Practising Reconciliation? the Politi Parliamentary Library Department of Parliamentary Services

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Practising Reconciliation? the Politi Parliamentary Library Department of Parliamentary Services Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Library • Practising reconciliation? The politi Department of Parliamentary Services Parliamentary Library PRACTISING RECONCILIATION? THE POLITICS OF RECONCILIATION IN THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT, 1991-2000 cs of reconciliation in the Australian Parliament, 1991-2000 cs of reconciliation in Dr Angela Pratt 2003 Australian Parliamentary Fellow Practising reconciliation? The politics of reconciliation in the Australian Parliament, 1991–2000 Dr Angela Pratt 2003 Australian Parliamentary Fellow ISBN 0-9752015-2-2 © Commonwealth of Australia 2005 Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of Parliamentary Services, other than by senators and members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties. This monograph has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Presiding Officers’ foreword Since its establishment in 1971, the Australian Parliamentary Fellowship has provided an opportunity for academic researchers to investigate and analyse aspects of the working of the Australian Parliament and the parliamentary process. The work of Dr Angela Pratt, the 2003 Australian Parliamentary Fellow, examines how the language of ‘reconciliation’ featured in parliamentary debates about Indigenous affairs policy between 1991 and 2000. In an unusual approach, Dr Pratt’s work uses the results of a content analysis of over 650 parliamentary speeches made during the period of the formal reconciliation process, 1991–2000, to examine the nature of the political language and discourse. She studies a series of key debates from this time, including those over native title, the ‘stolen generations’ and ‘practical reconciliation’. In doing so, Dr Pratt’s monograph provides a narrative of how, over the course of the ‘reconciliation decade’, Australia’s federal parliamentary representatives grappled with some of the most complex social and political issues of recent times. PAUL CALVERT DAVID HAWKER President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Representatives November 2005 iii Contents Presiding Officers’ foreword iii Overview vii Acknowledgments ix Chapter One: Introduction—Was ‘reconciliation’ the dawn of a new age in Australian politics? 1 Chapter Two: Legislating reconciliation—the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991 25 Chapter Three: Mabo and the native title legislation—reconciliation’s fragile consensus 47 Chapter Four: Towards social justice? 79 Chapter Five: Collision course—Wik, the stolen generations, and reconciliation under the Howard Government 101 Chapter Six: ‘Practical reconciliation’ 131 Chapter Seven: Beyond 2000 and the conclusion of the reconciliation decade 151 Appendix I—Chronology of events in the reconciliation process 159 Appendix II—Methodology used in content analysis 163 Appendix III—Interviews 167 Endnotes 171 Index 203 v Overview Since the Council for Reconciliation Act passed through the Australian Parliament in 1991, the term ‘reconciliation’ has become part of the lingua franca of Australian politics and public life. ‘Reconciliation’ is now a key idea in debates about Indigenous affairs policy in Australia, and discussions about Indigenous/non-Indigenous relations more generally. But just what does ‘reconciliation’ mean? This monograph traces the conceptual evolution of reconciliation over the period of the formal reconciliation process, 1991–2000. Using the results of a content analysis of over 650 parliamentary speeches during this period, the monograph examines how the idea of reconciliation functioned as a term of political discourse in a series of key debates. The chapters in the first half of the monograph discuss the parliamentary debates over the establishment of the reconciliation process itself in 1991, the debates over the Keating Government’s native title legislation in 1992–93 following the decision of the High Court of Australia in Mabo and Others v. Queensland (no. 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 (‘Mabo’), and those over a broader ‘social justice’ response to Mabo during 1994 and 1995. These chapters also highlight how the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation—the body charged by the parliament with overseeing the reconciliation process—advocated a broad, rights-based ‘social justice’ framework for reconciliation during this time. The chapters in the second half of the monograph examine how the election of the Howard Government was associated with a shift in direction for the reconciliation process after 1996. In particular, these chapters examine the parliamentary debates over reconciliation following the decision of the High Court in Wik Peoples v. Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 (‘Wik’), and those over Bringing Them Home, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s report into the separation of Indigenous children from their families. Part II also traces the emergence of the idea of ‘practical reconciliation’ since 1997, and how this idea differed from the broad ‘social justice’ reconciliation model that was pursued by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. This analysis shows that while the idea of ‘reconciliation’ now seems to be permanently part of the Australian political vocabulary, there is no universally accepted understanding of what the term means. Rather, the amorphous nature of the term ‘reconciliation’ allows a broad range of political players to attach their own different, at times contradictory, meanings to the term. It can be argued that this is one of reconciliation’s greatest strengths, in that it allows for a diverse range of views to co- exist. But at the same time, the lack of any coherent, shared understanding of vii Overview reconciliation arguably means that while ‘reconciliation’ is now a ubiquitous term in Australian political discourse, it is not an especially influential one. viii Acknowledgments It was an enormous privilege to take up the Parliamentary Fellowship in March 2003, and so my first debt of gratitude is to the joint Library Committee of the Parliament. I wish to thank the Committee for its support of this research project. I would also like to thank Dr June Verrier, former Head of the Parliamentary Library’s Information and Research Services Group, for her enthusiasm for and commitment to the Parliamentary Fellowship. The Fellowship has a fine tradition of supporting important scholarly work about Australian politics and the parliamentary process. I hope this work does that tradition justice. I am very grateful for the guidance of Dr Tim Rowse from the History Program at the Australian National University’s Research School of Social Sciences who acted as an external supervisor of this project. Tim is an extremely knowledgeable and generous scholar, and his advice throughout each stage of this research project has been invaluable. The quality of this finished product owes a great deal to Tim’s input (though of course all remaining flaws are my responsibility). I would also like to thank June Verrier and Gerry Newman for helpful comments on the final manuscript. One of the most exciting opportunities afforded by the Parliamentary Fellowship was the opportunity to interview the practitioners of Australian politics—the politicians themselves. I was also able to interview many participants in various aspects of the reconciliation process. While the voices of my interviewees do not feature prominently in this monograph, the interviews were an integral part of shaping the key themes and ideas herein. My sincere thanks to all of the busy people who so generously made themselves available to be interviewed for this research project in 2003. I wish to thank my many colleagues, past and present, in the Parliamentary Library for providing me with such a friendly, constructive and collegial environment in which to work since my first day in the Library in March 2003. In particular I would like to acknowledge the support of Carol Kempner and the staff of the Social Policy Section, and my good friends Dr Sarah Miskin, Dr Amanda Elliot, and my successor as Parliamentary Fellow, Dr Kate Burton. My thanks also to Richard Ryan and Maryanne Lawless for skilfully and patiently steering this monograph through the production process, and to Morag Donaldson for editing the manuscript (especially so close to the arrival of her daughter, Charlotte). Finally, I am ever grateful for the love, support and encouragement of my family. And last but never least, it is hard to find the words with which to adequately express my ix Acknowledgements thanks to my partner, Greg Smith. Like most things in my life, without his love and support, the mountain that was this monograph would have been much harder to climb. Angela Pratt Canberra, September 2005 x Chapter One: Introduction—Was ‘reconciliation’ the dawn of a new age in Australian politics? I believe we stand on the threshold of a new era … we have before us here a very auspicious beginning. —Senator Patricia Giles, Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Bill debates, 1991 At just after 6.30pm on 5 June 1991, the House of Representatives unanimously passed the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Bill, setting in train the process of reconciliation which
Recommended publications
  • The Productivity Commission April 2013 The
    Agency Snapshot: The Productivity Commission April 2013 The Productivity Commission is one of Australia’s most highly respected research and advisory bodies, and is regarded as the Federal Government’s principal advisory body on all aspects of microeconomic reform. Established under the Productivity Commission Act 1998 (Cth), the Productivity Commission came into effect in April 1998 following the amalgamation of the Industry Commission, Bureau of Industry Economics and the Economic Planning Advisory Commission. The Productivity Commission is an independent statutory authority within the Treasury portfolio, with the current ten commissioners appointed on five-year terms. Contents Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Productivity Commission Act 1998 .......................................................................................................... 2 Members of the Productivity Commission ............................................................................................... 2 Influence on Policy-Making ...................................................................................................................... 3 The Process ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Inquiries reported in the 43rd Parliament ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Racial Discrimination
    Individuals 329 IX INDIVIDUALS Discrimination - racial discrimination - International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination - Articles 4 and 14 - Australian implementation On 21 August 1990 the Attorney-General, Mr Duffy, provided the following written answer in part to a question on notice (HR Deb 1990, Vol 172, p 1214): The only State which to date has legislated against racial vilification is New South Wales, which did so in 1989. No. Australia has made a reservation to Article 4. It is still too early to assess the effectiveness of the NSW legislation, and the Government is also awaiting the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's National Inquiry into Racist Violence. Article 14 of the Convention provides for States Parties to declare their recognition of the competence of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to receive and consider communications from individuals and groups within that State Party who have exhausted all available domestic remedies. Australia has not to date made such a declaration, but the issue is one that is on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorney-General for consideration, together with the related issues of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR) and the declaration that may be made under Article 41 of the ICCPR. On 21 December 1990 the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Senator Gareth Evans, provided the following written answer in part to a question on notice (HR Deb 1990, Vol174, pp 4999-5000): Since 1983, the Australian Government has undertaken extensive consultations with the State and Territory Governments in relation to accession to the First Optional Protocol, both individually and through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberal Women: a Proud History
    <insert section here> | 1 foreword The Liberal Party of Australia is the party of opportunity and choice for all Australians. From its inception in 1944, the Liberal Party has had a proud LIBERAL history of advancing opportunities for Australian women. It has done so from a strong philosophical tradition of respect for competence and WOMEN contribution, regardless of gender, religion or ethnicity. A PROUD HISTORY OF FIRSTS While other political parties have represented specific interests within the Australian community such as the trade union or environmental movements, the Liberal Party has always proudly demonstrated a broad and inclusive membership that has better understood the aspirations of contents all Australians and not least Australian women. The Liberal Party also has a long history of pre-selecting and Foreword by the Hon Kelly O’Dwyer MP ... 3 supporting women to serve in Parliament. Dame Enid Lyons, the first female member of the House of Representatives, a member of the Liberal Women: A Proud History ... 4 United Australia Party and then the Liberal Party, served Australia with exceptional competence during the Menzies years. She demonstrated The Early Liberal Movement ... 6 the passion, capability and drive that are characteristic of the strong The Liberal Party of Australia: Beginnings to 1996 ... 8 Liberal women who have helped shape our nation. Key Policy Achievements ... 10 As one of the many female Liberal parliamentarians, and one of the A Proud History of Firsts ... 11 thousands of female Liberal Party members across Australia, I am truly proud of our party’s history. I am proud to be a member of a party with a The Howard Years ..
    [Show full text]
  • Scangate Document
    P lu n g in g 5 into politics Should sports stars dive in? When you consider what makes a successful politician, three things stand out: to succeed, a politician must be reasonably popular, they should have a fairly high profile, and most important of all, they have to be credible. If that’s basically what it takes, there’s a select band of Australians boots. "Some translate their public standing into lucrative who have all the right qualifications in spades - Australia’s top sponsorship deals, or a career as a commentator," she says. sports people. Jackie Kelly says sitting politicians are lucky that more elite sports Most of our best sportsmen and women boast the sort of profile people don’t attempt to win seats in Parliament. “They’d do very and popularity a politician would kill for, and it seems everything a well,” she says, "at least initially. However, when they came to put sports star utters, no matter how banal, finds its way into the media. themselves up for a second term, they'd be assessed just like every other politician." It’s surprising then that so few of our top athletes have translated their public standing into a political career. The Member for the ACT seat of Fraser, Bob McMullan, has never represented his country in sport, but the Shadow Minister for There are some notable exceptions, among them cycling great Aboriginal Affairs is a self-confessed sports nut. He also knows what Sir Hubert Opperman who represented the seat of Corio in the political parties are looking for in their candidates, having served as House of Representatives between 1949 and 1967, and held an ALP State and National Secretary before entering Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Council
    3960 Questions without Notice [COUNCIL what steps does the Government intend Legislative Council to take to implement those recommenda­ Wednesday, 2 December 1981 tions, particularly in light of the recently announced proposal to take over the Herald and Weekly Times organization? The PRESIDENT (the Hon. F. S. Grim­ The Hon. HAD DON STOREY wade) took the chair at 12.19 p.m. and (Attorney-General) -The Norris com­ read the prayer. mittee recommendations were far reach­ ing and very extensive in terms of the CREDIT BILL steps which may be taken in relation to the print media in this State. Accord­ This Bill was received from the ingly, the Government released the re­ Assembly and, on the motion of the Hon. port so everybody would have an oppor­ HADDON STOREY (Attorney-General), tunity to read it, to consider it and to was read a first time. make comment upon it. When the Gov­ ernment is in receipt of views or is in a GOODS (SALES AND LEASES) BILL position to receive views on that report. This Bill was received from the it will do so, but it has made no deter­ 'Assembly and, on the motion of the Hon. mination at this stage to implement the HADDON STOREY (Attorney-General), recommendations of that report. Cer­ was read a first time. tainly the Government will look at it and, in looking at it, will take note of CHATTEL .SECURITIES BILL the recently reported proposal referred This Bill was received from the to by Mr Landeryou. Assembly and, on the motion of the Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • A Diachronic Study of Unparliamentary Language in the New Zealand Parliament, 1890-1950
    WITHDRAW AND APOLOGISE: A DIACHRONIC STUDY OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE IN THE NEW ZEALAND PARLIAMENT, 1890-1950 BY RUTH GRAHAM A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics Victoria University of Wellington 2016 ii “Parliament, after all, is not a Sunday school; it is a talking-shop; a place of debate”. (Barnard, 1943) iii Abstract This study presents a diachronic analysis of the language ruled to be unparliamentary in the New Zealand Parliament from 1890 to 1950. While unparliamentary language is sometimes referred to as ‘parliamentary insults’ (Ilie, 2001), this study has a wider definition: the language used in a legislative chamber is unparliamentary when it is ruled or signalled by the Speaker as out of order or likely to cause disorder. The user is required to articulate a statement of withdrawal and apology or risk further censure. The analysis uses the Communities of Practice theoretical framework, developed by Wenger (1998) and enhanced with linguistic impoliteness, as defined by Mills (2005) in order to contextualise the use of unparliamentary language within a highly regulated institutional setting. The study identifies and categorises the lexis of unparliamentary language, including a focus on examples that use New Zealand English or te reo Māori. Approximately 2600 examples of unparliamentary language, along with bibliographic, lexical, descriptive and contextual information, were entered into a custom designed relational database. The examples were categorised into three: ‘core concepts’, ‘personal reflections’ and the ‘political environment’, with a number of sub-categories. This revealed a previously unknown category of ‘situation dependent’ unparliamentary language and a creative use of ‘animal reflections’.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Issn 0813-5614
    VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES (INCORPORATED) ACN 002 545 235 Patron: Prof Peter Baume AO FRACP FRACGP Telephone: (02) 9212 4782 NEWSLETTER ISSN 0813-5614 Number 108 March 2006 DR FAYE GIRSH VISITS In October 2005, on her way to Brisbane for the EXIT conference, Dr Faye Girsh came to Sydney to address the VES meeting. Her Contents talk was both interesting and entertaining, greatly appreciated by the members present. Dr Faye Girsh 1 On the Board of the World Federation of Right-to-Die Societies, Dr Girsh also edits the newsletter. ‘What is going on in the world For your diary 3 is very important because there is nothing that happens in Sydney, in Denver where I live, or in Switzerland, that doesn’t affect the Exit Conference 6 rest of us in the movement,’ she told the meeting. While she always AGM Guest Speaker 6 enjoys visiting Australia, Dr Girsh was particularly pleased to be here in 2005, the 10th anniversary of the first voluntary euthanasia Euthanasia's Growing law in the world. Acceptance 7 Dr Girsh spoke about the Australian Federal anti-suicide legislation (which came into effect in January 2006), labelling it ‘an Central Coast News 8 abomination’ and predicting that this Bill will affect everybody in the world – those of us in the movement, but also the broader North Rivers News 8 aspect of civil liberties. ‘At the recent meeting of the World Letter from Holland 9 Federation of the Right-to-Die Societies in Turin, Italy, everybody was very concerned that this could have an affect on other countries, Assisted Suicides in Belgium 9 especially the USA that has the same kind of censorship mentality,’ she said.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Stories of Social Enterprise
    Australian Stories of Social Enterprise Cheryl Kernot and Joanne McNeill First Edition © Copyright The University of New South Wales 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced without permission from the publishers or their agents. Published by The University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW, 2052 Design, layout and printing by Breakout Design Print Web National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Authors: Cheryl Kernot and Joanne McNeill Title: Australian Social Enterprises: Stories of Challenge ISBN: 978-0-9808764-1-3 Subjects: Social business enterprise, Social firm, Impact maximization, Social entrepreneurship, Social business, Social responsibility, Public/social/ private partnership, Grameen family of organizations, Social venture capital, Corporate social responsibility, Corporate Social Entrepreneurship, Citizen enterprise Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the participation of all the interviewees. We understand that every time we ask these busy people to participate in sector development activities we take them away from running their enterprises. Their efforts are central to growing this emerging sector and we honour those efforts as they undertake the challenges of their respective social enterprises. We would also like to acknowledge the support of our respective employers. This includes the patience our colleagues and team mates have afforded us while we have juggled our responsibilities. This project is an extension of our core roles and we greatly appreciate the time that has been extended to us to make it happen. A special acknowledgement goes to Ananya Nandakumar at CSI who has been an invaluable support in transcribing, researching, writing, proofing and overseeing contract details. Methodology The project has sought to provide a vehicle for Australian social enterprise practitioners to tell their stories.
    [Show full text]
  • From Constitutional Convention to Republic Referendum: a Guide to the Processes, the Issues and the Participants ISSN 1328-7478
    Department of the Parliamentary Library INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES •~J..>t~)~.J&~l<~t~& Research Paper No. 25 1998-99 From Constitutional Convention to Republic Referendum: A Guide to the Processes, the Issues and the Participants ISSN 1328-7478 © Copyright Commonwealth ofAustralia 1999 Except to the exteot of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department ofthe Parliamentary Library, other than by Senators and Members ofthe Australian Parliament in the course oftheir official duties. This paper has been prepared for general distribntion to Senators and Members ofthe Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced,the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian govermnent document. IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members and their staffbut not with members ofthe public. , ,. Published by the Department ofthe Parliamentary Library, 1999 INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICES , Research Paper No. 25 1998-99 From Constitutional Convention to Republic Referendum: A Guide to the Processes, the Issues and the Participants Professor John Warhurst Consultant, Politics and Public Administration Group , 29 June 1999 Acknowledgments This is to acknowledge the considerable help that I was given in producing this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Inaugural Speech of the Honourable David Clarke
    INAUGURAL SPEECH OF THE HONOURABLE DAVID CLARKE The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [8.11 p.m.] (Inaugural speech): I also oppose this legislation. In speaking for the first time I do so with a great and abiding recognition of the responsibilities that my new office places upon me and with the hope that my time spent here will be productive in service to the people of New South Wales. I come to this House as one who by conviction and belief respects, supports and upholds its history and traditions. As a member of the Legislative Council I will resist with all the vigour I can any and all attempts to bring about this House's demise, to weaken its powers or to diminish its stature and traditions in any way. Over the years many outstanding and distinguished members have served in this Chamber. The late Jim Cameron was a member whose values and social beliefs I identify with. He had a unique and inspirational capacity to espouse values in noble and uplifting language as befits such noble values. A former and distinguished President of the House, Johno Johnson, representing an historic political institution of our country, the Australian Labor Party, has also been courageous, forthright and determined, especially in his elevation of the family, his defence of the right to life of the unborn child and his denunciation of abortion. He continues to champion these causes outside this Chamber. I deem it an honour to find myself serving in this House at the same time as Deputy-President Reverend the Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Shadow Ministry
    Shadow Ministry 26 October 2004 - 28 January 2005 Leader of the Opposition Mark Latham Deputy Leader of the Opposition Shadow Minister for Education, Training, Science & Research Jenny Macklin, MP Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Shadow Minister for Social Security Senator Chris Evans Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Shadow Minister for Communications and Information Technology Senator Stephen Conroy Shadow Minister Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House Julia Gillard, MP Shadow Treasurer Wayne Swan, MP Shadow Minister Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations Stephen Smith, MP Shadow Minister Foreign Affairs and International Security Kevin Rudd, MP Shadow Minister Defence and Homeland Security Robert McClelland, MP Shadow Minister Trade The Hon Simon Crean, MP Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources and Tourism Martin Ferguson, MP Shadow Minister for Environment and Heritage Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House Anthony Albanese, MP Shadow Minister for Public Administration and Open Government Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation Shadow Minister for the Arts Senator Kim Carr Shadow Minister Regional Development and Roads, Housing and Urban Development Kelvin Thomson, MP Shadow Minister for Finance and Superannuation Senator Nick Sherry Shadow Minister for Work, Family and Community Shadow Minister for Youth and Early Childhood Education Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on the Status of Women Tanya Plibersek, MP Shadow Minister Employment and Workplace
    [Show full text]
  • Social Entrepreneurship in Far North Queensland: Public Forum
    geralt | pixabay.com/photo - 550763/ Social Entrepreneurship has become a global phenomenon and is a major source of social change and social innovation. It is a significant part of the economies of many countries and forms 8.7% of the broader entrepreneurial activity in Australia. This Public Forum brings together all those with an interest in social enterprise including social entrepreneurs, non-governmental agencies, policy makers, academics, students and funders. The key focus of the Forum will be to explore the potential and to chart a new direction towards developing social entrepreneurship in Far North Queensland. Free event but please register at events.jcu.edu.au/SocialEntreForum Keynote speaker Cheryl Kernot plus short presentations by social entrepreneurs, and group work on building a social entrepreneurship network in FNQ Cheryl Kernot is one of the National Trust's 100 National Living Treasures. She was a member of the Australian Senate representing Queensland for the Australian Democrats from 1990 to 1997, and was the fifth leader of the Australian Democrats from 1993 to 1997. Recently, she worked in the UK as the program director for the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurs at the Said Business School at Oxford University and later, as the director of learning at the School for Social Entrepreneurs in London. After six years in these roles in the UK, she moved back to Australia. Cheryl is currently the Social Business Fellow at the Centre for Social Impact. Her role at CSI involves providing thought leadership on social business, social enterprise and social procurement. She writes regularly on these topics, speaks at events throughout Australia and advises emerging talent and organizations.
    [Show full text]