For all of us—for none of you? Practical reconciliation

Payne, A-M

For all of us—for none of you? Practical reconciliation

Payne, A-M

Permalink

Publisher:: Aboriginal Studies Press
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: DOES THE MEDIA FAIL ABORIGINAL POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS? 45 years of news media reporting of key political moments, 2019, pp. 138-155
Issue Date:: 2019-02-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Binder6 (1).pdf	Published version	12.44 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Payne, A-M
dc.date.accessioned	2023-01-06T05:33:32Z
dc.date.available	2023-01-06T05:33:32Z
dc.date.issued	2019-02-01
dc.identifier.citation	DOES THE MEDIA FAIL ABORIGINAL POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS? 45 years of news media reporting of key political moments, 2019, pp. 138-155
dc.identifier.isbn	9780855750848
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/164751
dc.description.abstract	John Howard’s 1996 election slogan ‘For all of us’ was characterised by Noel Pearson as ‘a racist and divisive campaign slogan’, communicating the subliminal message that under the Keating government Aboriginal people had been ‘living it up’ at the expense of middle Australia, whereas Howard unapologetically offered ‘an uninclusive government for middle Australia’ (Pearson, 1996: 29). Howard’s claim to be governing ‘For all of us’, in Pearson’s interpretation excluded Aboriginal people, and in fact drew a line between non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal Australians: ‘For all of us—for none of you’. The Howard government’s agenda in Aboriginal policy played firmly to middle Australia. Apologies and treaties, the government said or implied, made non-Aboriginal people uncomfortable and were in any case empty symbolic gestures which made little to no difference in the everyday lives of Aboriginal people. The focus of the previous Labor governments on Aboriginal rights—both human rights and land rights—had been overdone, and needed to be balanced with greater emphasis on the responsibilities of Aboriginal people to themselves, to their communities and to the nation. What was needed instead of symbols and rights, Howard proclaimed, was a stronger focus on practical measures which would address Aboriginal social disadvantage and expand the opportunities available to Aboriginal people. ‘Practical reconciliation’ captured this shift in thinking, reflecting a rejection of the politics of regret and guilt and arguing that Aboriginal disadvantage needed to be addressed to enable full participation of Aboriginal people in the Australian nation. However, its profoundly limited vision—dismissing the significance of acknowledging the past and focusing on contemporary disadvantage—failed to make the connection that Aboriginal disadvantage today is a legacy of the very long history Howard was so keen to avoid.
dc.format.extent	1
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Aboriginal Studies Press
dc.relation.ispartof	DOES THE MEDIA FAIL ABORIGINAL POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS? 45 years of news media reporting of key political moments
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.title	For all of us—for none of you? Practical reconciliation
dc.type	Chapter
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences/FASS Faculty Administration
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2023-01-06T05:33:28Z
pubs.place-of-publication	Australia
pubs.publication-status	Published online
dc.location	Australia

Abstract:

John Howard’s 1996 election slogan ‘For all of us’ was characterised by Noel Pearson as ‘a racist and divisive campaign slogan’, communicating the subliminal message that under the Keating government Aboriginal people had been ‘living it up’ at the expense of middle Australia, whereas Howard unapologetically offered ‘an uninclusive government for middle Australia’ (Pearson, 1996: 29). Howard’s claim to be governing ‘For all of us’, in Pearson’s interpretation excluded Aboriginal people, and in fact drew a line between non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal Australians: ‘For all of us—for none of you’. The Howard government’s agenda in Aboriginal policy played firmly to middle Australia. Apologies and treaties, the government said or implied, made non-Aboriginal people uncomfortable and were in any case empty symbolic gestures which made little to no difference in the everyday lives of Aboriginal people. The focus of the previous Labor governments on Aboriginal rights—both human rights and land rights—had been overdone, and needed to be balanced with greater emphasis on the responsibilities of Aboriginal people to themselves, to their communities and to the nation. What was needed instead of symbols and rights, Howard proclaimed, was a stronger focus on practical measures which would address Aboriginal social disadvantage and expand the opportunities available to Aboriginal people. ‘Practical reconciliation’ captured this shift in thinking, reflecting a rejection of the politics of regret and guilt and arguing that Aboriginal disadvantage needed to be addressed to enable full participation of Aboriginal people in the Australian nation. However, its profoundly limited vision—dismissing the significance of acknowledging the past and focusing on contemporary disadvantage—failed to make the connection that Aboriginal disadvantage today is a legacy of the very long history Howard was so keen to avoid.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/164751