The Australian Library Journal

'Fair go' Equality? The people's movement for reconciliation, ANTaR and critical information literacy

Glenn Giles

Manuscript received April 2002

This is a refereed article and was originally presented as a paper to the fifth national information literacy conference conducted by the University of South Australia Library and the Australian Library and Information Association Information Literacy Forum, 30 November - 1 December 2001, at Hindmarsh, Adelaide.

...over seven years since the passage of the Native Title Act, Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders are still struggling to have native title rights fully recognised. In the intervening years governments have set about reducing our ability to enjoy those rights by turning the native title process into a cumbersome and racially discriminatory process. (Geoff Clark, chairman of ATSIC 3 June 2001 - on the ninth anniversary of the High Court Mabo decision).

A rights-based approach seeks to understand the underlying and historical causes of unemployment and welfare dependency for Aboriginal people. Without this understanding, government policies simply manage the problem. They do not offer a way forward. (Dr William Jonas, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, HREOC 'Rights are a practical matter, Mr Ruddock' The Age 30 July 2001)

The problem starts with us, the non- Aboriginal Australians. We did the dispossession... We brought the diseases. The alcohol. We committed the murders... We failed to ask: "How would I feel if this was done to me?" (The Hon Paul Keating, then Prime Minister, December 1992 - The 'Redfern speech').

I would like to begin by acknowledging the Kaurna people of the Adelaide plains, the traditional owners and custodians of the country on which we gather today.

I want to also thank your convenor, Irene Doskatsch, and the conference organising committee for inviting me to talk about ANTaR (Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation) and the reconciliation movement. While at the end of 2001 there is much to despair about in terms of reconciliation in Australia, especially at the political level, I want to point to some positive signs in the hope that we can build on the work of the peoples' movement for reconciliation towards a fairer Australia.

The official decade of reconciliation, initiated by Federal Parliament in 1991 with an Act supported by the major political parties, creating the Government-funded Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR), ended at the beginning of 2001. A reconciliation process in Australia was recommended by the final chapter of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody[1]. It called for bipartisan political support, foreseeing major obstacles to reconciliation otherwise. How prescient these sentiments are ten years later! As 2000 progressed, and the end of CAR loomed and Government said there would be no extension of its term of office, it seemed significant that the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Howard, accepted that reconciliation would not be achieved by the end 2000. Perhaps he had thereby at least accepted it was a goal to be sought, although this seemed doubtful.

For some, this lack of achievement signified failure and was an indictment of a negative approach to Indigenous Australians, and to reconciliation by Mr Howard's Government. For others, meaningful reconciliation was never seen as likely by the new millennium because so much work remained to develop healthier relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, for social justice for Indigenous Australians, and to address and redress the consequences of our collective history.

For Mr Howard, in part at least, putting reconciliation off into the unknown future meant government could withdraw from supporting the process. This seemed to fit with his unstated wish to put real reconciliation and social justice for Indigenous Australians off the public agenda. The government advocated what it called 'practical reconciliation' a policy offensive for its continuation of the lack recognition of Indigenous Australians and in its contention that basic public social services and infrastructure (such as health care, education, housing, employment) were 'add-ons' for Indigenous Australians, whilst for other Australians they were taken for granted[2].

The peoples' movement for reconciliation, of which ANTaR is a significant, arguably a leading component, developed out of the belief that Indigenous Australians were not being fairly treated in Australia. Those aware of our history will know that this sentiment is not new here. Prior to the past five or so years, individuals and groups of non-Indigenous Australians have supported Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians[3]. The late 1990s manifestation of this impulse has the potential to affect relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians much more than previously, and to move closer towards justice for Indigenous Australians. There are however political forces and vested interests that would prefer this not to happen, which actively discourage it, and which continue to make it a major challenge.

Australians who are informed, reflective and critical of themselves and their world are fundamental to social movements such as the reconciliation movement. ANTaR, and the reconciliation movement more broadly, is an example of an active, interested and engaged citizenry asserting a different, more humane and tolerant vision of society than that articulated by our political leaders. This movement is significant in an environment of disinformation and misinformation from powerful forces (national and international), including Governments and major corporations. Of course, this is not only, or chiefly, the concern of librarians. It is properly the concern of all, but librarians are a profession that can effect our citizens' engagement with their world.

In this paper I briefly describe the creation and work of the national coalition, ANTaR (Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation), comment on the peoples' movement for reconciliation and discuss information literacy in this context. Important in debates about Indigenous affairs policy and reconciliation in Australia is the notion of equality that underpins different viewpoints and policies. Where policy is informed by the notion that equal rights means treating all people the same, many Indigenous Australians will remain very significantly disadvantaged compared to other Australians because their different backgrounds remain essentially invisible to policy. Alternatively, all Australians will benefit where non-Indigenous Australians recognise the particularities of Indigenous Australians, the rights that should flow from that status, and initiate policies informed by that recognition. This includes different policies for people with different needs, requirements and histories. In the case of Indigenous Australians, this may (should) include restitution.

Development of ANTaR (Australian for Native Title and Reconciliation)

Indigenous affairs was one of the immediate policy areas in which the first Howard Government acted. The first major action was to appoint a special auditor to investigate funding by ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) and the Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA) of Indigenous organisations. The Federal Court found the Government's action was illegal; nonetheless an independent review found that ATSIC had responded positively to the special auditor.

In its first budget the Government substantially cut ATSIC funding[4]. The Government said it was responding to concerns that Indigenous affairs spending was profligate. Whether the Government was responding to such concerns or whether it was feeding such feelings is debatable. As noted by the ATSIC Social Justice Commissioner[5] Dr William Jonas, financial accountability of Australian Indigenous organisations was a favourite theme of the first Howard Government.

In discussing funding to Indigenous Australians, an important aspect to understand is that they use mainstream programs (including Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Job Network and the school system) at a 'far lower rate than other Australians'[6]. Many factors, such as ways of operating and communicating that are insensitive to Indigenous peoples, and services which do not meet the needs of Indigenous peoples, result in Indigenous Australians' low of use of such services. This lower use of mainstream services means that programs designed to meet specific Indigenous needs have to do more than they were/are designed to do. This picture contrasts with the populist views reiterated by people such as Pauline Hanson to the effect that Indigenous Australians disproportionately benefit from special treatment.

In December 1996, the High Court of Australia delivered its decision in the Wik case[7]. Comments by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, promising 'bucket loads of extinguishment' of native title, made it even clearer that Indigenous Australians would be disadvantaged by the Government's native title plans[8]. Government clearly empathised more with pastoralists and other non-Indigenous parties. It fed perceptions that Aboriginal Australians were about to gain control of most of Australia[9]. The Prime Minister produced a map of Australia with shaded areas to indicate that about three quarters of Australia was up for grabs by Indigenous Australians under native title laws. The message seemed designed to instil fear and division. Through 1997 and 1998 media reports about native title included stories of threats to family farms and commonly, it was thought that suburban backyards were also under threat.

During development of the initial Native Title Act, in 1993 and 1994, a coalition of non-Indigenous organisations and individuals developed to support Indigenous interests in negotiations about the Act and in its early operation. Following Howard's election to Government and as the nature of his native title plans became clearer, in early 1997 the National Indigenous Working Group on Native Title (NIWG) called together non-government organisations to gauge the level of non-Indigenous support for native title rights[10]. The ANTaR coalition developed from this initiative.

A fundamental principle of how the ANTaR coalition has worked has been that it does not speak for Indigenous Australians. The primary aim has been to support Indigenous voices and interests. With respect to policy and legislation that affect Indigenous Australians, ANTaR seeks direction from, and the views of, Indigenous peoples. This makes it somewhat different to other social movements. Like other social activist groups, to be most effective ANTaR needs to be well informed about the forces and developments impacting on the issues with which it is concerned. Native title is a complex legal area, which is in an early stage of development in Australian law. Seeking Australian Indigenous peoples' views on such complex matters can itself be a complicated process, partly because Indigenous Australians are not a single, unified entity and do not have one common voice or view. The desire of Indigenous peoples to express and assert their sovereign rights, and to be self-determining, produces many voices and opinions, sometimes with differing emphases. On the issue of native title during the period of the Howard amendments, NIWG provided a national, Indigenous view, which had legitimacy because NIWG consisted of representatives of Aboriginal Land Councils and equivalent organisations across Australia. ANTaR maintained ongoing communication with NIWG, taking direction from NIWG on the political response to those amendments.

Through 1997 and 1998, native title rights became the central focus of a national campaign supporting Indigenous Australians, the main tool of which was the Sea of hands. This was a visually evocative installation and display that encouraged a direct and positive engagement with the issue, in a significantly different way to traditional protest movements. It was a colourful, non-threatening way of representing alternative views to those of the Government and other powerful social forces, such as pastoralists and mining companies[11]. Connected to the hands was a citizens' statement on native title. People signing the statement could put their name on a hand. The statement included comments from then Governor General, Sir William Deane, that Australia was a diminished nation while it failed to confront its past and the injustices inflicted on Indigenous Australians[12].

After Howard's native title amendments passed Parliament in July 1998, the political focus for ANTaR gradually shifted. This focus included supporting calls from Indigenous Australians for Government to genuinely enter discussions for developing a process for addressing issues of justice for Indigenous Australians, and to address the unfinished business of lack of consent from Indigenous peoples for the takeover of this continent[13]. The hands statement has now been amended to incorporate this demand, as well as recognising Indigenous rights, including native title rights. In this later period ANTaR has taken direction from Indigenous leaders calling for a treaty process and maintained communication with ATSIC and a Treaty Support Group it established to progress the treaty issue.

The Sea of hands has become widely recognised as the hands for reconciliation. It continues to be requested for events where Indigenous peoples and/or reconciliation are main themes. Naturally the display is not universally admired or valued. Christopher Pearson considers that the hands appeal to people who wish to feel good about themselves and their concern for the plight of Indigenous Australians, at minimum cost to themselves, 'especially if they don't have any Aboriginal friends as such'[14]. Patrick Dodson welcomes the support for reconciliation, perceiving a movement of millions of Australians who 'have put up their hands to be committed as supporters of a nation that holds at its core value a society based on mutual respect, tolerance and justice'[15].

The people's movement for reconciliation

Through the second half of the 1990s, a people's movement for reconciliation developed. It has been manifest in several events, including about 200 000 Australians signing ANTaR's citizens' statement supporting native title; large attendances at Sorry day events and ceremonies on 26 May since 1998, and hundreds of thousands making personal apologies in Sorry books; creation of local reconciliation groups (such as the Blackwood Reconciliation Group that has, with Indigenous people, created a memorial to the Stolen Generations) and in the huge reconciliation walks in 2000. At the end of 2001, with reconciliation stymied at the Federal political level and appearing to have lost some resonance with the community, it is apparent that the work of the people's movement for reconciliation needs to continue.

Many non-Indigenous Australians still have not heard, or refuse to hear, the bleaker stories of Australia's past that reveal the reality of life in Australia for Indigenous Australians. These Australians continue to live in denial about our history[16]. Quite likely we have all encountered this response in our own families or others, at work, school, on the bus, if not in ourselves. One response is to say that, unfortunately there are some Australians who cannot face up to our past and we must move on regardless. Mick Dodson put this view most persuasively at the Sydney Corroboree event in June 2000 by comparing a timeline of himself and his family to that of John Howard. Mick Dodson (and other Indigenous leaders) argued that Australia needed a treaty process. Marcia Langton[17] points out that the demand from Indigenous leaders for a treaty followed Prime Minister Howard's steadfast rejection of the final draft document for reconciliation produced by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.

Critical to the development of ANTaR and the reconciliation movement more broadly, were non-Indigenous Australians who felt that Indigenous Australians should not suffer further injustices, specifically reduction of native title rights. In addition, the Bringing them home report of the Inquiry into the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, exposed stories of Australia's past that shocked many non-Indigenous Australians. It retains political currency even after years of Government belittling and discrediting of the inquiry[18]. Many Australians were incensed by the Howard Government's approach to Indigenous affairs, in particular, and by its approach to social policy more generally[19]. On the 'other side', some commentators attacked the Inquiry and the report so much so that they have been described as being in a state of denial about the history of Australia[20]. For Australia to move closer to more fairly and openly addressing the experiences of Indigenous Australians, we need to continue exposing more non-Indigenous people to the real stories from Indigenous Australians, and to advocate perspectives and proposals that challenge the dominant, narrow view of our country.

Information literacy

In a world undergoing major social, economic, political, cultural transformations, a common point of recognition is that information is becoming more central to our social, economic and political system. Information literacy gained increasing currency through the 1990s, reflecting the perception of the increasing importance of information in our society. It also points to technological changes that affect access to, and use of, information. Looking at the proceedings of the previous information literacy conference organised by the Australian Library and Information Association Information Literacy Special Interest Group two years ago and seeing that there have been four over nearly a decade, I would imagine that collectively, you are among the most informed about information literacy, and many of you are doubtless doing valuable and useful work in the area.

My comments about information literacy are at a broad level. They are from someone in a social movement. Given that, you would not be surprised to hear that my approach to information literacy is informed by a concern with being actively engaged with the world in which we live, in ways that are informed and motivated by more than mainstream, materialistic self-interest. Richard Owen's discussion of information literacy retains, arguably has increased, its relevance today: '...information literacy is ultimately about empowering real life, not just a set of skills enabling us to study more effectively for the rest of our lives. Information literacy brings with it obligations to act to improve democratic institutions and processes in our community...'[21]. Further on: 'Information literacy is about ... developing a healthy scepticism towards much of the media information influencing us today'[22].

Ross Todd argues that information literacy is as yet under-theorised, including its connections with 'real world living', although rhetorical statements assert significant links between information literacy and people acting in the world[23]. Todd recommends investigating what motivates people to seek information, how they interact with and use it. He supports moving away from a focus on educator-defined competencies to multiple views and interpretations of information literacy and a 'more holistic study of information user behaviour'[24]. In a similar vein, Susan Boyce[25] criticises the term, seeing it as an attempt by information specialists to inflate the importance of information literacy, and seen by others as information specialists trying to assert special expertise necessary in all curriculum areas. Boyce suggests that what is being addressed is literacy in a changing technological environment. Joining two words to create a new term reflects more the developments in technology and society than changes in literacy per se, and the meaning of these changes is being missed in the rush to subscribe to information literacy.

Communication and information technology

A characteristic of our time is the continuing development of communication and information technologies. At their most sanguine, advocates for these new technologies suggest a potential for these technologies to democratise society. The internet enables people to access information they want more easily than before, and use it in active and productive ways. There are, however, many problems with such estimations. I will make a couple of comments on these matters, informed by some of the literature on this area, and from my experience in ANTaR.

Clearly new communication technologies are useful for disseminating information quickly and relatively cheaply. E-mail networks and websites enable the rapid forwarding of information to large numbers of people at minimal cost, enhancing networking across space and time. However, much of what is available on the internet, in cyberspace, is not very different from what dominates other cultural realms[26]. The technology required to participate is quite costly, especially so in less developed countries, and to be able to use it effectively requires particular literary and technical skills. In affluent countries such as Australia, the technologies are becoming more widespread, although even in Australia there are many who do not have much access to the technologies. This is especially so for Indigenous Australians, a problem for their prospects in mainstream education. Partly because of these resource and equity issues, the less well-off tend to be further disadvantaged by digitisation[27].

As with other areas of culture, cyberspace reflects the world that creates it. On a global scale, it is dominated by the United States and Western Europe. As Tim Jordan puts it: 'The fundamental fact about the internet is that it is, first, dominated by the USA and, second, developed or industrialised country dominated'[28]. For some critics it is 'one of the newer mechanisms of colonisation'[29]. Another quality of cyberspace and contemporary culture is the movement in focus from the local to the global. For some this can go as far as feeling that the internet is the community, but for critics its fragmentary nature contradicts the sense of the word[30]. The hyperbole attending the new technologies implies that information and knowledge are just a click away. People begin to think they do not need much time and effort to understand information and their world. To the contrary, as proliferation of information increases, and much information on the internet is seen to be of problematic veracity and status, so too does the need for the development of effective critical faculties increase.

Those who influence or control the access to the proliferation of information are potentially in a very significant position. Librarians comprise a profession that performs a primary role in the accessing of information in our society. It is to be hoped that librarians are given adequate and appropriate support to develop and hone their traditional skills of evaluating, analysing, organising and packaging information in the changing communication and information technology environment[31], and assisting the public in acquiring these abilities. However, being competent in the use of new communication and information technologies is not a replacement for the development of local initiatives.

To use the new technologies is just one more tool to be used to supplement the work of a cultural shift like the people's movement for reconciliation. The success of ANTaR and this movement has been due more to an accessible campaign and a growing awareness among Australians of injustice to Indigenous Australians than with mere technical capacity to use new technologies. Campaign success relates to connecting with people in ways that are meaningful to them. With regard to Indigenous Australians, it means breaking long-standing practices in Australia that have depicted Indigenous Australians as inferior to other Australians, especially those of British heritage, and that have dehumanised Indigenous Australians. As Johnson [32] argues, for Australia to advance towards becoming a society that faces up to its colonial history, the dominant Anglo conception of Australia needs to be subjected to serious critical scrutiny and diversification if it is to acknowledge and incorporate women and non-Anglo-Celtic peoples. The concept of an Australian identity as mobilised by Howard, Hanson and others harks back to a very partial understanding of Australia.

'Fair go' equality?

Central to the movement supporting meaningful reconciliation in Australia will be the continued opening up of the story of Australia to non-dominant voices and to other viewpoints. We must continue to reveal the silent pasts and presents. The High Court Mabo decision in June 1992 was a major development in Australia. The initial legislative response, the Native Title Act was - contrary to popular belief - hardly generous - not that Indigenous Australians seek generosity with respect to native title. Recognition of their rights as Indigenous peoples is a consistent demand of many Indigenous Australians. They want Australia to move away from the notion that Government allocations to Indigenous Australians are based on good will and generosity. Indigenous Australians have argued that their treatment by the state in Australia should be based on recognition of their human rights. They have promoted this agenda via international forums, more and more and with additional emphasis, under the Howard Government. Ideas of equal rights and a fair go in Australia underpin debates about the position of Indigenous Australians. It is vital that these notions are subject to critical evaluation and reflection if we are to claim to be a humane society.

Recognition by Australian law of native title entailed some shift toward an approach to equal rights beyond a view that all should be treated the same. It entailed some acceptance that Indigenous Australians have specific rights flowing from their Indigenous status. This approach to equality recognises that there are differences between peoples and that different policy implications will follow. In general, this approach is also interested in the outcomes of such policy; the real world consequences of policy are integral to policy formation. Native title recognises a set of rights specific to Indigenous Australians deriving from their being Indigenous. However, this recognition was quite limited in the initial legislation and very much reduced by the Howard amendments of 1998. There have been few successful native title claims. In 2000-01 the system made eighteen native title determinations, thirteen by agreement of the parties involved and five following trials[33]. Most of the consent agreements were supported by, or conditional upon, Indigenous land use agreements (ILUAs). At the middle of 2001 there were 576 native title applications registered in the Native Title Tribunal. The highly legalistic and bureaucratic process has exacerbated divisions among Indigenous peoples in Australia, leaving some to observe that one effect has been to 'divide and rule'[34], an age old strategy of states, administrations and the powerful.

The reconciliation movement, particularly in the later 1990s, contributed to making non-Indigenous Australians more aware of the circumstances of Indigenous Australians, especially with regard to the child removal experiences of many. The Inquiry into the removal of Indigenous children from their families suggested that virtually all Indigenous families had some direct experience of child removal practices[35]. This awareness needs to continue for non-Indigenous Australians to come to a more considered appreciation of what it has meant and continues to mean to be an Indigenous Australian. Many Australians have expressed and felt the sentiment that for us non-Indigenes to reach such understanding we should try to put ourselves in the position of Indigenous Australians, and think about how we would feel if we were to experience what they have[36]. This is about enhancing the information literacy of Australians.

Some commentators have rejected and set about undermining the report, Bringing them home. Robert Manne[37] documents some of the captious criticisms of the Inquiry, one of the more insulting and insensitive being that it was alleged to be merely a case of mass false memory syndrome among those Indigenous Australians who told their stories to it. The originators of this criticism later coalesced into the curiously and offensively named Bennelong Society, which has as its president Mr Howard's first Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Mr John Herron[38]. This group, with the Government, employs a formal approach to equality, centering on people being treated the same by established rules, laws and standards. They downplay the significance of people's varied histories and positions in society, and the fact that there is great inequality in access to social and private goods.

The appeal to a populist understanding of a fair go has been used to powerful effect. Following upsurge of social activism and protest through the 1970s and early 1980s, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) indicated that it would progress national Aboriginal land rights when in government. The Western Australian Chamber of Mines 'provided lavish funding' for a public relations campaign 'based on the equal rights argument, its cornerstone the slogan 'land rights should be equal rights'[39]. The ALP then dropped the pursuit of land rights legislation. In the 1990s, after the Mabo decision and during debate of Howard's native title amendments, there was much commentary to the effect that Indigenous Australians were being accorded rights denied other Australians. Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party appealed to this view[40] and the truth became a casualty. This, of course, reiterates the importance of having a critically literate citizenry in the face of unbalanced media[41].

The notion of a 'fair go' is often invoked rhetorically to legitimise particular policy initiatives which may in fact be completely contrary to a reasonable (Australian) notion of what it comprises. It is important to investigate this deeply-rooted concept to see how it applies to various people. From the perspective of some Australians, including many Indigenous Australians, our society does not offer much of a 'fair go', as for example with mandatory sentencing regimes[42]. To listen to and appreciate the specific histories of Indigenous Australians is often quite challenging to mainstream comprehensions perhaps because there is such strong resistance to hearing and understanding Indigenous Australians, their desires and demands, due to the dubious (in the eyes of many) foundations on which this nation is based.

In more recent times the concept has been subjected to a line of analysis[43] which asserts that the dominant, mainstream notion of a fair go is based on seeing Australia as Anglo-Celtic and male. We should not forget that back in the 1960s Frank Hardy wrote The Unlucky Australians about Indigenous Australians, in particular the struggle of Gurindji and other Indigenous people at Wave Hill Station in the Northern Territory. Donald Horne was similarly concerned at the maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians in his often cited, but seldom heeded Lucky Country. The dominant stories about Australia since colonial times have been silent about, and misrepresent, many Australians. Subjecting the idea of a fair go and equal rights to scrutiny may evoke the principle 'to everyone according to their needs and from them according to their abilities'. Our consideration of these basic social and moral principles would also benefit by responding to the criticism that so-called universal human rights are Western constructs. We might argue that a concept of 'universal human needs' - 'for food, shelter, clothing; for affection, care and love; for dignity and identity, for knowledge and freedom, for leisure and joy'[44] is more appropriate.

Agreements

A positive development has been the increase, despite the climate set by the Coalition, in the range of agreements involving Indigenous Australians. They cover access to land, heritage protection, business opportunities, employment and job training, health and housing and include agreements between Indigenous organisations, from ATSIC to individual communities with entities such as local councils, mining companies, state governments and individual government departments, other corporations and pastoralists. These suggest some movement towards the recognition of the specific status of Indigenous Australians. Where communication between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is involved and where it entails ongoing relationships, mutual understandings are likely to grow.

We should note that organisations such as ATSIC and NIWG, have consistently advocated negotiation to address the issues of concern that Indigenous Australians have with the Australian state. Through 2001 the elected head of ATSIC, Geoff Clark, was very critical of the litigious approach of the Federal Government to resolving issues, referring to the multi-million dollar native title process, which seems to benefit lawyers and anthropologists rather than the Indigenous Australians which the system is intended to serve. It is also pertinent to note that in South Australia, negotiations addressing a statewide native title framework agreement have been pursued for some time, with the [former] State Government reporting that its approach is about resolving native title issues in such a way that claims are withdrawn. South Australian native title claimants reject this denial of their rights.

Another form of agreement recognised under the native title system, is the Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). In 2000-01, twenty ILUAs were finalised with the Native Title Tribunal's assistance, and the Tribunal gave support to the negotiation of a further forty-three. The president of the Tribunal, Graham Neate, suggests: 'We are moving as a nation from litigation towards mediation for the resolution of many native title applications', and further, that 'As more agreements are reached, there is a greater degree of confidence in agreement-making and a greater certainty about what can be achieved with agreements.' In these developments there is hope for the ongoing reconciliation process.

A qualification, however (as in the South Australian example above) is that the agreement-making process can reveal significant differences in approach and in the relative power of those involved in such negotiations; they can also reveal another aspect of information literacy. Parties coming to them with very different perspectives and positions: it might be that the Indigenous people have retained their own language and require translations; in north-east Arnhem Land there are different languages between the Yolngu and other parties in negotiations over mining. It is also evident that there were differences in the epistemologies of the parties, giving rise to quite different expectations[45]; for fair outcomes from such negotiations it is necessary that both sides become more informed of the other's language and belief systems. In the public reaction to the Stolen Generations issue we saw many Australians listening more to Indigenous Australians than perhaps ever before, suggesting that they are prepared to listen to the views and stories of Indigenous Australians, and to learn from them.

Does Australia have the capacity to progress these initiatives so that the life chances of Indigenous Australians are significantly improved? With a Prime Minister who appeals to and exploits knee-jerk, non-reflective base tendencies one despairs. His Government rejects the rights agenda articulated by ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner [of the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)], and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR)[46]. Under the present Government, with its neo-assimilationist 'practical reconciliation'[47] it is difficult to see much potential for a 'fair go' for Indigenous Australians, or for the resolution of the human rights issues applicable to them and which all Australians need to be settled justly if we are to enjoy a truly democratic community.

Hope comes from all of us engaged in the peoples' movement, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and stumbling and learning as we do it. A critical and information literate citizenry is crucial to the progress of the reconciliation process towards a more humane society. In the face of Government and corporate hostility to recognising Indigenous rights, the people's movement for reconciliation showed significant wider public support for a fair go for Indigenous Australians and for recognition of their rights; it resulted in a broader public interest in the life experiences of Indigenous Australians. The political double-speak that includes in its lexicon 'non-core promises', 'illegals' and 'practical reconciliation' impedes the opening-up of Australia to a more honest and mature self-appraisal. It seeks to maintain the Anglo male-dominated Australia and to secure the marginalisation of almost everyone else. Its view of equal rights and a fair go excludes many Australians, especially Indigenous Australians. It asserts that there should be no special rights for any group, that all should benefit from the same rights. Because of the apparent simplicity and popular appeal of this idea of 'equal rights', it is socially powerful and must be taken seriously; it cannot simply be ignored but must be subjected to critical evaluation if it is to be effectively countered.

Argument over what is a fair go is not new. Indigenous Australians have been struggling for a fair go in one way or another, for more than 200 years. It is an ongoing struggle and is not restricted to Indigenous Australians: the feminist movement has made some gains over recent years, establishing principles of equity that take some account of inherent differences. The struggle for a fair go for Indigenous Australians and for the acknowledgement of injustices imposed on them, is resisted so strongly because it raises major questions about the foundation of the nation. Perhaps it is also because the attitudes of the descendants of the original colonisers, their children and later immigrants, would have to change if they truly faced up to the initial dispossession of the land and subsequent injustices inflicted on Indigenous Australians.

These important issues will not go away: Indigenous Australians are not disappearing - quite the contrary - if current demographic trends continue, the number and proportion of Australians who are Indigenous will increase quite substantially by the middle of this century. A prerequisite for Australians to reach reasonable understandings of these debates, of the demands of Indigenous Australians is that they have access to good information. This is increasingly important, and unlikely, with a high concentration of media ownership. There is potential for new communication and information technologies to assist a healthy, democratic society. It is not, however, a certainty. The development of cyberspace, first in the west (northern hemisphere) and later into the south, also offers potential for extending the influence of the predominant industrial, capitalist, western-dominated, world economy. Content on the internet reflects this world economy; North America dominates. For citizens to make sense of, and effectively use, the new communication and information technologies requires effective critical faculties for evaluating the vast quantities of information available.

Conclusion

For those professionally engaged with, and interested to promote information literacy, it is appropriate that they assist in developing citizens' critical information literacy skills so they may rigorously examine their world. In formal educational contexts librarians do not directly determine what students do but opportunities exist in interaction with subject area teachers. In public libraries there is perhaps more scope for librarians to influence how citizens interact with information: this will include assisting access to critical information, but information literacy entails more than technological and literary competence. In the context of reconciliation in Australia, I suggest that a further challenge is to expand the information literacy of non-Indigenous Australians so that they can recognise and appreciate the specific cultures and histories of Indigenous Australians, their demands and their claims for social justice. It is a challenge that includes coming to terms with a different epistemology, a different understanding of our human, place in the world (for Westerners this usually means our world, we are its centre). Without suggesting that comprehensive (utopian) solutions to our world's problems await resolution by such cross-cultural communication, there are strong reasons for believing we can benefit from such effort. The challenge is more pertinent and urgent, the madder our world becomes. The challenge offers hope for us all.

The general public's access to good quality information about Indigenous Australians and the issues affecting them is critical to how our country deals with reconciliation and with the nature of Indigenous affairs policy generally. As most of the media seems unable, or refuses to access and disseminate serious and objective information, the role of facilities such as libraries in meeting the demands of a critically-informed populace will grow in importance.

References

1. Commonwealth of Australia 1991 The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Final report.

2. Crough, Greg 2001 A practical critique of practical reconciliation or What is the reality of Indigenous funding ANTaR/ACOSS Treaty Seminar 25 July [http://www.antar.org.au].

3. Henry Reynolds 1998 This whispering in our hearts St Leonards, Allen & Unwin argues (not comprehensively but with examples) that since colonisation there have continuously been non-Indigenous Australians who have rejected the dispossession and brutality of the treatment of the first Australians.

4. In 1996-97 ATSIC's appropriation was cut by $470 million over four years. In 2000-01 about half of Government's allocation to Indigenous programs was not through ATSIC; Government requires that about two thirds of ATSIC's budget is spent in three main areas, CDEP, housing and infrastructure, and native title. ATSIC. See Fact file on ATSIC funding [http//www.atsic.gov.au/fact_v_myth-fact_sheets/money.asp].

5. Position established in the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission in January 1993; its first incumbent was Mick Dodson. The comment regarding financial accountability is in the 1999 Social justice report p7; Dr. William Jonas was then Commissioner.

6. Jopson, Debra 2001 'Benefits bypassing Aborigines' The Sydney Morning Herald 22 September.

7. Bachelard, Michael 1997 The great land grab - what every Australian should know about Wik, Mabo and the Ten-Point Plan South Melbourne, Hyland House.

8. Hollinsworth, David 1998 Race and racism in Australia Second edition Katoomba, NSW Social Science Press p221.

9. In brief, the High Court said that native title could co-exist with pastoral leasehold, and where their provisions were in conflict, the pastoral lease would override the native title. Existing pastoral interests were not under challenge.

10. Among those represented were the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS), Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA), Oxfam/Community Aid Abroad, World Vision, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Youth Policy Action Coalition, Edmund Rice Centre and the Australian Catholic Social Justice Welfare Commission.

11. The first display was in front of Parliament House, Canberra in October 1997. Originally there were 120 000 plastic hands in the colours of the Aboriginal flag (red, black, yellow) and the Torres Strait Islander flag (blue, green, white). Through 1997 and 1998 installations were organised in many locations around the country, including a tour through the centre and west of the continent. ANTaR works with Indigenous people and artists to design the installations; large numbers of volunteers need to be organised to complete the full installations.

12. Deane, Sir William 1996 Some signposts from Daguragu: the inaugural Vincent Lingiari memorial lecture Canberra, AGPS p28. He began the conclusion to his August 1996 Inaugural Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture with these words: '...I am convinced that until true reconciliation with its indigenous peoples is reached, Australia is a diminished nation'.

13. Langton, Marcia 2000 A treaty between our nations? Inaugural professorial lecture, University of Melbourne [http://www.indigenous.unimelb.edu.au/treatylecture1.html].

14. Pearson, Christopher 2000 The need for scepticism in Grattan, Michelle (Ed) 2000 Essays on Australian reconciliation Melbourne, Black Inc p262.

15. Pearson, Christopher 2000 'The need for scepticism' in Grattan ibid p268.

16. Manne, Robert 2001 In denial, the stolen generations and the right (The Australian quarterly essay Issue 1).

17. Langton, Marcia 2000 op cit.

18. Bringing them home 1997 Report of the Inquiry into the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, National Archives of Australia.

19. Perhaps Australians had been primed for such increased sensitivity in this regard by the Labour government's primary focus on the economy; and perhaps the removal of the supposedly more socially progressive of the two main political party groupings from the Federal Government benches gave more scope and space for activists to publicly protest about Government policy.

20. Manne, Robert 2001 op cit.

21. Owen, Richard 1996 'Chilling the community: information literacy and the Hindmarsh Island bridge' The Australian Library Journal May p122.

22. Owen, Richard 1996 ibid p132.

23. Todd, Ross 2000 'Information literacy: concept, conundrum, and challenge' in Booker, Di (Ed) Concept, challenge, conundrum: from library skills to information literacy. Proceedings of the fourth national information literacy conference conducted by the University of South Australia Library and the Australian Library and Information Association Information Literacy Special Interest Group 3-5 December 1999 Adelaide, University of SA p30.

24. Todd, Ross 2000 'Information literacy: concept, conundrum, and challenge' in Booker, Di ibid p32.

25. Boyce, Susan 2000 'Second thoughts about information literacy', in Booker, Di ibid pp57-65.

26. Klein, Renate 1999 'The politics of cyberfeminism: if I'm a cyborg rather than a goddess will patriarchy go away?' in Hawthorne and Klein (Eds) 1999 Cyberfeminism. connectivity, critique and creativity North Melb , Spinifex pp185-212.

27. Stafford, Beth 1999 'Information for people or profits?' in Hawthorne and Klein ibid pp137-156.

28. Jordan (1999: 51) refers to one study which indicates that in mid-1998, sixty-five per cent of internet hosts were from the USA; 5.3 per cent were Canadian, and Japan and the United Kingdom both had four per cent of internet hosts.

29. Hawthorne, Susan 1999 'Connectivity: cultural practices of the powerful or subversion from the margins?' in Hawthorne, Susan and Renate Klein op cit p125.

30.

31. Stafford, Beth 1999 'Information for people or profits?' in Hawthorne and Klein ibid p155.

32. Johnson, Carol 2001 The treaty and dilemmas of Anglo-Celtic identity: from backlash to signatory [http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/rsrch/smnrs/papers/johnson.htm].

33. The native title system operates under the jurisdiction of the National Native Title Tribunal. These figures are from a media release of the Tribunal, 28 November 2001.

34. Roger Thomas, senior Kokotha man involved in a native title claim in the north of South Australia, has strongly criticised the native title system for creating and exacerbating divisions between Indigenous people in the north of South Australia. (Stated at the Australian Anthropological Society Native Title Conference, 6 July 2001).

35. Manne, Robert 2001 op cit

36. Most eloquently and powerfully expressed by former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, in his often cited December 1992 Redfern speech, on the occasion of welcoming the United Nations Year of Indigenous Peoples. It was also, of course, after the High Court's historic Mabo decision. The relevant passage in the speech appears to follow elements of Bruce Elder's Blood on the wattle originally published, Elder comments, as a 'reality check' to the backslapping self-congratulatory excesses of the 1988 Bicentennial celebrations'. Elder, Bruce 1998 Blood on the wattle, massacres and maltreatment of Aboriginal Australians since 1788 (rev ed) Frenchs Forest, NSW New Holland press.

37. Manne, Robert 2001 op cit.

38. Given the [Bennelong] society's rejection of the rights agenda articulated by Indigenous leaders, almost ad infinitum, it is doubtful that the society's use of the masthead, Bennelong, involved any consultation with Indigenous people local to the area. It has an aptness in that it is also the name of Prime Minister's electorate. Given his approach to Indigenous affairs (which also rejects the rights aspirations of Indigenous Australians), there is a good fit between the Government's policy approach and the leanings of the Bennelong society and its members.

39. Markus, Andrew 2001 Race: John Howard and the remaking of Australia Crows Nest, NSW, Allen and Unwin p59.

40. Manne, Robert (Ed) 1998 Two nations: the causes and effects of the rise of the One Nation Party in Australia Melbourne, Bookman Press.

41. Owen, Richard 1996 op cit.

42. Davis, Megan 2001 'Mandatory sentencing and the myth of the fair-go.' in Martin Nakata (ed) Indigenous peoples, racism and the United Nations Report of the Regional Meeting of Indigenous Peoples, Sydney Common Ground Publishing pp101-107.

43. Johnson, Carol 2001 op cit.

44. This suggestion is from Chilla Bullbeck who cites non-Western theorists Mies and Shiva in a discussion of 'Western feminism, a diverse post colonial world and coalition politics.' Bullbeck, Chilla 1998 Re-orienting western feminisms: women's diversity in a post-colonial world Cambridge, Cambridge University Press pp217-218.

45. Christie, Michael J and Bill Perrett 1996 'Negotiating resources: language, knowledge and the search for "secret English" in northeast Arnhem Land' in Howett, Richard with John Connell and Philip Hirsch (Eds) 1996 Resources, nations and Indigenous Peoples. Case studies from Australasia, Melanesia and Southeast Asia Melbourne, Oxford University Press pp57-65.

46. In the mid-1990s, these bodies, at different times separately, further developed the Indigenous rights agenda, including by way of processes involving considerable consultation with Indigenous Australians. HREOC is the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

47. Dodson, Patrick 2000 'Lingiari: until the chains are broken' in Grattan, Michelle (Ed) 2000 op cit p268

48. Shapiro, Jeremy J. and Shelley K. Hughes (1996) 'Information literacy as a liberal art', Educom review, 32, 1.

Biographical information

Glenn Giles has been involved in ANTaR since it began in mid-1997; he has been South Australian co-ordinator of the movement since August 1998. He has an MA in Labour Studies from Adelaide University and he has taught and researched in the sociology of work, industrial relations and political economy. His current appointment is at the Aboriginal Research Institute, University of South Australia. Contact him at gilesgd@senet.com.au.nospam (please remove '.nospam' from address) or ANTaR, 5 Hutt Street, Adelaide, 5000, phone 08 8227 0170.