'Today, I have been asked to honour a remarkable Australian in this Judith Wright Address by talking about reconciliation, an ideal, and a process to which she contributed much. As it has become defined over the last decade, true reconciliation is a mosaic of many strands, including social justice and equity; recognition of Indigenous peoples' cultures, traditions and rights - including Native Title; mutual respect and a shared common future; and formal settlement of 'unfinished business' through negotiation of a treaty or agreement. Today I want to mainly discuss the treaty issue as this was especially close to Judith Wright's heart and was the focus of much of her work. My fellow Board member and Co-Chair of Reconciliation Australia, Fred Chaney, will comment later on the relationship of these issues to Native Title.' (Introduction)
'In European law a treaty is an object somewhat analogous to a business contract, but is this contractual model what is commonly understood (outside of the "interpretive community'" of legal experts) to be a treaty? That is, is this the model that the ever-increasing numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and non-Indigenous Australians who devote time to the concept of a treaty are thinking of? In other words, are those who call for a treaty calling simply for a business contract, for legislative action, or are they calling for justice, improved justice, reparative justice, and the subsequent development and maintenance of respectful relations? While law is ostensibly an attempt to deliver justice, the question as to whether law can guarantee justice or if law is the only avenue (or even the primary avenue) through which justice is achieved needs to be considered'. Because justice is not the sole property of legal discourse this paper attempts to clarify the concept of a treaty (a fundamentally legal construct)' outside of the parameters o flegal discourse.' (Introduction)
