Australian Indigenous Self-Determination - Essay Example

Running Head: AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION Australian indigenous self-determination Name Course Institution Date Australian indigenous self-determination Introduction Self-determination can be described as the independence or freedom of a group of people to determine their fate, course of action and political status among many other factors without the interference of external agencies (Hannum, 1996). Prior to the arrival of European settlers in Australia in 1788, indigenous communities in Australia were self-determined, they had their own system of land ownership, occupancy and inheritance system and an established traditional way of living. However, following European’s occupation in Australia, indigenous self-determination was compromised. Furthermore, their traditional way of living and system of land ownership was almost destroyed entirely. In various parameters, white settlers made decisions that affected the lives of indigenous people. Not only were indigenous Australians dispossessed of the rights that they enjoyed in their tradition societies but they were also denied control over personal property, welfare benefits, equal pay, right to education, right to vote and the custody of their children among many other factors. Consequently, as compared to the non-indigenous, indigenous communities are more disadvantaged since their affairs are managed by white-imposed laws and structures and their appeal for real self-determination has not been given the priority or attention that it deserves (Burgmann, 2003). This paper seeks to examine the concept of indigenous self-determination. It will illustrate why indigenous self-determination can contribute to better outcomes for indigenous Australians. Moreover, this paper will explore some of the strategies that can be used to improve indigenous self-determination in Australia. In addition, this paper will examine how indigenous self-determination has been embraced in other countries as compared to indigenous communities in Australia. The concept of indigenous self-determination The concept of indigenous self-determination has ignited much debate and controversy in Australia. As a result of the treatment that indigenous communities have received over the years from the government, most of indigenous communities feel that they are disadvantaged as compared to other non- indigenous communities. This is mainly because their affairs are controlled by structures and laws imposed by white settlers which do not take into account their plight, culture and values. In response, indigenous communities have sought for self-determination from the government. The indigenous self-determination entails the rights of people from indigenous communities to administer the affairs of their communities and other basic government functions such as land dealings, developing education programs and the management of community centers (Burgmann, 2003). The first steps towards the realization of indigenous self-determination became apparent in Australia 1989 when the Hawke government declared its plans for Aboriginal self-determination by abolishing the “Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Development Corporation” and replacing it with a statutory authority known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission(ATSIC) (Fletcher, 1994). The ATSIC was granted the power to implement policies revolving around the affairs of Aborigines and the Torres Strait Islanders. Furthermore, the ATSIC was given the mandate to allocate funds to Aboriginal communities and to liaise with the federal government in order to improve the welfare of Aboriginal communities. The government considered the ATSIC as a means of advancing its principles of ministerial accountability and self-management (Fletcher, 1994). A number of Aboriginal communities were enthusiastic about this proposal since they considered that any degree of self-management to be better than the white settlers bureaucracy which were embodied in the previous departments of Aboriginal affairs. Some believed that the establishment of the ATSIC was a form of self-determination at the very least and a step towards self-determination since the Aboriginal community was becoming a more self-contained population within Australia. However, the establishment of the ATSIC was not a sufficient means of indigenous self-determination since the federal government still exercised power over the ATSIC and the indigenous communities in general (Burgmann, 2003). ATSIC was later abolished by the government due to impeding trends of conflicts and corruption. Generally, indigenous self-determination necessitates that advancement of basic political rights nevertheless as indigenous self-determination has been implanted with severe national and political conflicts (Fletcher, 1994; Burgmann, 2003). To date indigenous organizations and leaders continue to look for greater autonomy and self-determination they no longer accept assimilation policies. As a result, different indigenous rights movements have emerged, the emergence of these movements can be traced back to the close of World War II. Following the partipation of the indigenous community in this war, their circumstances changed. Considering the fact that indigenous communities succumbed to the atrocities of the war, the Western countries became more tolerant of dissenting organizations and perspectives whether they were women’s organizations or labor movements (Poelzer, 2010). These changes provided indigenous leaders a more liberal political platform whereby they can advance their appeal for self-determination. Moreover, the establishment of the international organizations such as the United Nations helped indigenous people to pressure the government to implement policy changes. In addition, the emergence of efficient indigenous political organizations and the emergence of pan-indigenous political identities have over time increased the capacity of indigenous organizations to press their demands for self-determination more effectively. Consequently, the past decades has witnessed significant advances towards the recognition of indigenous rights and the actualization of indigenous self-determination (Poelzer, 2010). The Australian government gave it support to the “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” in 2009. This declaration affirms the rights of indigenous people to self-determination. According to Article 3 of this declaration, people from indigenous communities have the right to self-determination with regards to the fact that they are free to determine their political status they are also free to pursue their social, economic and cultural development (United Nations, 2008). Historically, the Australia government has been reserved concerning the promotion of indigenous self determination in Australia. The government often regarded that the rights of indigenous people to self-determination entails a sovereign claim in competition with the Australian national sovereignty. However, this is an inaccurate viewpoint of the nature of indigenous self-determination (Anaya, 1996). Under the international law, the definition of self-determination is flexible, the law provides that self-determination is a right with different faces, it does not necessarily require the establishment of independent state rather it may necessitate the autonomy of a group of people within the borders of an existing state. The claim of indigenous self-determination particularly in Australia and others part of the world takes this form. Therefore, indigenous self-determination does not pose a threat to Australia’s sovereignty instead it demands recognition of a distinct status of indigenous people (Kirgis, 1994). Significance of indigenous self –determination Self-determination is of great significance for Indigenous peoples, mainly due to their experiences of marginalisation and dispossession. The protection of Indigenous rights to self-determination would provide indigenous community with a belated opportunity to get involved in building an Australia that is committed to reconciliation and substantive equality (Kirgis, 1994). Moreover, indigenous self-determination can help to improve the outcomes for indigenous Australians. According to Calma et al (2008), indigenous Australians experience poorer outcomes than non-indigenous Australians in most socio-economic parameters. For example in the education sector, indigenous students are the most disadvantaged group when it comes to obtaining quality education, consequently a good number of youths from indigenous communities fail to achieve the milestones of basic education this reduces their chances for further training and employment in future (Calma et al ,2008).These poor outcomes can be attributed to the fact that the existing Australia education program does not meet the needs of indigenous students since it does not incorporate indigenous cultures, values and language. Consequently, this makes it difficult for indigenous students to relate to the existing curriculum or realize the set learning objectives (NTDE 1999). Nevertheless, when indigenous people are self-determined and have the mandate to establish and manage their own education programs better education outcomes are bound to be realized for indigenous students since the needs of indigenous students will be addressed. It is not only in the education sector that better indigenous outcomes are bound to be realized as a result of indigenous self determination but also in many other socio-economic parameters. Indigenous self-determination can result to better outcomes for indigenous people mainly because the needs of the community are more likely to be met if indigenous people are self-determined and have control over the operational and decision making aspects of social, cultural, political and economic factors that revolve around them. Concepts such as community development, accountability and decision making can be established based on the perspectives of the indigenous community. Furthermore, indigenous self-determination will enable indigenous people to have control over the settings of their communities’ priorities this will lead to better administration and management of the community’s affairs since they are the ones who understand their needs better (Heslop, 2003). Strategies of enhancing indigenous self-determination in Australia In order to enhance indigenous self-determination in Australia it is essential to enshrine the right of indigenous people to self-determination in Australia’s human rights statues. Since indigenous self-determination is fundamental human rights principle in the International law it must also be enshrined in Australia’s human rights statue. Australia’s human rights statues have a narrow focus on indigenous self-determination that only incorporates political and civil rights. This is in turn tends to limit the extent of indigenous self-determination. Therefore, Australia’s human rights statue should also incorporate the universal and indivisible nature of all the human rights provisions that are conveyed in the international law (Maguire, 2009). Basically, specific indigenous self-determination rights should be enshrined in Australia’s human rights statue. Given the fact that indigenous people have succumbed to dispossession and marginalisation, the human rights statue must specifically address the rights indigenous populations. One of the ways in which this can be realized is through the specific acknowledgement of indigenous right to self-determination. It would also be imperative to include in the statue the commitment of the Australian government state and community to promote the realization of indigenous self-determination in Australia (Maguire, 2009). Secondly, the role of the Australian parliament in enhancing indigenous self-determination is crucial. This is mainly because under “race power” in section 51(xxvi) of the Australian constitution, the parliament has the mandate to enact legislations revolving around the rights of indigenous people in different contexts. For example, over time the Australian parliament has enacted the Native Title Act (1993) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 among many other legislations that have overtime affected the rights of indigenous people. With this in mind, one of the ways in which indigenous self-determination in Australia can be enhanced is if the Australian parliaments enact legislations that uphold the right of indigenous people to self-determination (Maguire, 2009). Moreover, in order to enhance indigenous self-determination in Australia it is imperative for relevant departments in the Australian government to actively promote and protect indigenous self-determination. The judiciary should be empowered to promote self-determination for indigenous students. Given the fact that Australian tribunals and courts have the responsibility of making decisions that impact on the rights of indigenous claimants, they should therefore be empowered to make such decisions in accordance to indigenous rights of self-determination that are protected under the Australian law (Maguire, 2009). In addition, the Australian government should initiate and coordinate a national conversation concerning indigenous self-determination. The right to indigenous self-determination has not been discussed adequately in Australian social discourse. Owing to the fact that the right to self-determination is enshrined in the Australian constitution, self-determination should be a subject of national conversation. This conversation should entail how self-determination can be realized and whether treaties or other forms of settlement should be used to enhance the rights of indigenous people to self-determination (Maguire, 2009). Indigenous self-determination in other countries In Asia particularly in the Philippines, indigenous peoples are divided into two main groups namely the Moro peoples who have embraced Islam and are under the sultanates systems and the Lumad peoples who are not assimilated into Islam. The Cordillera region is mostly occupied by indigenous thus indigenous people in this area are referred to as Cordillera indigenous. Unlike other communities, Cordillera indigenous have succumbed to oppressive practices and policies by the government (IWGIA, 1999).For instance, they were denied ancestral resources and land and have experienced discrimination in various social economic parameters. As compared to Australia, the struggle for self-determination for Cordillera indigenous in the Philippines has not been embraced accordingly, what the government considers as regional autonomy or indigenous self-determination as no more than administrative regionalization and the decentralization of usual functions the local and regional structures. At best indigenous self-determination in the Philippines has been embraced as broader participation of indigenous peoples in governance as politicians or professionals in other areas (IWGIA, 1999). In Canada, despite of the previous judicial decisions revolving around Aboriginal rights under section 35(1), the rights of the Aboriginal people in Canada has not received greater protection and these rights have not expanded to involve the rights of Aboriginals to self-determination (Dalton, 2006).Unlike Australia, it is worth noting that the level of governmental and political recognition of Aboriginal rights of self-determination is greater than that of the Supreme Court of Canada. On the other hand, the Canadian government has been willing to recognize the inherent right of Aboriginal people to self-determination. Just like in Australia the recognition of the rights of indigenous people to self-determination has come as a result of the changing legal status in the international law. Moreover, the Canadian government has initiated policy statements and developments particularly in comprehensive self-government negotiations (Dalton, 2006). References Anaya, J. (1996). Indigenous people in international law. UK: Oxford University Press. Burgmann, V.(2003). The Aboriginal movement in power, profit and protest: Australian social movements and globilisation. NSW: Allen & Unwin. Calma, T. et al, 2008, Achieving improved primary and secondary education outcomes for indigenous students, AMP foundation, Sydney. Dalton, J. (2006). Aboriginal self-determination in Canada: Protections afforded by the judiciary and the government. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 11, 2006. Fletcher, C. (1994). Aboriginal self-determination in Australia. Sydney: Aboriginal studies press. Hannum, H. (1996). Autonomy, sovereignty and self-determination: the accommodation of conflicting rights. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Heslop, J., 2003, Living and teaching in Aboriginal communities, In Beresford, Q. & Partington, G., Reform and resistance in Aboriginal education, University of Western Australia Press, Crawley, Western Australia. Indigenous Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) (1999). Indigenous Peoples Self- determination and the Nation State in Asia. Retrieved on June 5, 2011 from Kirgis, F. (1994). The Degrees of Self-Determination in the United Nations Era. The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 304-310. Maguire, A. (2009). The right of self-determination for indigenous peoples in Australia. Retrieved on June 5, 2011. A submission to the National Human Rights Consultation June 15, 2009. Northern Territory Department of Education, 1999, Learning Lessons Report: An Independent Review of Indigenous Education in the Northern Territory, Darwin, pp.125–131. Poelzer, G. (2010). Indigenous Rights and Self-determination: Models and Options. Canada: University of Saskatchewan. United Nations.(2008). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Resolution. Retrieved on June 5, 2011 from Read More