Reconciliation as a Moral Injunction

Howards reconciliation discourse did not operate as a discourse about justice as reconciliation discourses have historically done; it operated as a regulatory discourse. It established new parameters around reconciliation defining what it was and was not to be. Reconciliation was not about reconciling the past or restitutions for past wrongs or delivering justice and rights to Indigenous peoples. Howards reconciliation speeches went as far as serving the purpose of constructing Indigenous rights, such as native title rights and a treaty, as a threat to the social fabric of Australian society. Howards reconciliation discourse functioned as more than an exercise in nation building; it functioned to discursively construct a particular moral and social order. His discourse constituted moral codes for society and operated as a technology for regulating social relations. In this paper, I examine this proposition. I seek to demonstrate how Howards reconciliation discourse was is an ethical standpoint, which altered the moral codes and ethical practices governing not only reconciliation in Australia, but also Indigenous rights.