Hi Laurie,
I agree about the lack of media coverage - all the more reason to be
grateful for forums like recoznet2 where 'unmediated' information gets
circulated.
Clarke's discussion of sovereignty is fascinating and I only wish I knew
more about it - but at least he points me in the direction of further
research.
I am sceptical about a few of his tentative proposals, in particular about a
40 person treaty commission. It is the composition of it that worries me.
Picking up on your point of 'power to the people' I'd like to see 'the
people' represented on such a committee - in fact I'd like to see it consist
of nothing but 'the people'. The various sides of the argument could be
represented through their various experts and spokespeople, but they should
be there to inform 'the public's' judgements, not replace them. That is,
the committee should consist of a random selection of ordinary people with
power devolved to them.
In reality, you'd probably need a number of such committees formed
throughout the country and then some sort of 'coming together' for a final
discussion. Might be slow and expensive but I'd warrant you'd get a better
result than you would through some sort of elite-driven constitutional
convention.
Another of Clarke's points that was of interest was the following:
<begin excerpt>
Firstly, I am convinced that there must be a national treaty put in
place before there is any devolution to local or regional treaties.
During the 'Makarrata' debate conducted by the NAC there was a
widespread view that the various groups of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people should be negotiating, as sovereign people in there own
right, their own treaties, and without interference from other indigenous
groups.
This became a problem at that time, in the 1980s, and contributed
(although perhaps in only a small way) to the lack of momentum in
obtaining government commitment to the treaty concept.
Further the separate and uncoordinated negotiation of treaties has the
potential:
* to result in unequal results for different groups,
* to lead to omission of fundamental provisions in treaties, and
* to cause a blockage through uncoordinated demands upon government
and professional services.
A national treaty could and should serve as the standard-setting
document for local or regional treaties. It could ensure that basic
elements are addressed in all treaties. It could ensure that basic rights
and
provisions are delivered where other treaties have not or will not be
negotiated.
If a national treaty is to be prepared then it is necessary that the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people become committed to that
purpose and remain disciplined in following a set course of procedure.
It is counter-productive for people to 'splinter' from the national agenda,
to claim that they do not accept the national approach. This will
happen of course. There is no way to prevent it.
<end excerpt>
I'd be interested to hear Tony Spiers view on this as he wrote forcefully a
while back:
"The S-word for these groups is not "Sorry", it is "SOVEREIGNTY" -- not
as a grant of racist patronage from Her Majesty's Parliament, but something
we ourselves assert. We cannot afford to compromise on matters of basic
principle. THE ONLY TREATIES OUR GREAT GRANDCHILDREN WILL RESPECT US FOR
ARE THE TREATIES WE SIGN WITH EACH OTHER."
A Treaty is the way to go, it seems to me, but the process of getting it is
just as important as the end result. It is this as much as anything that
still needs a lot of work.
Tim
------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
