Contemporary Issues
Unit 3: Independent Research
Cultural Aspects Historical Issues Race Relations Contemporary Issues
Unit 1: 1940s & 50s Unit 2: 1965-1975 Unit 3: Independent Research
Contemporary issues
Unit 03: 1975 - 1990s
Major evens in the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia
3.01
Tuesday January 10 2007, London
Self-determinism and self-management
Where 'Whitlam's government advocated a policy of self-determination, the new Fraser government advocated a policy of self-management...in actual practice the differences between them were minimal. (Cavanagh, 2000: 9)
3.02
The main Aboriginal organisations established by Australian governments to implement some of the ideals of self-determination and self-management:
The National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC), (Whitlam, 1973)
The National Aboriginal Conference (NAC), (Fraser, 1977) to replace NACC, which had disbanded after conflict with politicians and accusations of mismanagement.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), (Hawke, 1990) to replace the previously disbanded NAC.
3.03
Why was there so much tension between these organisations and the Fraser and Whitlam governments?
Conflict over exploration and mining caused tension between these organisations and both governments:
These conflicts followed the amending of the Whitlam's (sic) proposed 1975 land rights bill when it was enacted by the Fraser government in 1976...One of the main amendments was designed to allow mining to proceed on land granted to Aboriginal people under the Act, and to take away the right of veto that had been proposed in Whitlam's legislation. (Cavanagh, 2000: 17)
What is revealed about the relationship between ATSIC and the Howard Liberal-National Party Coalitian government at the end of the 1990s, and to that government's attitude to reconciliation, in the article, 'Irreconcilable differences' (Martin, L. cited in Cavanagh, 2000: 11-14), and what are the reasons offered to explain it ?
The article suggests that the Howard government was not really interested in reconciliation. It had replaced the previous ATSIC leader Lowitja O'Donohue because she was 'outspoken'. The fact that her successor, Gatjil Djerrkurra, was perceived as being 'the perfect blackfella...so promising as the middleman between John Howard and the country's Aboriginal community', expresses the government's desire to maintain control of ATSIC, rather than listen to its recommendations. Djerrkurra was, according to this article, engaged for the position a government puppet. To effect the dialogue necessary for reconciliation to e achieved, Aboriginal people need to be heard, not silenced.
3.04
The development of land rights
Surprisingly, it was in land rights that the similarities in the Aboriginal Affairs policies of the Whitlam and Fraser governments were most obvious...Despite the fact that Fraser's Bill was amended so as to make it easier for mining to proceed on land that was returned to Aboriginal people, it was under his government that Land Rights became a reality for Aboriginal people. (Cavanagh, 2000: 15)
Was the passing of the 1976 Northern Territory Land Rights Bill by the Fraser government the high point of Liberal concern for Aboriginal affairs?
It was this Bill that set a precedent for further Land Rights Acts, and ultimately to the Native Title Act in 1998. Both the ALP and Liberal-County Party Coalition had a hand in its development, so the passing of this Bill was a high point for them both. There have been successes and failures on both sides of the Australian governments in honouring the rights of Aboriginal people. For example, The Hawke ALP government promised national land rights legislation but changed its mind in 1983 because it was afraid of a voter backlash against the proposal by Western Australians (who have no land rights for Aboriginal people). He was afraid it would destroy his party's chances of winning government in the WA atate election that year. (Cavanagh, 2000: 46)
Year Legislation
1976 Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act
1978 Aboriginal Land Ordinance and Acts (NT) Act
1981 Coburg Peninsular Aboriginal Land and Sanctuary Act (NT) Act
1981 Pitjantjara Land Rights (SA)
1982 Land Act (Aboriginal and Islander Land Grants) Act (Qld)
1983 Aboriginal Land Rights Act (NSW)
1984 Maralinga Tjarutja Land Rights Act (SA)
1885 Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (Land Holding) Act (Qld)
1986 Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act (NSW)
1987 Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlington Forest, Victoria) Act
1991 Aboriginal Land Act (Qld)
1991 Torres Strait Islander Land Act (Qld) Act
1993 Native Title Act
1993 Native Title Amendments Act
(Cavanagh, 2000: 16)
Western Australia and Tasmania still have no effective land rights legislation.
3.05
There is no uniform national land rights legislation
Since 1976 land rights had become quite extensive across Australia, but what is obvious from the table above is that there is still no uniform national land rights legislation. An obvious major problem in the development of land rights legislation is that each state needed to act separately to obtain land rights. And even within each state, land rights claims are having to be made for each case individually.
Why are there two Native Title Acts in the 1990s?
Australia came close to achieving national legislation on land rights with the Keating government's 1993 Native Title Act. However, its was controversial and therefor not straight forward to put smoothly into practice. Most difficult and unfortunate was that with the change of leadership to John Howard, the Act was amended. In 1998 Howard made changes to the Act which passed its administration back to the individual states. It is not surprising that Aboriginal people lose trust in the Australian government which changes its mind so regularly, both on individual and party levels.
How has the development of land rights benefited Aboriginal people?
Some Aboriginal communities have benefited from land rights acts, but there are limitations and restrictions, and a lack of understanding of the spiritual needs of Aboriginal people to keep their land. The acts have created much heartbreak, frustration and even conflict amongst the Aboriginal people. Each time there is a land rights claim, it is a lot of work for Aboriginal communities, having to 'reinvent the wheel' each time in their individual battles to regain the land which was theirs in the first place. Many hoops need to be jumped to prove to the governments (who come and go) that particular Aboriginal peoples are the traditional owners. Frustration, resentment and fatigue plague those who fight back for their land. It is not just a battle with governments however. Sometimes there are several Aboriginal groups contesting for rights to the same land. And even where land rights Acts are passed, governments protect the rights of mining industries over the Aboriginal communities and their country. There is little government action demonstrating their acknowledgment of the integral relationship between Aboriginal people and their land.
The percentage of Aboriginal people in relation so the percentage of freehold land held by Aboriginal people remains disproportionate, according to some recent figures (French, 1996, cited in Cavanagh, 2000: 47).
3.06
Conflict over mining was inevitable because the hopes and expectations of Aboriginal people to reconnect with their land in the traditional ways were shattered.
The most significant conflicts between Aboriginal people and mining companies up to the 1990's were Ranger, Nookanbah, Jabiluka:
Year Conflict
1970s The Gagadju (NT) people vs Peko Mines & the Narbalek Mining Company over the development of the Ranger Uranium Mine.
1970s and early 1980s The Yangngara people of Nookanbah in Western Australia vs the Amax Mining Company & CRA over diamond mining at Nookanbah, a property purchased there by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission established by the Whitlam government.
1990s Ongoing disputes between the Mirrar people (NT) and Energy Resources Australia (ERA) over the development of a uranium mine at Jabiluka.
What these main conflicts had in common was that the hopes and expectations that the Aboriginal communities shared - to reunite with their land unconditionally - were destroyed by the government's protection of economic development and investment. Despite efforts of Aboriginal groups to voice their rights to their land, Government ruled consistently against protecting their culture and the environment.
Nookanbah was the site of a dispute between the Yangngara community and the WA Government over oil exploration. The conflict ran for over five years. Sacred sites were under threat; drilling, under the direction of the WA Covernment, began in 1981. No oil was found. ('I give you this story', p 111 cited in Cavanagh, 2000: 19)
Sacred sites
...most Australians are now aware of the concept and of examples of sacred sites that are important to Aboriginal people. Indeed at least one site, Uluru, has to some extent assumed spiritual significance for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians (Cavanagh, 2000: 20)
Along the coast of Sydney there were fresh water open streams running into the sea. Before 1788 these were sacred to Aboriginal people, providing fresh water and food for their survival. These streams were destroyed by white people when building Sydney Town.
In the 1970s and 1980s there was a growing awareness of sacred sites of Australia. Reasons for this included increasing increasing study of Aboriginal culture in mainstream education, land claims which included sacred sites, and archaeological studies.
It is an irony that legislation enacted in attempts to protect Aboriginal sacred sites often produced the opposite results. By exposing the whereabouts of previously secret places, they were left open to vandalism by those opposing the legislation .
3.07
The Hindmarsh Island Bridge case
3.08
Deaths in custody
In the 1980s a group of Aboriginal men and women in Coonabarabran were so concerned about the high number of Aboriginal people dying in jail that they formed an advocacy group to press for a government inquiry. This was another example of Aboriginal self-determination: Aboriginal people asserting social justice and human rights for Aboriginal people. Called the Committee to Defend Black Rights (CDBR), they formed into the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Watch Committee in 1987 and in that year there were 16 Aboriginal deaths in custody. A particularly controversial death at Brewarrina (NSW) triggered action, with the Hawke government establishing a Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC).
Aboriginal deaths in custody between 1980 and 1989 totaled 99 and these were investigated. The final report found that there had been no foul play in these deaths, but it did reveal some worrying causes for the original incarceration and later demise of those who died. Factors identified as leading Aboriginal people into conflict with legal authorities and subsequent imprisonment included children separated from their families, low levels of education, high unemployment, alcohol abuse, and a higher than average level of arrest and imprisonment for petty offenses.
3.09
The move to reconciliation
In a rare moment of unity in September1991, the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the 'Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act'. This bipartisan action established a Council whose aim was to develop a reconciliation process between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians by 2001. Chairperson Patrick Dodson led 12 Aboriginal, 2 Torres Strait Islanders, and 11 other Australians in public relations and educational work towards that goal. But he resigned in 1997 after John Howard publicly refused, at a National Reconciliation Conference in Melbourne, to formally apologise to the 'Stolen Generation' of Aboriginal people for the treatment they received under previous government policies. Evelyn Scott replaced him.
Conflict over reconciliation
After John Howard became Prime Minister in the 1997 election, and made amendments to the Native Title Act (1998) destroying its chance of effecting uniform national agreement, the reconciliation process took a very back seat in federal parliament. Howard also refused to formally apologise to the 'Stolen Generation', and, most disturbingly, reduced funding in Aboriginal affairs.
The reconciliation process, in the words of Patrick Dodson ('Keep Walking Together, 1997), is when:
'...goodwill, mutual respect and a shared objective replace ignorance, fear and mistrust which unfortunately so often determine our relationships with each other...
...reconciliation is basically a grass roots process. It's about people living and working together, and solving problems in local communities...working together to find workable solutions to practical problems...
Reconciliation requires:
'...practical commitments by individuals and institutions...
How will Reconciliation be evident in Australia? What will measure its success? Dodson predicts:
Native Title and the Stolen Generation have become issues, which create major challenges to the process. The nation's response to the Stolen Generations, and to the concurrent and coexistent rights of pastoralists and indigenous people arising from the High Court's Wik judgemen, and "benchmarks" against which reconciliation is being measured in 1997. They will in large, determine the path of reconciliation over the next three years and indeed whether all Australians will go into the new millennium with a sense of pride and respect.
3.10
The Stolen Generation and the Bringing them Home Report (1997)
This Report, tabled in Federal Parliament in 1997, contained results of an inquiry by retired High Court Judge, Sir Ronald Wilson, into the removal of Aboriginal children from their families and the long term effects this has had on them. This Report was conducted for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC). Sir Wilson blamed government and church policies and recommended that the governments apologise and pay compensation to those who have survived.
The Federal government delayed any response to the Report and its recommendations, although there were formally apologies mad by the state governments of NSW, WA and Qld. for prior policies responsible for the Stolen Generation.
Could the term 'Stolen Generation' be emotive?
'Stolen' or 'Saved' are both highly emotive words used to describe the removal of children from their own families, depending on whose opinion you agree with, whose values you share, or the particular circumstances. For example, some children are abused by their own family members. But that is a different issue. The governmnt policy of removing 'half-caste' Aboriginal children from their mothers was motivated by racist beliefs in the superiority of white culture.
Why is John Howard's government so reluctant to apologise for past policies?
Howard argues that present governments and people can not be held responsible for the actions of past governments and people. Also, he would need to commit to paying surviving members of the Stolen Generation a large amount of compensation if he were to apologise.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cavanagh, Patrick, 2000, Contemporary Issues B. Unit 3, NSW Australia: Open Training and Education Network.
