[recoznet2] preamble on

[td]

Howard might have decided against being the sole author of the preamble but he is certainly editor in chief, as the article below makes clear.  It seems to me that if the preamble is seen to be worded "carefully", to take account of everybody's (especially Johnny's) "sensibilities" then it has failed by definition.  You can't "sort of" apologise.  You can't "sort of" mention prior occupation.  All the things this latest version wants to be equivocal about are actually the heart and soul of the reconciliation process, and to fudge them is to deny them.  It is very difficult to see how issues like this can fit into the normal framework of political compromise.  Although I can appreciate what Huggins and Malouf are trying to achieve, it's still back to the drawing board, I reckon.

 

 

Tim

 

Apology' calibrated to Howard
By RICHARD McGREGOR

5mar99

THE Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation artfully gets around a roadblock that has impeded John Howard's relationship with indigenous leaders – the issue of an apology.

In a formulation that has echoes of the careful calibration of Japanese politicians saying sorry for the war, the council's draft declaration apologises for past injustices.

But it does so by putting the word "apology" into the mouths of the indigenous people who are its target, not those delivering it.

"As one part of the nation expresses its sorrow and profoundly regrets the injustices of the past," says the 10-point declaration, "so the other part accepts the apology and forgives."

Mr Howard has long refused to make an official government apology for the so-called stolen generation, drawing bitter criticism as a result.

The declaration, and the principles and strategies laid out by the council, also choose their words very carefully on the issue of self-determination.

The Prime Minister has always been reluctant to embrace this concept because he worries that it implies the notion of a separate nation.

So rather than using the word "self-determination" in the poetic declaration, framers David Malouf and Jackie Huggins talk about "the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to remain responsible for their own destinies".

The strategy laid out by the council also adds a rider that it probably hopes will ease prime ministerial concerns about the concept.

It backs recognition of the right to self-determination "within the overall framework of laws of the nation".

Another minefield is the issue of Aboriginal "ownership and custodianship" of the land, words that Mr Howard opposes going into the new constitutional preamble.

The council has included these words in their set of principles, but added they are "recognised under the common law of Australia".

This is a reference to the High Court's Mabo case, which established native title, and which has been accepted in parliament by Mr Howard.

Inevitably, this document will be attacked from all sides as too accommodating by some and too giving by others.

But, all in all, its careful weighing of words make it a creative and moderate effort to steer a middle path.

Just as important, the document tries not to force Mr Howard into a corner on a range of issues to keep the lines of dialogue open.

Often little more than a media mantra, and an irritatingly elusive one at that, the concept of reconciliation starts to come to life here.

But the publication of the draft document is just the beginning of a debate that has many months to run.