Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission: Social Justice Report 2000

2000 Social Justice Report Summary

By Dr William Jonas AM, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner

The defining feature of the past year has been the focus on reconciliation ... But as we reach this crucial stage in relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, reconciliation has come to mean different things to different people. Reconciliation has been described as a 'peoples movement' ...having reached a level of community support that is now unstoppable. For the government it is also a term that means practical measures to achieve practical improvements in the livelihoods of Indigenous peoples ... For many Indigenous peoples it has been seen as yet another opportunity ... for a durable resolution to the ongoing consequences of the taking of these lands.

Ultimately, these differing views of what reconciliation involves have a common point of departure: the appropriate role of human rights to the reconciliation process ... These are the weighty issues that are considered in this report. Introduction, pp1-2.

• Overview

• Reconciliation and Human Rights

• International Scrutiny of Australia's Indigenous affairs policies

• Achieving meaningful Reconciliation

• Reparations

• Appendices

Overview

The 2000 Social Justice Report is the second report by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Dr William Jonas. It was transmitted to the federal Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams AM QC MP, on 21 December 2000.

The theme of the report is reconciliation and human rights .

Dr Jonas argues that despite a worrying trend to de-legitimise human rights principles in Australia, the challenge of reconciliation will only be met through an approach that recognises and protects Indigenous people's rights.

Some fear that the recognition of Indigenous rights would be a threat to national unity by creating separate rights and giving Indigenous people a privileged position in our nation's future. ...As a consequence it is often argued that reconciliation must provide 'unity' and confirm the 'sameness' of all Australians; that it must not be 'divisive' by providing additional benefits to Indigenous people and that it should focus on 'practical' measures and outcomes ....I will argue that these fears are unwarranted and are not sustainable... Chapter 2, p18.

The report contains 14 recommendations calling on the federal government to turn reconciliation into action and outcomes (pp 130-132).

The report covers the following issues raised during the year 2000 debate on reconciliation:

• Why are human rights relevant to reconciliation? The report discusses the significance of 'history' to current Indigenous disadvantage; the relevance of special measures, and the importance of recognising cultural difference, self-determination and effective participation to reconciliation (Chapter 2);

• How are we currently performing on Indigenous human rights? The report examines the dialogue between the Commonwealth Government and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in March 2000 in order to gauge how we are currently performing on Indigenous human rights (Chapter 3);

• What measures must we take to achieve meaningful reconciliation that respects human rights? Discusses the commitments and measures necessary for the federal government to make reconciliation a reality (Chapter 4); and

• What is the relevance of reparations to reconciliation? The report focuses on reparations for the victims of forcible removals policies (Chapter 5).

Back to top

Chapter 2: Reconciliation and Human Rights

The reconciliation process has the potential to be as significant, and difficult, as the process that led to the joining together of the states into one indissoluble federation in 1901. It challenges us to adapt the structures of society in ways that ensure that first nation peoples can participate fully, be welcomed and have our cultures respected. Integral to this process is an acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past and an acceptance of the need for a restructured relationship. Such a relationship must involve the full recognition and respect for the human rights of all Australians, including Indigenous peoples. Chapter 2, p5.

The role of the past in reconciliation

At the end of the first decade of the formal process of reconciliation, the history of relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians has 'become indelibly etched on the national consciousness'(p5) and 'we find ourselves unable to take the easy road and ignore or forget the past'(p8).

The report argues that Indigenous disadvantage is historically derived and that the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people since contact has been based on false assumptions about Indigenous cultural inferiority. This is reflected through the doctrine of terra nullius and the lack of recognition of native title prior to 1992, and the forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families.

Dr Jonas argues that assumptions of cultural superiority are still reflected in contemporary debate about the impact and appropriate response to forcible removal policies, 'albeit in a more diluted and subtle form' (p12).

... attention has been directed to the bona fides of policy makers of the time, by asking 'did policy makers of the day believe that they were acting in the best interests of Indigenous children?' Policy makers of the time were, of course, operating wholly within the then existing cultural norms, which gave expression to the perceived racial inferiority of Indigenous people. The crucial inquiry, therefore, is correctly stated as whether removal policies were premised on assumptions about the cultural inferiority of Indigenous people which predetermined that the best interests of the child, and of the wider society, would best be served by removing the child from their family, community and culture ...We have been unable to transcend a dialogue grounded in the beliefs and assumptions that underpinned society at the time the policies were in place. Chapter 2, p12.

Unemployment

The unemployment rate for Indigenous youth in 1996 was 28.6 per cent - more than double the corresponding rate for all youth. While the unemployment rate declines for adults aged 30 years and over, the rate of unemployment among Indigenous Australians remains more than double that of all Australians. The unemployment rate for Indigenous people over the age of 30 is higher than the unemployment rate for the total youth population.

Denying the past

Dr Jonas argues that the denial of the relevance of the past in explaining the systemic disadvantage and discrimination experienced by Indigenous people today is used to absolve the government from responsibility, eg. the failure to apologise for forcible removals (see pp 13-15). He also says that opposition to an apology misunderstands the purpose of an apology, and can be seen as an example of cross-cultural misunderstanding of what Indigenous people are seeking (p15).

'Renewing' the relationship

'To state that recognition of the past is essential for meaningful reconciliation does not mean that we should be constrained by it' (p15). The report suggests that reconciliation should be seen as a 'renewal' of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, which builds on our achievements and acknowledges our errors. It describes an approach by the Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommending a relationship built on mutual recognition, mutual respect, sharing and mutual responsibility.

Human rights and reconciliation

The report argues that for reconciliation to be meaningful it must respect human rights.

A rights basis for the reconciliation process does not provide additional benefits or protections to Indigenous people, or a privileged place in Australian society. On the contrary, it remedies deficiencies that have existed for much of the period of contact between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It also provides acknowledgement of the fact that, much like the celebration and acceptance of multiculturalism, we are a richer country for valuing Indigenous cultures and traditions on their own terms, and making them a feature of the fabric of our society. Chapter 2, p32.

The meaning of equality - embracing diversity and difference

The report claims that the broader Australian community lacks an understanding of how the basic human rights principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law relate to the reconciliation process. The view that 'everybody should be treated the same' overlooks the simple fact that throughout Australian history Indigenous people never have been (p19).

The report argues that for Indigenous people to participate equally in Australian society, there must be:

• Acknowledgement that Indigenous disadvantage is historically-derived and remedial measures are needed to give Indigenous people equal opportunity;
• Respect and celebration of cultural difference through the co-existence of Indigenous values, cultures and traditions with those of the mainstream; and understanding that this will not lead to separatism; and
• Recognition that measures for protecting the culture and identity of Indigenous peoples may legitimately require different (rather than 'racist') treatment (pp18-21).

Indigenous disadvantage and 'practical reconciliation'

The report argues that the current approach focusing on 'practical reconciliation' leaves Indigenous people subject to the beneficence and good intentions of government rather than addressing Indigenous disadvantage as a matter of human rights. The report suggests that a human rights approach to disadvantage is required, the elements of which include:

• Empowering Indigenous people by ensuring they take part in decisions affecting them; Using human rights principles as benchmarks to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of the government's response;
• Using special measures as a form of differential treatment to help eliminate disadvantage ? to be sustained only as long as the group is disadvantaged; and
• Prioritising resources to satisfy basic human rights standards.

The report contends that the gross disparity remaining between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians indicates that the enjoyment of rights is not provided on the basis of equality or in a non-discriminatory manner.

The questions that we must ask from a human rights perspective are first, is the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people closing? And consequently, are we doing enough to overcome or reduce the level of disadvantage or are we merely doing enough to 'manage' it? ...despite the rhetoric of 'practical reconciliation' it is difficult to see that redressing Indigenous disadvantage has been elevated to a sufficient level of priority ... Chapter 2, p25

The report considers the 'social cost' of 'managing' (rather than overcoming) Indigenous disadvantage and argues that this will escalate unless an extensive and long-term commitment is made to redressing disadvantage.

Self-determination and effective participation: 'within the life of the nation'?

The most controversial aspect of the debate on reconciliation has been over the implications of the right to self-determination. Dr Jonas shows that fears self-determination will threaten national unity and lead to separate rights or secession are unfounded.

'It is not about the creation of separate rights,' Dr Jonas says. 'It is about inclusive government, in which Indigenous people rightfully have a role in determining their priorities and destiny' (p32).

Back to top

Chapter 3 - International scrutiny of Australia's Indigenous affairs policies

Chapter 3 examines Australia's current performance in relation to Indigenous human rights. It focuses on the dialogue between the Australian government and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in March 2000. The dialogue examined Australia's compliance with our obligations under the United Nations racial discrimination convention. It considered a range of issues that must be addressed for reconciliation to be meaningful.

There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the nature of that dialogue and so the report reproduces extensive excerpts from the dialogue in order to explain why the Committee raised particular issues; the adequacy of the Government's responses; and the appropriateness of the conclusions and concerns expressed by the Committee. The chapter also exposes a number of myths surrounding the operation of the UN human rights treaty system and Australia's international obligations.

The report expresses concern at the following issues:

• Australia's obligations to protect cultural diversity: The government demonstrated to CERD a poor understanding of its obligations to ensure equality before the law, including by taking 'protective measures' to protect the cultures of Indigenous peoples (pp 41-49);

• Inadequate protection of human rights in Australian law: The federal government is in breach of its international obligations when it refuses to use its powers to ensure that state and territory laws comply with our human rights obligations (pp49-53) - such as with the refusal to overturn mandatory sentencing laws (pp67-72);

• Inadequate protection in Australian law against racial discrimination: Despite the existence of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the federal government may still introduce racially discriminatory laws - such as the native title amendments (pp53-57). Concern is expressed at the lack of an entrenched guarantee against racial discrimination in the Constitution;

• Extent of Indigenous disadvantage: The Committee confirmed that the extent of Indigenous disadvantage raises serious concerns about Australia's compliance with the requirement to provide equality before the law and to treat people in a non-discriminatory manner. On this issue the CERD expressed concern at 'the extent of the dramatic inequalities that are still being experienced by these population groups when they represent no more than 2% of the population of a highly developed, industrialised state' (p58). Australia also has an obligation to adopt special measures to overcome this disadvantage - as a matter of human rights compliance (pp 57-64);

• Indigenous over-representation in criminal justice systems: The report highlights the necessity to adopt measures to address socio-economic marginalisation and to develop appropriate diversionary options (pp64-67);

• Mandatory sentencing: The report highlights a series of concerns about mandatory sentencing, including its racially discriminatory impact. It notes the 'deeply unsatisfactory' explanations provided by the government on this issue (p69);

• Reconciliation and 'Bringing them home': The report highlights the need for a consensual approach to reconciliation - negotiated with Indigenous peoples; and the importance of responding appropriately to the Bringing them home report (pp 72-75).

The government's response to CERD and the treaty review process

The government responded to the concluding observations of the Committee by stating that the 'Committee's report is an unbalanced and wide-ranging attack that intrudes unreasonably into Australia's domestic affairs'; that 'the Committee has apparently failed to grapple with our unique and complex history'; and that the Committee 'paid scant regard to the Government's input and has relied almost exclusively on information provided by non-government organisations'. Accordingly, the government rejected the comments made by the CERD and called for a review of Australia's participation in the United Nations treaty system.

Dr Jonas expresses a number of concerns about the government's response to the Committee's concluding observations. He rejects the claim that the Committee was 'unbalanced' in its views; as well as the criticism that the committee did not make a 'fair and accurate assessment' of Australia's performance; that issues such as mandatory sentencing were outside the committee's mandate; that the Committee's assessment was 'blatantly political'; that international treaties are broad enough to allow different interpretations of obligations; and that the Committee's membership is drawn from countries with human rights records worse than that of Australia.

In relation to the Government's rejection of the finding that the Native Title Act does not over-ride the Racial Discrimination Act, the report says the Government is "manifestly wrong" (p55) and its explanations of its position on the NT's mandatory sentencing laws are "deeply unsatisfactory" (p69). 'It is inconceivable that these laws could be seen as proportionate, reasonable or just,' says Dr Jonas (p71).

Dr Jonas concludes that 'all parties to human rights treaties are brought to account by the UN treaty committee system. In the end what is important is that through international dialogue, the human rights dimension of the issues at hand can be greater emphasised and understood by those who draft and formulate policies and legislation at the domestic level.' (p85)

Back to top

Chapter 4: Achieving meaningful reconciliation

This chapter identifies crucial commitments and processes that governments must engage in to progress meaningful reconciliation in the coming years. It calls for Indigenous policy to be formulated with a human rights framework . This requires that the following four principles be met:

• Non-discrimination - guarantee of equal treatment for all, which extends to recognition of distinct cultural characteristics and the adoption of temporary special measures to overcome existing inequalities;
• Progressive realisation - the commitment of sufficient resources through well-targeted programs to ensure adequate progress in overcoming Indigenous disadvantage;
• Effective participation - adequate involvement of Indigenous people and communities in decisions that affect them, including service delivery and design; and
• Effective remedies - the provision of mechanisms for redress where human rights are violated (see further pp87-88).

The report contains 14 recommendations identifying how this can be achieved. It requires:

• Increasing the accountability and transparency of governments for policies to overcome Indigenous disadvantage;
• Facilitating the effective participation of Indigenous peoples in service delivery and policy development; and
• Ensuring adequate protection of the human rights of Indigenous peoples.

Indigenous disadvantage and progressive realisation

The appropriate standard for measuring progress in addressing Indigenous disadvantage is one of equality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. A focus on equality highlights that Government is obligated to progressively reduce the inequalities faced by Indigenous people by targeting such disadvantage and taking appropriate steps to the maximum of available resources ...

Current funding arrangements do not meet these obligations. Despite the commitment of significant resources to redress Indigenous disadvantage there is very little to indicate the priority that governments attach to reducing the inequalities ... Also missing from current funding and service delivery arrangements are adequate performance targets, benchmarks and mechanisms to ensure government accountability and transparency. Chapter 4, pp88-89.

The report states that the current approach, which simply highlights the level of expenditure on Indigenous programs, helps create 'resentment among other parts of society about 'special treatment' and 'lacks comparative and evaluative components' (p91). The report compares the current federal government's approach to that of the governments of Canada and New Zealand, who have adopted an equality approach aimed at progressively 'closing the gaps' (see pp91-94). The report calls for a coordinated, long-term strategy at the national level to address Indigenous disadvantage.

The report notes the current inadequate collection of statistics at the national and regional levels, as well as the need for agreement on improved benchmarks and targets at all levels of government, as well as the need for better monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (pp96-100). While statistics alone cannot measure rights they can help in designing and evaluating policy.

The report argues that to provide sufficient government accountability for Indigenous policies the government must:

• Make an unqualified national commitment to redressing Indigenous disadvantage;
• Facilitate the collection of data for decision making, reporting and monitoring progress;
• Set benchmarks - negotiated with Indigenous peoples, state and territory governments and service delivery organizations, with clear timeframes for achieving longer term and short term goals;
• Provide national leadership to facilitate inter-governmental cooperation; and
• Ensure the full participation of Indigenous peoples in the design and delivery of services.

Recommendations 1 - 10 address these issues (pp 130-132). A summary of the recommendations is attached to this summary.

Strengthening Indigenous governance

The report argues that the reconciliation debate has not placed enough emphasis on the importance of developing Indigenous governance structures and regional autonomy.

The development of governance structures and regional autonomy provides the potential for a successful meeting place to integrate the various strands of reconciliation. In particular, it is able to tie together the aims of promoting recognition of Indigenous rights, with the related aims of overcoming disadvantage and achieving economic independence. Unfortunately, during the reconciliation debate so far, there has been insufficient acknowledgement of the inter-related nature of these processes, which has been demonstrated by the failure to identify the crucial nature of recognising and building Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance capacity to achieving these goals. Chapter 4, p107.

A focus on Indigenous self-governance highlights:

• The need for greater coordination of services;
• The collective nature of the solutions required to meet the current problems faced by Indigenous communities;
• The necessity to adopt a holistic approach to Indigenous need; and
• The importance of renewing Indigenous societal structures and respect for Indigenous cultures at the local level.

The report recommends greater regional autonomy for Indigenous peoples. This does not necessarily mean the creation of new structures. There is also no 'one size fits all' model that will suit all circumstances and 'it is essential that a range of strategies and mechanisms be considered' (p121). Various governance structures already exist - including ATSIC, native title representative bodies, land councils, and community-controlled organizations. The report also considers some of the regional governance processes currently in development, such as the coordinated health care trial in the Northern Territory (pp114-15), the Cape York partnerships plan (pp117-120), the Murdi Paarki regional model (p117), and the ATSIC regional authority model in the Kimberley and East Arnhem regions (pp120-121).

The report argues that:

Governments should agree to negotiate mechanisms to facilitate greater regional autonomy through the design and delivery of programs and services. Negotiations should include matters such as developing flexible funding arrangements with Indigenous organizations, including transfer of funding, block funding and arrangements for pooling funds across governments and on a regional basis; Indigenous participation in developing service delivery priorities, setting benchmarks and targets on a regional basis and in monitoring and evaluating progress' (pp122-123).

Recognising and protecting Indigenous rights

Having found that current protection is inadequate, the report identifies two processes to ensure adequate protection of human rights in Australia, especially Indigenous rights

i) Improving accountability for human rights

To improve accountability for human rights in Australian law the report identifies three options:

• A constitutional Bill of Rights - this is identified as the preferable, longer term objective that would bind all levels of government;

• A prohibition of racial discrimination in the Constitution - this is identified as an immediate priority, which would bind all levels of government and 'place the commitment of government to (the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of race) at the highest possible level, and guarantee that such commitment could never be put aside for more expedient political purposes' (p124); and

• A legislated Bill of Rights - which would guarantee compliance by the states and territories with human rights obligations, and provide moral authority for successive federal governments to act consistently with human rights obligations. Such an approach would allow time for people to become more comfortable with a Bill of Rights before a referendum to constitutionally enshrine it: 'Such an approach would confirm that state and territory governments have an important, indeed primary, role in setting laws. They would remain free to pass whatever laws they chose, subject to the constraint that those laws met minimum core standards. This is consistent with the purpose of a federation - in which no one level of government has unfettered power to make any laws that it chooses' Chapter 4, p124.

In relation to the international accountability of the government for human rights the report notes that Australia does not fare well on the basis of objective accountability measures (see pp124-125). The report suggests that to improve Australia's accountability for human rights:

• Australia ratify all individual communication mechanisms (the government refused to ratify the optional protocol to CEDAW during the treaty review process);
• The government respond more appropriately to the conclusions of treaty committees; and
• The government increase the priority with which it processes periodic reports under human rights treaties (the latest report to the CERD was due in October 2000, and is already nearly 6 months late).

To address these concerns the recommendations of the report call for:

• a parliamentary inquiry to progress discussion about a Bill of Rights, and to determine a mechanism for the entrenchment of a prohibition of racial discrimination in the Commonwealth Constitution (rec 13, p132); and
• universal ratification of individual communication processes under human rights treaties, including ratification of the Optional Protocol to CEDAW (rec 14, p132).

ii) Negotiating with Indigenous peoples over unfinished business

While these mechanisms build a framework for protecting rights in the future, they do not address historical injustices. Accordingly the report calls for

the negotiation of agreements with Indigenous peoples. The report calls for the negotiation of a framework agreement (or treaty) at the national level, and negotiation of agreements at the regional and local levels recognising Indigenous rights and dealing with 'unfinished business'. Chapter 4, p126.

The report recommends a two stage process for agreement making:

The first stage is the introduction of framework agreements legislation, which recognizes the need to negotiate with Indigenous peoples about a range of matters and sets out protocols and a negotiation framework within which negotiations will take place. It should provide legislative force to agreements with Indigenous organizations on a local, regional and national level... Chapter 4, p126 .

This stage would also involve the agreement of negotiation protocols. The report recommends the adoption of the Social Justice Package principles (reproduced at pp 126-127) as the basis of negotiations.

The second stage would be to work towards constitutional entrenchment of agreements.

Having introduced such framework legislation, and provided appropriate resources for agreement processes to be entered into, the second stage of the process is a commitment to work towards amending the Commonwealth Constitution along similar lines to the current section 105A to provide the Commonwealth with the power to make agreements with Indigenous peoples. Section 105A of the Constitution provides that the Commonwealth may make agreements with the States with respect to the public debts of the States. It further provides that the federal Parliament has power to legislate any matter contained in the agreement; that such agreements can be varied or rescinded by the parties; and that agreements, and any variations, are to bind all levels of government. This would be a long-term approach and has the benefit of protecting documents of consensus (therefore reflecting both the aspirations of Indigenous people, and being acceptable to the broader community). By approaching such reform in two stages, the mainstream society is able to come to a deeper appreciation of the need for such agreements and to have a more detailed understanding of the issues involved. Chapter 4, p128.

The recommendations of the report call for:

• the introduction of national framework legislation - based on the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation's Reconciliation Bill 2000 - to provide legislative support for the negotiation of agreements with Indigenous people at the national, regional and local levels (rec 11, p132); and

• the adoption of the Social Justice principles from the Social Justice Package of 1995 as the basis for negotiations about service delivery, regional governance and unfinished business (rec 12, p132).

Back to top

Chapter 5 - Reparations

Reparation - the process of making amends for harm and injustice suffered - is fundamental to reconciliation. There cannot be reconciliation without reparation. The historical disadvantage, suffering and hostility that reconciliation attempts to overcome will only occur when there are genuine and concrete measures to put right the wrongs. Chapter 5, p133.

This chapter examines the importance to reconciliation of providing reparation for the victims of forcible removal policies.

The report reviews international human rights principles that suggest that measures aimed at rehabilitation and atonement are appropriate and necessary responses to gross violations of human rights.

The report then examines the response of the federal government to Bringing them home . It criticises the Government's rejection of a formal national apology (pp138-140), its refusal to consider monetary forms of compensation (pp140-141), and its insistence on legal liability as a prerequisite to compensation (pp142-143).

The report then considers recent international experience in responding to violations of human rights and concludes that 'the refusal to apologise ..., the failure to develop comprehensive reparations programs and advocacy of litigation as an appropriate redress mechanism are contrary to a world-wide trend' (p143).

Back to top

Appendices

The report contains two appendices:

• A summary of submissions made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 2000 to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; the Human Rights Committee; and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Appendix 1); and
• The concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination from March 2000.

Appendix 1: Summary of Recommendations of the report

National commitments to overcome Indigenous disadvantage

1) The federal government adopt, on a whole of government basis, long-term policies that identify overcoming Indigenous disadvantage as a national priority; special measures to achieve this end, and negotiate cross-party support for a long term strategy and commitment;

2) That such a commitment be agreed by all levels of government through the processes of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), and form the basis of a renewed National Commitment by COAG;

3) That all levels of government and ATSIC, service delivery agencies and Indigenous organisations agree on benchmarks for Indigenous service delivery at the national, regional and local levels;

4) That all governments report to COAG and the public through Reconciliation Australia on their responses to the recommendations of this report and the recommendations of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation;

5) That Australia's National Action Plan on Human Rights reflect this national commitment to overcome Indigenous disadvantage.

Improved data collection

1) The federal government request advice from specialised agencies on mechanisms to improve the sufficiency and quality of data collection regarding Indigenous need; the sufficiency of current collection processes by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS); proposals to increase coordination and consistency across governments; and cost implications of improved data collection;

2) That the ABS address deficiencies identified in data collection;

3) That the federal government coordinate the negotiation of agreements between governments to improve coordination and standardisation of data collection.

Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms

1) The Commonwealth Grants Commission (CGC) be empowered to conduct biennial inquiries into Indigenous funding (from an absolute need perspective), and that a parliamentary committee be required to consider the outcomes of the CGC inquiries;

2) All governments agree to report every two years to their parliaments, COAG and the Reconciliation Conventions proposed in the Reconciliation Bill 2000 on progress in addressing Indigenous disadvantage.

Negotiating with Indigenous peoples

1) The federal government introduce national framework legislation - based on the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation's Reconciliation Bill 2000 - to provide legislative support for the negotiation of agreements with Indigenous people at the national, regional and local levels;

2) The Social Justice principles from the Social Justice Package of 1995 be adopted as the basis for negotiations about service delivery, regional governance and unfinished business.

Protecting human rights

1) A parliamentary inquiry be set up to examine mechanisms for a Bill of Rights, and to determine a mechanism for the entrenchment of a prohibition of racial discrimination in the Commonwealth Constitution;

2) The government ratify the Optional Protocol to CEDAW.