Donations to this website for ongoing research are most welcome
What's the sound of one hand clapping?
Australian governments have always gone to great lengths to show that they have the best interests of Aborigines at heart. One of the earliest examples came when Convicts tried to forcefully steal fishing tackle from the local Aborigines. Although the Convicts were thoroughly thrashed by people well skilled in hand-to-hand combat, Governor Phillip decided they needed an extra lesson and that the Aborigines needed to be made aware that he was on their side. Consequently, he had the Convicts tied up and given a flogging in the presence of Arababoo, an Aborigine that Governor Phillip had kidnapped for the purpose of opening a cross-cultural dialogue. Arabanoo was made aware of the reasons for the punishment as well as its necessity, but he expressed disgust and terror only.
Phillip's desire to appear as an Aboriginal protector filtered into government and shaped all future policy. Specifically, Australian governments created Aboriginal "protectors" and passed laws that stipulated who Aborigines could marry, who they could socialise with, what they could wear, how they could spend their money, what they could drink and where they could travel. These laws were created to advance Aborigines and protect them against exploitation by immoral whites. While the policies were dehumanising for Aborigines, it should be stressed that the people most prosecuted under these laws were not Aborigines, but non-Aborigines who associated with Aborigines. In that regard, non-Aborigines were also victims of the policies.
Aborigines have not always concurred that Australian governments had their best interests at heart and some have wanted some kind of freedom to make their own decisions. Consequently, in 1972 a group of activists formed a tent embassy on the laws of Parliament House in Canberra where they have stayed for 40 years. As far as much of the Australian population was concerned, what exactly they wanted was never really defined.
The challenge for Aboriginal activism has always been that opponents have never met the activism head on. In reference to social clashes, the Chinese have a saying that one hand can't clap. In Australia, when the black hand has swung forth for change, rather than a white hand swinging forth to clash with it, the white hand has instead come behind the black and pushed it in a certain direction. Sometimes the white hand has believed it was helping. Sometimes the white hand saw an opportunity to manipulate Aboriginal protest for its own advantage.
In 2012, a white hand from the office of the Prime Minister Julia Gillard definitely saw an opportunity to use the black hand for its own advantage. In combination with ABC journalists and a union official, Gillard's press secretary spread a false rumour amongst Aborigines protesting in Canberra that the opposition leader wanted to tear down the Aboriginal tent embassy. Accompanying the rumour was information about where the opposition leader could be found. The manipulation was only exposed when the Aborigines turned on the prime minister as well and the plan to set an Aboriginal mob on the opposition leader was leaked to a talkback radio host. Although it was a particularly obvious example of manipulation, other examples can be found in most policy documents relating to Aborigines in Australia.
Losing control of a protest
To be recognised as Aboriginal, or to have others not recognised as Aboriginal.
Collectively, the three tiers of Australian government have scholarships, jobs, affordable housing, welfare, and social assistance reserved for Aboriginal people. The benefits on offer have provided an incentive for people who have had a distant Aboriginal ancestor to seek to be recognised as Aboriginal.
The tendency of white people to refer to themselves as black has concerned some Aborigines who are black. For example, on SBS’s insight, a black skinned Aborigine named Dallas Scott explained how his experience as an Aborigine was different from the white Aborigines on the basis of his skin colour. He gave an example of how the other Aborigines in the audience could walk out of the studio and easily hail a taxi because they looked white; however, he would struggle because he was black. Scott also explained that when he applied for a certificate of Aboriginality, it was denied, even though he was obviously of Aboriginal descent. Scott had been told that the certificate had been denied for political reasons.
Northern Territory MP and full blood Aboriginal woman Bess Price has also expressed concern that people with a dubious link to Aboriginality are claiming to be Aboriginal. For Price, the concern seems to be that the white Aborigines are recogniseed as cultural experts despite having no links to culture. Price has likened the situation to an American with a distant Russian ancestor being appointed to a diplomatic position to Russia on the grounds that he or she is Russian and therefore has knowledge of the culture. Just as Russians would be somewhat offended when having to deal with such a person that really doesn’t have insights into Russian culture, Price has been offended by having to deal with the white Aborigines that claim to be cultural experts but really know nothing at all.
The white Aborigines have usually reacted with hostility when their Aboriginality has been questioned. For example, some white Aborigines who had their Aboriginality questioned by white journalist Andrew Bolt took his to court for racial discrimination. Bolt was found guilty and ordered to cease making the claims that they were identifying with Aboriginality for personal advantage.
One white Aborigine, Kerryn Pholi, gained numerous benefits from her identification but then decided that the whole system was racist and she subsequently destroyed her certificate of Aboriginality. When explaining her actions, Pholi wrote:
Cultural awareness in education
Some Aborigines want cultural education to be a two-way street. As well as learning from mainstream Australia, they want mainstream Australia to learn about and understand them. Because the government has been very open to such requests, it funds cultural awareness lessons for police, social workers, health workers and teachers. The aim of the lessons is to help the organisations understand how Aborigines think so that the cultural understandings (stereotypes) can be relied upon when Aborigines are encountered.
The actual research that has been used to conclude how Aborigines think has sometimes been highly dubious. In the case of some of the education programs, the instructor is often deemed to have insight into the Aboriginal mind because he or she has some Aboriginal ancestry. Defining someone as an expert on Aboriginal cultures because he or she has some Aboriginal ancestry is a bit like defining someone an expert on winemaking because he or she has French ancestry or someone as an expert on cricket because he or she has British ancestry. In reality, cultural insights are not recorded in DNA. Rather than skin colour, initiation scars may have been a more valuable visual cue to decide if someone knew about culture.
Just as dubious methods have been used to define the experts of Aboriginal culture, the experts' conclusions and the use of their conclusions has sometimes been highly dubious as well. In education, researchers Hughes, More and Williams (2004) created a set of criteria that they deemed to define Aboriginal learning styles. Specifically, they wrote:
Although the research might have been well intentioned, the research was extremely racist because it homogenised behaviour and learning style on the basis of genetic ancestry. In truth, in any group of people, there are a diversity of learning styles and behaviours. Irrespective of whether someone has Aboriginal ancestry or not, some people are visual, some linguistic, some kinetic, some introverted, some extroverted, some considerate to others and some egocentric. Admittedly, individuals are socialised in a culture defined by some common behavioural styles, but Aboriginal cultures throughout Australia are not uniform and cultures never completely suppress individual personality. For example, some Caucasion Australians see the group as more important than the individual despite individualism being championed in Australian myths while some Chinese put themselves before the group despite Chinese cultural myths advocating the opposite.
In Queensland, a program designed to show respect to Aborigines was an example of the racism turned into a lesson. A silly curriculum writer proposed using rocks and leaves to teach Indigenous perspectives in a maths lesson. (1) It seemed a great idea to a principle who subsequently instructed a teacher to issue rocks and leaves to an Indigenous student as part of the program. (Other students in the class were to be given calculators.) The teacher on the coalface found it highly racist and refused. Perhaps the principle was just an idiot, but the more likely explanation was that he or she wanted their resume to state that he or she had implemented a learning program to help Aboriginal students. Such a line would definately help their career, irrespective of whether it harmed the Aboriginal students.
Arguably, the stereotypes of Aboriginal learning styles are defined to justify the style of teaching, not to meet the needs of Aboriginal students. Specifically, the stereotypes suit the teacher that wants to get away from fact retention, writing and sequential planning in favour of some kind of holistic creativity that he or she can make up on the day. Catering to "disadvantaged Aboriginal students" becomes the justification for the style of teaching and the exercises created. While giving an Aboriginal kid leaves and stones in a maths lesson may be visual, unstructured, contextual and a good example of trial and error learning, showing the student how to use a calculator would have opened far more doors.
It isn’t only High Schools that have implemented cultural awareness lessons of dubious merit. Aboriginal man Dallas Scott has taken aim at Monash University for stereotyping Aboriginal women as abused and Aboriginal men as oppressive under the guise of cultural awareness. According to Scott:
The right to be targeted for race-specific laws made by the Federal government
When the Australian constitution was written, the Federal government was given the power to make laws targeted at any race except Aborigines. The intention of these laws was to give the Federal government the power to discriminate against Chinese and Pacific Island labour that was undermining union power, or pass laws that could advantage whites who might be having trouble competing with non-white labour.
Although the Federal government could not make laws targeted at Aborigines, state governments could. They used this power to create laws aimed at protecting Aborigines, but in truth, dehumanised and isolated them. For example, the consorting provisions of the South Australian Police Act were designed to protect Aboriginal women from white "sexual predators", but they were also used to prevent socialising between men. One white Australian man even discovered that he was breaking the law because he gave his Aboriginal mate a trip to work.
Not only were Aborigines victims of these laws, so were whites who wanted to socialise with Aborigines. In all probability, many of the white men who abandoned the children they had with Aboriginal women only did so because they could have been prosecuted for having relationships with Aboriginal women. Even if they weren’t prosecuted, the social stigma created by the laws would have persuaded many men to run away from their relationships.Aside from leading to tens of thousands of abandoned children, the extreme nanny laws probably contributed to severe substance abuse problems in many Aboriginal communities today. For Australia’s first 150 years, alcohol abuse was a problem in all sections of Australian society. In fact, the first European settlers in Australia drank more alcohol per head of population than any other community in the history of mankind. Concerned citizens wanted to have alcohol banned outright, but only managed to have laws created that prohibited it being supplied to Aborigines. Mainstream Australia started to get the abuse under control because they could freely drink in the front of the bar where other patrons could help educate them about drinking etiquette or security could protect patrons against those who were being abusive. In other words, by being able to drink openly, they eventually created a culture of drinking responsibly. Unlike it was with mainstream Australia, Aboriginal drinking was pushed underground. Because it was illegal to supply Aborigines with alcohol, they were often sold grog out the back door of the hotel in what became known as the "dog box". They subsequently went to parks where they drank with children, without supervision of security and without the kind of etiquette that developed in pubs.
By the 1960s, it had become quite apparent that state governments were not using the power wisely and that it was problematic having different laws for different states. Consequently, the Federal government proposed a referendum aimed at extending its race power laws to include Aborigines. The aim was not to discriminate against Aborigines, but to discriminate in their favour (as the states believed they had been doing.) The Australian public at large probably didn’t know much about the Federal government's exact intentions or the laws themselves, but equality sounded like a good thing and 90% voted yes.
Not all Aborigines were happy with the result of the referendum either. The chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu said:
Aborigines on the eastern half of Australia gained the rights of British citizens in 1772 when Captain Cook claimed eastern Australia for Great Britain. They claimed Australian citizenship rights in 1948 when Australian citizenship was created.
Admittedly, Aborigines' status as Australian citizens was restricted by state laws defining them as Aborigines in need of special protection. To claim equal citizenship, Aborigines had to stop being classed as Aborigines. In an absurd case, artist Albert Namatjira was prosecuted for sharing alcohol with his family. Namatjira had taken out full Australian citizenship, which gave him permission to drink alcohol, but because his family had not, he was not allowed to share a drink with them.
When the colonies of Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and NSW framed their constitutions in the 1850s, they gave the vote to all male subjects over the age of 21, Aborigines included. Admittedly, most Aborigines didn’t know about their voting rights and perhaps didn’t care. It wasn’t until the 1890s that any Aborigines actually commenced voting.
When the various colonies federated into one nation in 1901, Aborigines were not given the federal vote; however, they did retain their state voting rights and these state voting rights gave them federal voting rights. Under section 41 of the federal constitution, any person who held a state vote also held a federal vote. Legally, Aborigines in NSW, Tasmania, Victoria, and South Australia have been allowed to vote in all federal elections. Admittedly, most Aborigines didn't know about their federal voting rights and perhaps didn't care. For people living in the bush, there are more interesting issues to think about than Question Time in Canberra.
The Federal government officially gave the Commonwealth vote to all Aborigines in 1962. The states of Queensland and WA gave Aborigines the state vote around the same time.
Acknowledgement of past wrongs
A common t-shirt and bumper sticker found in Australia carries the slogan:
Presumably, the t-shirts and stickers aim to raise awareness of the fact that Aborigines have suffered great injustice since 1788, which mainstream Australia just isn't aware of. If so, the campaign designers were quite ignorant to the way history has been taught for decades. In 1993, white historian Geoffrey Blainey coined the phrase "black armband view of history" in reference to the dominant discourses that seemed to be writing about Australian history while wearing a black arm band of mourning, grieving, or shame. In other words, Blainey felt that raising awareness of the negative black history was the dominant discourse in Australian history instruction. In response, a group of academics accused Blainey of wearing a "white blindfold." They didn’t deny they the black arm band was their focus, but they felt it was morally justified.
Just as white historians have been keen to raise awareness of injustice suffered by Aborigines, so have prime ministers. In 1993, white Prime Minister Paul Keating gave a speech in which he stated:
The speech helped transform Keating’s image from that of a cold economic rationalist to a humanitarian with a social conscious. He subsequently went on to win an election that was thought to be unwinable. In 2007, listeners of ABC radio voted Keating's speech their most memorable by an Australian. Internationally, they ranked it second to Christ's sermon on the mount and above speeches by Winston Churchill and Martin Luther-King.
It is debateable as to whether the whites writing the Aboriginal narrative in victim terms are actually helping Aborigines. All stereotypes, including those of victimisation, have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. Perhaps this is most clearly felt in the education system where many Aboriginal kids commence schooling with a belief that the teachers will not give them fair treatment. Their belief is only enhanced by Black Armband curriculum content that suggests the Aboriginal students are disliked by "mainstream" Australia. Likewise, trying to forge reconciliation by doing the academic equivalent of tying up a Convict and flogging him in order to impress an Aborigine is not restorative and it definitely doesn’t heal. Finally, few white Australian historians want to see themselves as victims because it is disempowering. As a consequence, most would feel uncomfortable with foreigners highlighting their Convict heritage in order to give them a victim label. Furthermore, they would uncomfortable if the international community used Australia's drug users, drunks, criminals, or battered women to define the Australian stereotype as "disadvantaged" in comparison to Europeans, Americans and Asians. Yet despite not wanting to be bound by a victim history and disadvantaged stereotypes themselves, they feel pride in defining Aborigines with those same disadvantaged stereotypes..
Admittedly, recognising the errors of history is the best way to ensure they are not repeated; however, the white historians don’t recognise the errors of history. Instead of recognising the harm done by nannying policies over the last 100 years, the historians blame problems in Aboriginal communities on some unknown colonists before the 1850s.
Of course, it isn’t just non-Aborigines promoting the victim narrative. The narrative is also heavily promoted by the urban Aboriginal academics who are not personally disadvantaged. Perhaps their motivation is to assert an Aboriginal identity. Because these Aborigines are often disconnected from culture and only have a little bit of Aboriginal genetics, they need some kind of victim narrative to stop others questioning their Aboriginal credentials. Alternatively, perhaps it is a way to argue for the need for federal government programs to eliminate disadvantage that they will personally administer. Basically, without an Aboriginal problem to solve, the federal government has no need for an Aboriginal expert opinion. As Indigenous leader Warren Mundine said of some other Indigenous leaders:
As for the actual communities being defined, sometimes a different image is desired. According to George Campbell, Yarralin elder:
Campbell's views tend to be supported by statistics. Despite rural Aborigines being more prone to be defined as 'disadvantaged,' research by the ABS (3) has found that Aborigines in rural areas are more happy with their own lives than are Aborigines in the cities.
Land rights have been a problematic issue in Australia because of the manner that most Aborigines came to lose their land. As far as the Australian legal system had long been concerned, the British crown gained ownership of Australia when Captain Cook planted the British flag in 1772. Contrary to misconception, there were never any forced evictions.
The ancestors of the 70% of Aborigines who live in cities were never forced off the land by farmers, miners or soldiers. Because almost three-quarters of Australia cannot support agriculture in any form, the Aboriginal occupants of these lands never had farmers wanting to deprive them of it. Conflict for agriculural land only occured in the small areas of Australia that can sustain farming. Mining only occupies 0.02% of the land mass. When mining has occurred in remote areas, mining companies have always looked upon Aborigines as the best labour source available. Many of the nomadic Aborigines of these areas voluntarily walked off the land to experience the activity of towns which offered novelty, flour, alcohol, blankets, and clothing. Those that stayed were progressively drawn to bush camps where they lived off canned food funded by government welfare. The lifestyle of walking the land came to an end. (The same thing is currently happening in Brazil with previously undiscovered tribes. Despite trying to leave the tribes alone, once the tribe discovers things such as axes they leave their land to go searching for them.)
As for the more fertile areas of Australia, lone farmers got themselves a land grant and often used the lure of flour, tea, blankets, axes to persuade Aborigines to be farm hands. As people not familiar with European conceptions of land ownership, the Aborigines probably didn’t see such encroachments as losing land. This probably explains their willingness to be farm hands. Furthermore, they continued using the land for hunting kangaroos and wombats. Farmers were happy with this as native animals were considered vermin and were proving troublesome to control.
Land Rights became more of an issue for Aborigines as they developed European conceptions of land ownership. The initial tent embassy protest in 1972 was about land rights. In response to the protests, in 1975 the Federal government established regional land councils and provided them with land that would aid their economic empowerment. Sometimes this was land that the Aborigines were already on and sometimes it was land that the government purchased off farmers for them. They also gave the councils the power to restrict entry if the land council so desired, or veto mining if they so desired. The initial bills were framed for the Northern Territory but designed in such a way that they could be applied Australia wide at a later date.
The nature of land rights changed in the 1980s and 1990s. One of the reasons for the change was High Court action by Eddie Mabo, a Torres Straight Islander. Henry Reynolds, a white man from Tasmania, encouraged Mabo to take the Queensland government to court to assert the land rights of his people. In the 1992 Mabo versus Queensland judgement, the High Court handed down its verdict that land rights were not automatically extinguished when Queensland annexed the Torres Straight in 1879 and by extention, mainland rights had not been extinguished when Britain annexed Australia in 1772.
In addition to stating the land rights had not automatically been extinguished, the High Court also created a set of rules about how land could be claimed by Aborigines and subsequently used once claimed.
The stipulations on land acquisition and use were quite different from those previously designed by the Federal government. Basically, the court said that if Aborigines could demonstrate continuous association with the land since 1788, then they could claim it; however, once claimed, it could not be sold. Unlike the Federal government's previous legislation, the criteria was designed to preserve traditional culture rather than aid economic advancement.
When delivering their verdict, the justices used very emotive language about Aborigines being the victims of racism and discrimination. For example, one of the High Court justices, William Deane, said that Aborigines had been treated as a
After delivering their verdict, the justices were widely celebrated, and Prime Minister Paul Keating even appointed Deane to the position of Governor General of Australia where he went around giving speeches about the courage his verdict showed.
This emotive language helped disguise the fact that the judgement was arguably more in the interest of white interest groups than black tribes. Anthropologists and lawyers were two interest groups that benefitted immensely from the judgment. Because demonstrating over 200 years of continuous cultural associations was a difficult task, it needed the expertise of anthropologists and lawyers to show the associations in a way that a court could understand. It subsequently became a prosperous time to be white person working on Aboriginal land claims. If the justices had simply applied the common law test that a number of years of continous occupation constitutes ownership then these white professions would not have profited the way they did.
White environmentalists were another interest group that benefitted from the judgement. With an anti-development platform, the environmentalists believed that if crown land could be transferred to Aboriginal ownership, then the land could be protected against farming, mining and property development. The restrictions on Aborigines reselling the land or individually owning it made the land very difficult to develop economically, and therefore helped the evironmentalists. This became apparent a few years later after titles were recognised and restrictions imposed. Aborigines then started getting pissed off at being told what they could do with their land. One of these was Warren Mundine, head of NSW Native Title Services, who said:
Richie Ahmat, chairman of the Cape York Land Council, went further and explained in more detail how environmental groups wanted Aborigines to behave:
Aside from imposing restrictions on land use and sale, the Mabo judgement caused some concern because it offered nothing to the 70% of the population who lived in cities and therefore were unable to show 200 years of unbroken association with the land. Some of these urban Aborigines think they should be recipients of rental payments for the continent they lost.
The urban Aborigine’s claim of ownership over the entire Australian continent has been an act that would be like someone from London's suburbs declaring sovereignty over Europe. Just as the French and Germans may not be overly sympathetic to an Englishman making such a claim, Aboriginal groups who have had their title recognised are not overly sympathetic either. Reflecting this fact, many tribal groups who have had title recognised do not let anyone enter their lands, irrespective of whether the intruder is Aboriginal or not. Many tribes fighting for title also don't allow outside Aborigines to enter land for fear the intruder will make a claim themselves on behalf of another tribe, or want to share the land.
When invading China, the Americas and New Zealand, the British colonial government signed a treaty with the locals that clarified land use provisions and the locals' rights as British citizens. The treaties were always signed after the locals rebelled against the British and forced them to the bargaining table. No treaty was ever signed in Australia because warfare had been absent. Perhaps there wasn't any war because the colonists were wiped out by the environment when they tried to expand inland. Perhaps it was because the Convict population was denied guns to fight Aborigines, or saw Aborigines as potential allies in an uprising against the authorities. Perhaps it was because kangaroo populations increased as a result of colonisation thus reducing conflict over food resources. Perhaps it was because the colonists were more concerned with appearing as protectors of Aborigines than victors over them - as was the case in many colonial countries.
In recent years, Aborigines like Megan Davis, the director of the Indigenous Law Centre at the University of NSW, have lobbied for the federal government to sign a treaty with the Aboriginal people of Australia.
Numerous obstacles have prevented a treaty from being designed and signed. The first obstacle is who would sign on behalf of Aborigines and what would be his or her legitimacy to sign. A more significant problem is deciding what rights each side would agree to, and how these would be ascertained. This is a particular problem because the issues of concern to an Aboriginal academic in inner-city Sydney are very different to those of an Aborigine living in a bush camp in the Northern Territory. For example, indigenous lawyer Larissa Behrendt, who lives in Sydney, was opposed to the Federal government intervening in the Northern Territory to help Aboriginal people living there. The intervention was supported by Bess Price, an Indigenous woman who lives in the Northern Territory. In response to hearing Price state her support for the intervention, Behrendt said that she found watching bestiality to be less offensive that Price's views. Likewise, Indigenous leader Warren Mundine said of some other Indigenous leaders:
With a lack of consensus about who speaks for Aborigines and what is in their interests, a treaty really wouldn't be possible.
Flying the Aboriginal flag
In Aboriginal protest marches in the 1960s and early 1970s, Aborigines were outnumbered by non-Aborigines wanting to show their support. Being outnumbered by whites was a concern to Aboriginal artist Harold Thomas, so in 1971 he designed the Aboriginal flag. Thomas hoped it would be a rallying symbol to get more Aborigines to come along to protest, and also signal Aborigines as a distinct group. The black is said to represent the Aboriginal people, the red the earth and their spiritual relationship to the land, and the yellow the sun, the giver of life. Thomas said he deliberately put black on top of the red to make the flag appear more disturbing and reflect its protest function.
The Aboriginal flag was first raised in Victoria Square in Adelaide on National Aboriginal Day in 1971. It was adopted nationally by Aborigines after it was flown above the Aboriginal tent embassy outside of the old Parliament House in Canberra.
Ironically, many governments and schools now fly the Aboriginal protest flag aside the official flag. A further irony is that many non-Aborigines want to be represented by the flag as well. So much so, they have called for the flag to replace the Union Jack on Australia's official flag. This is unlikely to occur as Harold Thomas has declared his desire for it to remain separate.
Some Aborigines have lobbied to have cultural rights in which any dispute between Aborigines is heard in koori courts in accordance with Aboriginal customary law. Some koori courts have been created; however, they only deal with relatively minor issues. Extending the power of the koori courts has been complicated by the fact that while many perpetrators want to go through the koori justice system, many victims want equal rights as Australian citizens, which requires access to the Australian legal system. For example, in 2005 an Australian court heard that a 55-year-old Aboriginal elder anally raped a 14-year-old Aboriginal girl, imprisoned her for four days and repeatedly beat her. The man's actions were perfectly acceptable in his culture and he was surprised at appearing before the courts. As far as he was concerned, the girl had been promised to him at the age of four, but she had dishonoured him by having a boyfriend before their marriage. According to tribal law, the elder was perfectly entitled to educate her in the manner that he did. In fact, if he didn't educate her, he was not fulfilling his duties as an elder. The girl's family had further legitimised the actions of the man. Her grandmother had collected the girl, and taken her to the man so that he could rape and beat her. While the 14-year-old understood the cultural laws, she did not want to be bound by them. Consequently, she reported her rape, beating and imprisonment to the police.
Northern Territory's Chief Justice, Bryan Martin, was keen to show his respect for Aboriginal culture, and only sentenced him to a month in jail. Martin then expressed his sympathy for the Aboriginal man's predicament. By giving such a lenient sentence, Martin denied the girl the right to equal justice as an Australian citizen.
Aboriginal leader Warren Mundine subsequently criticised Martin and stated:
Some Aborigines want to establish their own governments that function independently of Australian governments. Their legal power to do so was tested in the Isabel Coe v The Commonwealth (1993) decision. On behalf of the Wiradjuri nation, Ms Coe sought recognition of the sovereignty and autonomy of the Wiradjuri people. The claim was rejected because it sought to challenge the sovereignty of the state.
Even though there is no legal base under current Australian law for sovereignty, the Federal government would probably be open to it if it believed it had a chance of working. The cold economic reality is that the provision of welfare, education, health and housing for Aboriginal communities is more costly than any tax or any income derived from exploitation of the resources where the Aborigines are based. Furthermore, the image of Aborigines from these communities ending up in jail, dying young or complaining about human rights violations is embarrassing for governments. In 1975, the Federal government of Australia gave independence to Papua New Guinea because it had some confidence that if the various tribes were able to overcome their hostility to each other, they could create a functioning modern country with a common identity based around the land. By giving independence to PNG, the Federal government saved itself a lot of money and a great deal of criticism.
While the Torress Straight Islanders could potentially be given the freedom to join Papua New Guinea or become independent, it would not be possible to create an Aboriginal country composed of tribes scattered throughout Australia. Sovereignty would have to exist on an individual tribal level, much like it did in Apartheid South Africa. Countries this small would have little hope of developing an economy. (Unlike it is in America, gambling is legal in every Australian state so an Aboriginal reservation couldn't build casinos and attract tourists. Their best hope would be a dump for the world's radioactive waste or a tax haven for rich people to avoid paying tax.)
A further problem is that many tribal groups are on lands that have little to no economic potential and can't even sustain farming. Without Australian welfare, the occupants could only survive as hunter gatherers. Pragmatically speaking, the mainstream population of Australia would not allow hunter gatherers to exist in 21st century Australia. If hunter gatherers started dying from curable diseases, Australian doctors would visit to help. If the hunter gatherers started dying in a drought, aid agencies would provide food. If hunter gatherers practiced infanticide to control population, religious groups would go on evangelical crusades to stop the practice. Admittedly, Brazil prevents contact with recently discovered tribal groups in the Amazon jungle, but these are groups that have the jungle to conceal their actions. Furthermore, when the Brazilian tribal groups have learnt about the outside world, and the availability of things such as metal axes, they have left their land to go searching for them. A return to a hunter gatherer existence for Australian Aborigines would neither be allowed nor chosen.
Acknowledgment of Aboriginal custodianship of the land
Welcome to Country ceremonies are performed to acknowledge that Aborigines are the traditional owners of the land. They are performed before many political rallies, school assemblies, civic openings, art exhibitions, public service information sessions, weddings, sporting events, and basically any place where people gather. The ceremonies go:
The custom was created in 1976 by Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley in 1976 and quickly spread throughout Australia.
Compensation for the stolen generations
From the 1980s to the early naughties, many Aborigines were campaigning for a formal apology and compensation payments to mixed race Aborigines who ended up in Catholic missions from the 1900s to 1970s.
The campaign was started by Professor Peter Reid, a white historian from the University of Sydney, who said his research showed that 100,000 people had been removed from their mother's communities. The stories of the Stolen Generations was told in the official 1997 report : "Bringing Them Home - Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families." The report concurred that 100,000 had been removed, which was about one in three children.
White academic Robert Manne later revised the figure to 30,000, which was one in ten. White journalist Andrew Bolt then challenged Manne to produce the names of 10 people who were removed because of the colour of their skin alone. Manne was unable to provide the names.
In 2008, the white Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the stolen generations, but refused to pay compensation. After delivering the apology, Rudd recorded the highest level of popularity of any prime minister in Australian history.
For numerous reasons, paying compensation was impractical for the Federal government. From a legal perspective, the Federal government wasn't liable because it had been constitutionally forbidden to make laws targeted at Aborigines until 1967. If Aborigines had ended up in Catholic missions due to the colour of their skin, it was not due to Federal government policy. State governments had the power to remove Aborigines but this legal fact was ignored in media campaigns. Perhaps this was because most activists and politicians felt that in order to be a unifying campaign, it needed to be one campaign not a state-by-state campaign. That meant targeting the Federal government despite recognising the Federal government was not legally responsible.
Another problem with paying compensation was that the stories of removal would have had to be checked and public servants would need to be named and shamed. The potential problems of such checking was apparent when journalists took it upon themselves to check the history of some of the activists who said they had been stolen (something the Bringing them Home Report had failed to do.) In one case, a journalist revealed that Lowitja O'Donoghue, the former head of the Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Commission, had not been stolen as she had previously claimed. In reality, her white father had placed her and her sisters in a Catholic boarding school, and paid for their upkeep. The publication of the story eroded the credibility of an Aboriginal icon. Furthermore, if O'Donoghue had not known the truth, the revelation undermined her identity and relationship to her family. Potentially, the deflating experience suffered by O'Donoghue would have been suffered by thousands of others who believed they had been stolen from loving mothers when perhaps the truth was they had been abandoned by parents who didn't care.
Shamming public servants had also been divisive. In the movie Rabbit Proof Fence (2002), Reverend Neville had been shamed as a racist, but his own descendants found the accusation to defamatory and inconsistent with how he was thought of by the Aborigines he associated with.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was smart enough to realise that just saying sorry would give him an electoral bounce while allowing him to avoid all the divisive issues that the campaign would open if investigated more deeply.
Even though the federal government ruled out paying compensation, Aborigines were still able to access the courts to have their cases individually checked if they so desired. In 2000, legal action was initiated by Lorna Cubillo, 62, and Peter Gunner, 53 - both of whom had been removed as children in the Northern Territory (administered by the Federal government). Both Ms Cubillo and Mr Gunner wept as they testified about the way they were stolen from their mother's communities, and subsequently suffered sexual, physical and psychological abuse at the hands of missionaries.
Official records did not support their claims that the government had used skin colour to decide that they should be taken. The official records showed Lorna Cubillo was taken from her grandmother's care in 1940 and placed with the Aboriginal community in the Ration Depot at Seven Mile Creek. The community was moved to Six Mile Creek in 1942 and to the Phillip Creek Settlement in 1945. In 1947 she was taken from Phillip Creek to the Retta Dixon home in Darwin. She stayed at Retta Dixon until her 18th birthday in 1956. Peter Gunner was born on the 19th of September 1948 on Utopia Cattle Station. He was committed by the Director of Welfare, Harry Giese, to St Mary's Hostel in Alice Springs on the 24th May 1956. In a deflating revelation for Mr Gunner, the government was able to show that the committal was only approved after receiving the consent of his mother.
On August 11 2000, Justice Maurice O'Loughlin dismissed the federal government's liability on the grounds that there had been a failure to prove that the Commonwealth authorities had ignored the children’s best interests by removing them from their families.
Previously, Aborigines had a kind of self-government in the form of ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Commission.) ATSIC aimed to give Aborigines an independent voice and the power to run programs to help their people. This was a body created by the Hawke government in 1990. It was dismantled by the Howard government in 2004.
ATSIC was shut down after it was broadly agreed by almost everyone outside of ATSIC that it had failed in its intentions. One problem was that many Aborigines didn't feel it represented them or their interests. They referred to the body as "Aborigines Talking Shit in Canberra". Further reflecting the alienation, only around 10% of Aborigines voted in ATSIC elections. Some prominent female Aborigines also criticised the body for being dominated by males. Finally, there were numerous concerns raised at perceived financial irregularities (corruption).
After ATSIC was dismantled, Federal governments started hand picking individual Aborigines who they deemed would speak on behalf of all Aborigines. Those Aborigines that were chosen concurred that they could speak for others. Many of those who were not chosen did not concur.
To be mentioned in the Australian constitution
In 2012, a panel of Aborigines, appointed by the Federal government, delivered the Federal government a report outlining plans to change the Australian constitution to specifically mention Aborigines. The panel claimed to have consulted widely in Aboriginal communities and found that they wanted to prohibit the commonwealth, states or territories from creating laws that discriminated on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or national origin. However, the panel added that this did not preclude the making of laws or measures for the purpose of "overcoming disadvantage, ameliorating the effects of past discrimination, or protecting the cultures, languages or heritage of any group".
The two statements were contradictory and perhaps reflected the mixed feelings that the Aboriginal panel had in regards to Federal government power. On one hand, they recognised that previous empowerment programs had harmed Aborigines with their nannying policies. However, perhaps they also looked at the annual expenditure of $3.5 billion on Aborigines and imagined what they could do if they were able to administer or guide the programs themselves. Perhaps they also realised that if the Federal government did not have power to specifically target Aborigines, then it would be pointless for Federal politicians to speak to Aboriginal leaders in the future, or even create panels of Aboriginal leaders. Perhaps the panel realised that the Fedral government wanted it to deliver certain findings and if it didn't, the government would assemble another panel of Aboriginal leaders that would give the findings that the government wanted.
While the panel proposed altering the constitution, it didn't propose changing the current powers of the Federal government. Specifically, the Federal government presently has a racial discrimination act that makes racism illegal, but still has powers to make laws for all racial groups. Race-specific laws are deemed to be necessary to overcome disadvantage and are therefore are interpreted to be progressive, not racist. Because the panel's findings didn't propose striping the Federal government of power, its recommendations could be seen as a largely symbolic gesture. For this reason, it could be argued that the referendum was proposed by Prime Minister Gillard to boost her electoral prospects. Gillard was well aware that any prime minister that champion a symbolic gesture that shows support for Aborigines will receive an electoral bounce. Floudering in the polls, Gillard's office knew the race card was her best hope of surviving. Inciting a race riot against the opposition and then coming in with a referendum to "heal" was part of a strategy to win votes.
To express their own voice
Many of the Aboriginal protesters at Canberra's tent embassy refuse to talk to government. They are not on any hand-picked advisory panels, they do not write reports in return for funding, and they do not receive awards on Australian Day and proceed to give a speech supporting government policy. In many ways, they are the closest thing there is to an authentic Aboriginal voice in Canberra. Unfortunately, refusing to accept money and honours by government has not been enough to prevent whites from trying to manipulate their thinking and expressions. The 2012 riot sparked by the office of the Prime Minister was simply a long line of examples of whites proposing to be the Aborigines' best friends, when really they were just trying to exploit widespread goodwill towards Aborigines for their own advantage.
Aborigines have been well and truly shafted over the last two centuries, but the perpetrators haven’t been the working class whites that occupy an outback pub, they have been two-faced politicians, academics, journalists, justices and public servants pretending to be their friends.
Tent embassy protesters express their voice
Activity 1 - Apply policies targeted at Aborigines to politicians
Over the last century, politicians have developed numerous strategies to counter problem drinking in Aboriginal communities. Meanwhile, binge drinking has been rife in Parliament House. For example, Australia’s first prime minister, Edmond Barton, was known as Toby Tosspot" due to his fondness for a drink. Another Prime Minister John Gorton, inspired the euphemism "Gorton's Flu" in reference to a hang over. Still another, Bob Hawke, held an entry in the Guinness Book of Records for sculling 2.5 pints of beer in 11 seconds. Aside from the leaders, countless politicians have been renowned for their long lunches, and their use of grog to pass the time. More recently, it was alleged that Peter Slipper, the former Speaker of the House (deemed to be the most moral position in parliament), got drunk and urinated out a window, frequently passed out in Parliament House from drinking red wine, and was thrown out of a bar for being drunk and obnoxious.
1) Assess whether the following strategies would be effective in countering problem drinking amongst politicians
Activity 2 - Media Advocacy to Control Binge Drinking in Aboriginal Communities
Government Policy towards Aborigines is distributed through the media and is in turn shaped by the media. A good example of this occurring was the issue of grog bans in Aboriginal communities. In 2013, the Liberal Premiers of Northern Territory and Queensland started removing restrictions on alcohol in Aboriginal communities. According to Queensland premier Campbell Newman, the restrictions were discriminatory because they only targeted Aborigines despite alcohol abuse being a national problem. Federal Labor PM Julia Gillard responded by saying that "rivers of grog" would again flow into the communities and that she warned that she might intervene to impose some kind of restriction.
Aside from reflecting differences in the attitudes towards Aborigines, the comments of each leader reflected ideological differences in regards to how to solve social problems. One ideological viewpoint advocated the education of people with a problem. The other advocated some kind of top-down policy or law that would solve it.
Those who advocate top-down policy to solve problems typically use a campaign strategy known as Media Advocacy to implement their agendas. This strategy seeks to raise the volume of voices wanting change in order to pressure policy makers to adopt the plan. When it is the policy makers that actually initiate the campaign, the aim is to amplify the voices in support of the policy so that there is political advantage in implementing the policy.
In short, Media Advocacy places an emphasis on:
In the case of alcohol restrictions in Aboriginal communities, press releases were obviously delivered to various media outlets by the two political parties. These were subsequently tinkered with in a way that revealed some of the ideological viewpoints of the media outlet. Below are brief summaries of three articles dealing with the issue by Australia's three main media outlets (News Ltd, Fairfax, ABC)
Activity 3 - Defining Aboriginal “disadvantage”
Activity purpose – Understanding that 'disadvantage' does not have an agreed meaning, and differences in perceived meanings can lead to conflict and negative outcomes
According to Posselt (2000)
Look at the pictures below. They were taken in Darwin in 1981 and show Aborigines and non-Aborigines drinking on the opporsite side of the street.
Activity 4 - Defining the cause of alcoholism
Activity purpose – Understanding the consequences of a selective banning of alcohol
Read the following and answer the questions:
Activity 5 - Defining the cause of family breakdown
Activity purpose – Understanding how family breakdown can be caused when the state interferes in the personal lives of its citizens
Read the following and answer the questions:
Activity 6 - Aboriginal representation in crime statistics
Activity purpose – Understanding how government policy led the over-representation of Aborigines in crime statistics
Read the following and answer the questions:
Activity 7 - The Aboriginal Industry
Annually, the federal government spends up to $3,5 billion on programs to alleviate Aboriginal disadvantage. It also likes to use Australia Day ceremonies to give awards to people who have been part of the funded programs.
Many of the programs seem devoid of accountability. For example, in 2005, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs spent $327,784 to administer funding of just $34,318. Likewise, in 2005, the NSW parliament heard allegations that The Hillsong Church had exploited black groups to gain federal funds. It was alleged that the Hillsong church received $415,000 in funding to run programs for the Riverstone Aboriginal Community, based around Blacktown in Sydney's west. The budget proposed that most of the $415,000 would pay the salary for the project officer and administration. Community activities, such as dance nights and social integration lessons, would account for only a few thousand dollars.
1)Binnie, Kerrin (2010) Rocks, leaves on Indigenous learning agenda http://www.australianews.com.au/australia/queensland/darlingdowns/toowoomba/story?cityid=9901bdf5-f527-4b68-852d-149172949fd4&storyid=5b859ac9-bc45-4663-9894-630f7b9c9ef6
2)Hughes, P., A More, A. J Williams, M (2004). Aboriginal Ways of Learning. Adelaide.
3)Robinson, N (2010, September 30). Indigenous urban dwellers better off but not happier The Australian http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/indigenous-urban-dwellers-better-off-but-not-happier/story-e6frg6nf-1225931996865 Accessed 2010