against indigenous Australians.” But I’ve realised since then that such a simplistic view completely misses the point. Saying ‘sorry’ and reconciliation are not about personal or individual blame; they are about accepting the past and standing up as a representative for past governments, past peoples, and apologising for their blame. The government is bigger than the individuals that comprise it, and more enduring than the careers of its ministers. The present government is a continuation of the colonial government, in the same way that the present crop of “white Australians” (for want of a better term!) is a continuation of colonial “white settlers”. It’s about one group of people acknowledging another.

Howard wants a united Australia, in which Indigenous and “mainstream Australians” live in harmony with no social, racial or ideological disparities. Howard’s campaign slogan in 1996 was “for all of us”. He envisaged, I’m sure, an Australia in which everyone was equal and happy. Unfortunately, the “all of us” to which he alluded was the mythical “mainstream Australia”. There’s no such thing. “Mainstream Australia” is the white, middleclass, heterosexual male. If Howard is governing “for all of us” he certainly isn’t governing for me, nor for Indigenous Australians. While it’s a very worthwhile goal, and certainly a nice thought, it is totally out of touch with reality. The reality is that until there is reconciliation, and until there is same-sex equality for that matter, we can never be united.

There have been many misconceptions and myths about the reconciliation process. Many believe it will give rise to native title being invoked on privately held land. Many believe it will impinge on the rights of “mainstream Australians” (which is also a myth). Pauline Hanson has weighed in on the debate, scared her “rights” will be somehow impinged upon. These arguments miss the point too. Native title legislation is about crown land. Privately held land is not affected in any way and cannot be claimed.

So is this a real and considered move on Howard’s part, indicating that he is prepared for real reconciliation, or just a desperate election stunt? Either way, in my opinion, it’s far too little, far too late. Constitutional law experts have warned that 100 days is not enough time to craft an appropriately worded preamble. Does Howard really expect that promise (and we don’t know if it is a “core promise” or not) to hold a referendum about whether or not to implement a hastily drawn, non-binding, preamble with do anything to win Indigenous votes? If he is so contrite, why doesn’t he take on his leadership role, admit his mistakes in preventing reconciliation so long, and actually do something: say “sorry”.

That would win votes.