Aboriginal Communities: Self Determination - Essay Example

Self Dеtеrminаtiоn Student’s Name Subject Professor University/Institution Location Date Though Aboriginal activists started lobbying for self-determination back in 1925 with the formation of Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association, self-determination was however, first expressed in 1972 with abolishment of White Australia Policy and introduction of a policy of self-determination by Whitlam government (Kowal 2008). Generally, the policy of self-determination involves the substantive transfer of the decision-making powers from the government to the indigenous people. It is used in describing the Aboriginal extent to which they take matters and control into their hands. The policy is meant for coming up with resources and programs which assist in continuous rebuilding of Aboriginals decision-making capabilities and socioeconomic conditions improvements. The pay offs are not only to provide the Aboriginals with assuming responsibilities of their affairs, but to invest the time and efforts to build governing institutions that can capably exercise the powers of decision making and support of Aboriginal people. The thesis for this discussion argues that, appropriate community processes including capacity building and partnership development support self-determination facilitating the improvements amongst the Aboriginal communities. As Muehlebach (2003) argues, there are various principles that shape self-determination and its success. Support, freedom to be creative and ambitious and being themselves, the knowledge of the things that have worked or not worked in other cases in different countries, stable policy environment which support and encourages Aboriginal solutions for Aboriginal people. In addition, there are work which supports self-determination such as the manner in which leaders build succession planning, current and future designed investment strategies, negotiation of complex agreements with governments and private sectors and Aboriginal programs which builds practical capacity of the people to run policing, education and health systems. Land, health, education are amongst the most significant issues that are addressed as they improved since 1970 through self-determination. Aboriginal people had suffered injustices including economic, cultural, political and social injustices for over two centuries. Whitlam Labor Government immensely improved their situation by abating most of the pressures. However, the consequent Fraser regime show the Aboriginal pressures mount. In their own terms, Aboriginals understands self-determination through some fundamental principles. Family is taken as a foundation of Aboriginal identity and community. The service delivery effectiveness is taken to occur in a context involving broad family in the understanding of Aboriginal people. Community is the basis of partnership within the Aboriginal communities and effectively provides services that respond to the identified needs. Proximity is of essence and the most effective services are only seen to be provided by the local communities with access to support and training (Muehlebach 2003). According to Muehlebach (2003), the concept of self-determination has long history and has been a central topic of consideration among Australians and more so with Indigenous Australians. The Aboriginal community in early 1970 approach to the Government of Australia led them to request for their own rights in administering their communities. The request encompassed the basic rights to local government’s functions which ranged from land dealings, managing the community centers, road maintenance, garbage collection and setting of education standards and programs in the local schools. The assent of the Federal Government came together with some certain conditions. However, the main development was seen by formation of central Aboriginal administrator, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). The appointment and constitution of the ATSIC was mandated with a task of allocating and distributing funds to Aboriginal communities. They were also to liaise with Federal Government on matters of welfare in Aboriginal areas which required funding or improvements. In essence, this was a form of self-determination, though more of initial steps towards full self-determination. Primarily, the work of the Commission meant that the Aboriginal people became self-contained within Australia (Anderson 2007). According to Banerjee (2000), self-determinism can be said to have significantly looked at the land rights as land is a very important resource of the Aborigines. Aboriginal Tent Embassy was amongst the very first demonstration for Aboriginal land rights. In 1970s most Aboriginals moved to their traditional homelands and limited rights of land lease were given especially to people in Northern Territory reserves. This was most so after self-determination was enacted by Whitlam Government. The changes that followed included the rights for Aboriginal management of their natural resources, linguistic and cultural maintenance on Aboriginal land. The signing of Larrakia petition in 1972 by 1,000 Aboriginal people was an immense historical document for land rights. This argued on how British took their land without a signed treaty rendering them refugees in their ancestral land. It publicized the land rights struggle putting pressure on government. Banerjee (2000) further argues that, NSW Aboriginal Land Trust was set for receiving freehold ownership pertaining to former Aboriginal reserves. Woodward Report was tabled as the second report by Aboriginal Land Commission. This acknowledged the Aboriginal link to their land and denial of right and prevention of mining amounted to denial of the reality of land rights. This was followed by Commonwealth Act which established Aboriginal Land Fund Commission for buying land and giving to the Aboriginal corporate groups. The fund was further replaced in 198 by Aboriginal Development Council. Together with many other pressures from different communities, the government accepted to establish the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The offices were established in all states and the state thus transferred to that department the major responsibilities for Aboriginal administration and policy. The government also froze all the application that was targeting mining and exploration of commonwealth Aboriginal reserves. This was confirmed by declaration of the end of White Australia policy that had been in effect for more than 70 years. Moreover, Aboriginal people acquired the native-title land rights after the Mabo decision which was passed by High Court of Australia by late 1980s. The case is one amongst the steps that revealed recognition and development of self-determination. The findings found by the court regarded the strong sense of indigenous to their land and thus agreed that the common law has a concept of native title. The traditional connection and occupation of land was the source of title which was emphasized through the traditional laws and customs. The consequences of Mabo decision was the basis of permissibility and development of future native title and land issues and large scale procedures for determination of native title issues. With implementations of Woodland Report, land rights legislation, act transfers reserve, establishment of Land Councils led to traditional owners being granted land (Banerjee 2000). Tsey (2005) argues that, Aboriginal Medical Service, a community controlled one was set up as early as 1972. In 1973, the department of Aboriginal Affairs worked on a national program which improved health services for Aboriginal people. In the subsequent years, National Aboriginal & Islander Health Organization was set up. Aboriginal health could only be understood through Aboriginal culture and other factors that impacted the communities. Colonialism impacted on their health and is attributed to recent poor health status. Dispossession, oppression, loss of social cohesion and cultural identity led to loss of identity and social control. This was followed by poor dietary patters, tobacco and substance abuse and increased diseases. Since the enactment of self-determination, powerlessness was reduced among the Aborigines giving them empowerment to develop programs for improving health. Self-determination was core for the development of health related issues for Aborigines. The national, state and the local demographic, morbidity and mortality data among the Aborigines has been improving. This mainly can be attributed to the indigenous programs or projects which have been developed at local, state, national and international levels. Education has played a significant role in reducing physical activities and dietary behaviors, drug and alcohol issues, self-esteem and health status through community and social support. The ongoing consultations facilitated by self-determination policy has significantly contributed to the progress of community members, health-workers, preschools and schools programs and government departments has been fundamental for health (Tsey 2005). Tsey (1997) observed that, in 1976, NSW Aboriginal Education Consultative Group was established. Pre-school enrolments for Aboriginal Children started in Victoria and exclusion was decreasing. The number of Aboriginals who were consequently enrolled in schools increase and even specific personalities rose to higher education levels. Further advances were made to resource indigenous education through policies. This was a potential beginning for management of infrastructure through partnerships. Indigenous education committees and organizations, local ATSIC and AECGs regional councils have for long exercised meaningful authority over education. However, the established community-controlled originations build on self-determination failed to deliver the social and education gains to majority of indigenous people. This was partly because of lack of support and capacity building to facilitate effective education that matched with the standards of the whites in Australia and partly because there were less formal agreement reached with government to allow more possibilities (Tsey 1997). Improvements are however realized as a strong evidence of a universal education exists today. Aboriginal self-determination movements were particularly central to the significant achievements but there has been a continuous contradiction in Aboriginal struggle and better education. Formal education was not much popularized and government was less accountable through lack of constitutional responsibilities for Aboriginal education. Indigenous management capacity has however not been well built and statistically aboriginal children less likely get preschool education. They are also behind in numeracy and literacy skills which are developed before leaving primary school. There is less secondary schools amongst the communities for education access and thus most children are less likely to proceed. In addition, even with similar qualifications with whites, they less likely get a job which means less income and grave health problems, sanitation and higher mortality. Increased indigenous authority and formal agreement with Australian government is still sought today to create possibilities for indigenous councils, delegated education authorities to have jurisdiction over aspects of education and resource requirements. The past educational injustices are being addressed for reaching a settlement point, arrange for compensation, prevent indigenous children from education that do not account for their cultural beliefs and languages by dominant education system. This will also be improved through meaningful self-determination in management and self-government which builds indigenous management capacity (Tsey 1997). During Whitlam tenure, Australian Parliament passed Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. This made discrimination unlawful and overrode the inconsistent legislation in States and Territory. A resolution acknowledged the prior ownership of Australia and sought compensation for dispossession. This was a step to eliminate various forms of racial discrimination that in the extremist side affected the Aboriginal people. Consequently unfair or less fairly treatment based on someone’s race, descent, color, ethnic or national origin was eliminated constitutionally. The policy was meant as a rule which would treat all the Australians in similar ways without unfair effect on people from a particular race, descent, color, ethnic or national origin. In extension, it is currently against the law where discrimination arises in employment, land, accommodation and housing, goods and services provision, access to public places and facilities, joining trade union and advertising. Nevertheless, the form of self-determination was seen as insufficient as the Federal Government retained and exercised power over the ATSIC and Aboriginal communities. The concept of self-determination thus looked through this lens would mean that indigenous people’s independent law making was an emphasis of self-determination than just mere steps towards it. Cunneen, Edney & Cunneen’s (2003) argues that, the set up of National Aboriginal Consultative Committee was meant to advice the government about the Aboriginal Affairs. The Aboriginal people also successfully elected the Committee members. In 1976 Aboriginal Child Care Agency was established which show a reduction by 40% of the number of Aboriginal children found in children’s homes. There has been development in social justice where Australian rights are overly secured than it used to be before. Aboriginal communities were often locked and almost in conflict with police. Police commonly arrested activists and continuously carried harassments and attacks. Aboriginal legal service was established to document police abuses and monitor their work which reduced the deaths of aboriginals in custody. This worked in connection with the Royal Commission which investigated into Aboriginal deaths while in custody. The culture of victimization which prevented empowerment has thus been dropped as Aboriginals take matters in their own hands to reduce their powerlessness and perception of themselves as the victimized subset of the society. As Kowal (2008) observes, aborigines social and political powers were fairly reduced as they were for long been minority population. Without an important voting bloc, representation was uncommon an only the middle class got the political opportunities. The representative bodies for Aboriginal have however represented them in government. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Commission had been in the forefront but it drastically made various mistakes in leadership, finances, powers and patriarchal dominance leading to its failure. As Ferrell (2001) points out, subsequent developments have seen the rise of National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, incorporate in 2010 is independent from government for providing advisory, advocacy, monitoring, and evaluation of government performance concerning the indigenous issues. It hence provides a platform for standards of Aboriginal communities’ engagement, participating in parliamentary processes, ensure UN Declaration of Rights concerning Indigenous people has been implemented, harness for collective action and voice and facilitate generation and contribution of knowledge. National Body for Australian South Sea Islanders established in 2012 advocates for equality and rise for Aboriginals representations. In conclusion, Aboriginal self-determination has strongly been linked to the multiple improvements that have been seen over the last four decades. Land councils and representations have significantly contributed to advancement of rights, enactment of policies as well as implementation in favor of Aborigines. The fragmentation of Aboriginals, local actions and multiple languages has however not unified the indigenous communities for holding government accountable for meaningful self-determination. There is a need for more resources, activating people, raising awareness of rights and privileges and bringing the Aboriginals together can make progress as fast and successful and achieve what has been sought for long by Aboriginals. References Anderson, I 2007, The end of Aboriginal self-determination?. Futures, 39(2), 137-154. Banerjee, S. B 2000, Whose Land Is It Anyway? National Interest, Indigenous Stakeholders, and Colonial Discourses The Case of the Jabiluka Uranium Mine. Organization & Environment, 13(1), 3-38. Cunneen, C., Edney, R., & Cunneen’s, C 2003, Conflict, politics and crime: Aboriginal communities and the police. Allen & Unwin. Ferrell, S. J 2001, Concepts of Self-Determination and Autonomy of Indigenous Peoples in the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, The. . Thomas L. Rev., 14, 259. Kowal, E 2008, The Politics of the Gap: Indigenous Australians, Liberal Multiculturalism, and the End of the Self‐Determination Era. American anthropologist, 110(3), 338-348. Muehlebach, A 2003, What self in self-determination? Notes from the frontiers of transnational indigenous activism. Tsey, K 1997, Aboriginal self–determination, education and health: towards a radical change in attitudes to education. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 21(1), 77-83. Tsey, K 2005, The role of empowerment through life skills development in building comprehensive Primary Health Care systems in Indigenous Australia. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 11(2), 16-21. Read More

Aboriginal people had suffered injustices including economic, cultural, political and social injustices for over two centuries. Whitlam Labor Government immensely improved their situation by abating most of the pressures. However, the consequent Fraser regime show the Aboriginal pressures mount. In their own terms, Aboriginals understands self-determination through some fundamental principles. Family is taken as a foundation of Aboriginal identity and community. The service delivery effectiveness is taken to occur in a context involving broad family in the understanding of Aboriginal people.

Community is the basis of partnership within the Aboriginal communities and effectively provides services that respond to the identified needs. Proximity is of essence and the most effective services are only seen to be provided by the local communities with access to support and training (Muehlebach 2003). According to Muehlebach (2003), the concept of self-determination has long history and has been a central topic of consideration among Australians and more so with Indigenous Australians. The Aboriginal community in early 1970 approach to the Government of Australia led them to request for their own rights in administering their communities.

The request encompassed the basic rights to local government’s functions which ranged from land dealings, managing the community centers, road maintenance, garbage collection and setting of education standards and programs in the local schools. The assent of the Federal Government came together with some certain conditions. However, the main development was seen by formation of central Aboriginal administrator, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). The appointment and constitution of the ATSIC was mandated with a task of allocating and distributing funds to Aboriginal communities.

They were also to liaise with Federal Government on matters of welfare in Aboriginal areas which required funding or improvements. In essence, this was a form of self-determination, though more of initial steps towards full self-determination. Primarily, the work of the Commission meant that the Aboriginal people became self-contained within Australia (Anderson 2007). According to Banerjee (2000), self-determinism can be said to have significantly looked at the land rights as land is a very important resource of the Aborigines.

Aboriginal Tent Embassy was amongst the very first demonstration for Aboriginal land rights. In 1970s most Aboriginals moved to their traditional homelands and limited rights of land lease were given especially to people in Northern Territory reserves. This was most so after self-determination was enacted by Whitlam Government. The changes that followed included the rights for Aboriginal management of their natural resources, linguistic and cultural maintenance on Aboriginal land. The signing of Larrakia petition in 1972 by 1,000 Aboriginal people was an immense historical document for land rights.

This argued on how British took their land without a signed treaty rendering them refugees in their ancestral land. It publicized the land rights struggle putting pressure on government. Banerjee (2000) further argues that, NSW Aboriginal Land Trust was set for receiving freehold ownership pertaining to former Aboriginal reserves. Woodward Report was tabled as the second report by Aboriginal Land Commission. This acknowledged the Aboriginal link to their land and denial of right and prevention of mining amounted to denial of the reality of land rights.

This was followed by Commonwealth Act which established Aboriginal Land Fund Commission for buying land and giving to the Aboriginal corporate groups. The fund was further replaced in 198 by Aboriginal Development Council. Together with many other pressures from different communities, the government accepted to establish the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The offices were established in all states and the state thus transferred to that department the major responsibilities for Aboriginal administration and policy.

Read More