Indigenous Rights and the 1991-2000 Australian Reconciliation Process

Gunstone, Andrew

doi:10.5130/ccs.v1i3.1141

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Those who argued that apology was a fundamental aspect of the reconciliation process were portrayed as opponents of reconciliation who sought to undermine national unity on this issue (Augoustinos & LeCouteur, 2004). It has been further argued that, as a result of the policy, the rights and needs of Indigenous people have been “mainstreamed” to equal those of “all Australians,” with little recognition of Indigenous history, the past injustice, and particularly its legacy in the present (Gunstone, 2005, 2006; Short, 2005). “Practical reconciliation” was also critiqued by prominent Indigenous scholars such as Mick Dodson of the National Centre for Indigenous Studies as an assimilationist policy that places the onus of responsibility far more on Indigenous people than on governments (Dodson, 2006; see also McCausland, 2005):…”

Section: Political Reconciliation In Australia—“practical” Versus “Symentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond “Practical” Reconciliation: Intergroup Inequality and the Meaning of Non‐Indigenous Identity

Subašić

Reynolds

2009

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The long-standing policy of "practical reconciliation" between Australian Indigenous and Non-Indigenous people has actively disregarded the need to redress past injustice as the basis of current intergroup inequality. While this approach has received extensive critique from reconciliation scholars, its implications for Non-Indigenous involvement in reconciliation have been neglected. When Indigenous disadvantage is divorced from its social and historical context it is also more likely to be seen as having little to do with "us" as Non-Indigenous Australians. In contrast, when inequality is seen as stemming from the past and present reality of intergroup relations, and as such shapes the meaning of NonIndigenous identity, it will be seen as more illegitimate, in need of change, and is more likely to motivate political engagement in the reconciliation process. The current study tests and finds support for this idea. Importantly, controlling for the contributions of perceived legitimacy of inequality and need for social change, Non-Indigenous identity meaning continued to significantly predict intentions to vote and engage in political action in support of reconciliation.

show abstract

Section: Political Reconciliation In Australia—“practical” Versus “Symentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond “Practical” Reconciliation: Intergroup Inequality and the Meaning of Non‐Indigenous Identity

Subašić

Reynolds

2009

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3–4). This goal was further reiterated throughout the process by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR), the body created by the legislation to oversee the reconciliation process (Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, 1993; Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, 1998; Gunstone, 2009). CAR developed programs, including educating the wider Australian community and developing partnerships with government and business, to address Indigenous educational disadvantage (Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, 2000, pp.…”

Section: Documentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One key reason is that governments have generally failed to recognise the importance of the history of Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations in Australia in relation to Indigenous education. This history, much of which continues to the present day, including invasion, colonisation, assimilation, a range of government policies, including the Protection Acts, the exclusion of Indigenous people from accessing education, stolen wages, the stolen generations, a long-standing and chronic underfunding of Indigenous socio-economic conditions, particularly in health, education and housing, and institutional and individual racism, has significantly contributed to the socio-economic disadvantage in many areas, including education, experienced by Indigenous people in the present day (Gunstone, 2009). For instance, the history of past government policies that resulted in generations of Indigenous workers not being paid their wages has substantially contributed to contemporary Indigenous economic disadvantage (Kidd, 2006).…”

Section: Governmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Education 1991–2000: Documents, Outcomes and Governments

Gunstone

2012

AJIE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is often a disparity in Indigenous Affairs between many documents, such as policies, reports and legislation, and outcomes. This article explores this difference through analysing the policy area of Indigenous education during the period of 1991 to 2000. I examine three key documents relating to Indigenous education. These are theNational Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy, theCouncil for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act (Cth)and the report of theRoyal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. I then analyse the abysmal outcomes of Indigenous education over this period, including educational access, educational attainment, school attendance and reading benchmarks. I argue that the substantial educational disadvantage experienced by Indigenous people is in stark contrast to the goals, policies and objectives contained in the numerous documents on Indigenous education. I then explore the role of governments in contributing to this disparity between documents and outcomes in Indigenous education, including their failure to acknowledge the history of Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations, their lack of commitment to address Indigenous educational disadvantage, their failure to recognise self-determination and the lack of cooperation between governments to address Indigenous educational disadvantage.

show abstract

“…By the conclusion of the 10-year reconciliation process in 2000, neither the aim nor the three goals of reconciliation had been fully achieved (Gunstone, 2005). However, despite this, there were a number of successful outcomes for the formal reconciliation process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Involvement and Education in the 1991-2000 Australian Reconciliation Process

Gunstone

2007

AJIE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1991, the Australian Parliament implemented a formal 10-year process of reconciliation. The aim of the process was to reconcile Indigenous and non-Indigenous people by the end of 2000. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) was established to promote the process. The process had three broad goals: improving education, addressing Indigenous socio-economic disadvantage and developing a document of reconciliation. This 10-year process achieved several successful outcomes, including the “People’s Movement” and the “Walks for Reconciliation”. The outcomes were predominately linked to the broad education goal and occurred due to the involvement of the Australian community in the reconciliation process.In this paper, I explore two inter-related programmes developed by CAR - community consultations and encouraging community involvement - that encouraged the involvement of the Australian community in reconciliation and were significantly responsible for the success obtained by the education goal. However, I also argue there were two issues involving many non-Indigenous people - their ignorance of reconciliation and Indigenous issues and their nationalist understandings of reconciliation - that ensured that overall the goals, despite some successful outcomes, were not fully achieved by the conclusion of the formal reconciliation process.

show abstract

Indigenous Rights and the 1991-2000 Australian Reconciliation Process

Abstract: The formal reconciliation process

Cited by 4 publications

References 4 publications

Beyond “Practical” Reconciliation: Intergroup Inequality and the Meaning of Non‐Indigenous Identity

Beyond “Practical” Reconciliation: Intergroup Inequality and the Meaning of Non‐Indigenous Identity

Indigenous Education 1991–2000: Documents, Outcomes and Governments

Community Involvement and Education in the 1991-2000 Australian Reconciliation Process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About