Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 47

Changing Government polices towards Aboriginal people over time.

Syllabus Focus Questions


changing government policies towards Aboriginal peoples over time, including: protection Assimilation Integration self-determination the varying experiences of:the stolen generations

Segregation Loss of family identity

Terra Nullius Loss of land

Missionaries Loss of spiritualism

dispossession Federation Loss of Citizenship Protectionism Loss of land, kinship, culture

Dog License Loss of freedom

The Premiers met at the Federation Conference IN 1897. At that time the Bulletin reported, "No nigger, chinese, no lasko, no purveyor of cheap coloured labour is an Australian.

The Australian desert is truly in a primitive state in its loneliness and lifelessnessbut under federation every dry creek bed and parched billabong should be filled with water and thousands of miles of productive territory added to our possession'-The Bulletin 1895.

Paul Keating

The starting point for overcoming the problems besetting the first Australians was an act of recognitionthat it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional land and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the diseases. We brought the alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practiced discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice, and our failure to imagine these things being done to us.

Changing Policies: Why?


Government policies towards Indigenous Australians began as a response to racial stereotypes and economic needs for land and resources. These policies changed over time because of activism by Indigenous Australians and the pressure of changing ideas in the world about human rights

When Britain colonized in other places they reconised the indigenous people owned the land by signing treaties with them. This did not happen with Australias Aboriginal people. From the very beginning the British had declared the land Terra Nullius (land of no one). This was legal as in the 18th Century it was widely thought that if land was found that did not belong to anyone it could be taken and claimed. Captain Cook declared it so in 1770 when he first made sight of Australia.

Throughout the 19th century white settlers gradually moved the Aboriginal people off their land and into reserves. The indigenous people were forced to experience dispossession and paternalism. In strictly legal terms they did not exist. Paternalism is the practice of acting like a father, treating someone like a child, making decisions for them without allowing them responsibility. The reserves were established to fix the initial dispossession of land, as each colony passed laws most Aboriginals became wards of the state. It was not long before more land was needed for farming and these reserves were taken back by the government. By the late 1920s nearly all were in the hands of lease holders.

CHANGING POLICIES
Consider events , internationally that might impact on internal policy

Protectionism 1886-1938 ? Assimilation1938- ? Integration1962-1967 ? Self Determination1967- ? Multiculturalism ? Reconciliation?

Protection Boards 1911

all states and territories (not TAS) passed some form of 'protection legislation with an emphasis on segregation and restriction. Colonies passed Aboriginal Protection Acts that made all indigenous ards of the State. The responsibilities of the Protection Boards was to manage reserves. Some were run by the state and some were run by Church groups who felt the need to christianize the heathens

Aims/Purposes

A: to civilise, Christianise and above all train

Aborigines on stations established for the purpose; B: to remove as many children as possible from their 'bad' environment and parental 'influence' to training homes and thence to 'situations' [work] with white families;

1838-1940s Aboriginal people were removed from their traditional lands and placed on reserves (government-run) or missions (church-run) for their own protection, as they were a dying race. policy of segregation to forece white culture under the control of the authorities and they could be civilised and christianised. land previously occupied by Aborigines to become farming land.

Outline

Controls

Aborigines had to seek permission to marry, to work or to move somewhere else to live. Mixed children removed from, the Stolen Children, and brought up with white families and taught useful skills such as domestic work and simple trades. They were labelled as neglected and destitute and Australian governments had had a long policy of removing children at risk from their families. It happened on a large scale with Aboriginal children.

Controls

The Protector controlled:


Money Education Custody of children Marriages Movements Kicking people off reserves

Reaction: Coranderrk Women 1880

Coranderrk Aboriginal Reserve in Victoria became a site of Aboriginal activism and the Coranderrk people gained a reputation amongst white authorities as 'trouble-makers' because they continually defended their rights through strikes, deputations and petitions. Women were active in several of the campaigns, including strikes and walk-off

Kinchela Boys and Cootamundra Girls Homes

Training to be white

Day of Mourning 1938

Cootamundra Aboriginal Girls Training Home

Assimilation

Although Protection Boards were replaced by Welfare Boards in most states between 1938-1951, with the idea of Aboriginals being able to retain some of their culture, officially the policy was not legislated till 1951

Outline

change in policy but not necessarily a change in reality. Created in the 1937 Conference for Comm. And State Terr.

think white, act white, be white

It forced Aborigines to abandon their traditional way of life if they wanted to gain access to rights away from reserves

Aims
Aimed to have all persons of Aboriginal blood or mixed blood living like white Australians (Sharman stone) Aborigines encourages to become like white Australians and would have the same rights as white Australians (must forget their own culture).

Dog Tags Exemption Certificates

Controls
Exemption certificates issues by district welfare officers: aborigines had to apply for exemptions (exceptions or permission) to achieve equal rightsproving they wanted to live in white society and adopt white customs. Spending or sending money to other non-exempted family members was disallowed If you could not prove this, and could not be granted an exemption certificate, you life would be heavily controlled- children could be removed, go to segregated schools, couldnt access welfare or pensions, denied access to hotels and alcohol.

discrimination continued in all areas including housing, education, health and employment. Racism and intolerance continued, and many Aborigines were forced to live on the fringes of towns and were prevented from using public facilities such as town baths. Even returned Aboriginal soldiers were denied the same rights as their fellow, white, soldiers. In 1962 all Aborigines were given the right to vote in federal elections, which consolidated their voting rights in the states which had been given to them at various times between 1949 and 1961 and had made them citizens of Australia. They were still not counted as Australians in the census.

controls

Some stereotypes remained despite changing policies

Integration policy 1960s-1975


Change in international attitudes Universal Declaration of Human rights American Civil Rights movement

Australian Freedom Rides

Outline & Aim


change in wording and a relaxing of the harsher aspects of the governments policies but most of the controlling aspects of assimilation remained. changes seemed to allow Aborigines to keep some of their cultural ideas, beliefs and customs It was not a very long-lasting policy.

Seeking a Double Majority


The 1967 referendum, which gave the federal government power over Aboriginal affairs (instead of the states), was passed with a massive majority. The referendum also contained a question asking that the constitution be changed to allow all Aborigines to be counted in the census. This, too, was passed with a massive majority.

major change of policy and reality. introduced 1972 by Whitlam government Racial Discrimination Act had wider implications for all future Aboriginal policy makers .

Self Determination

Aim & Outline

Aborigines were to have full control over all aspects of their lives. ATSIC was set up to create policy.

They were no longer seen as a dying race. They no longer had to be protected. They were no longer expected to assimilate or integrate. They were now full and equal citizens in the eyes of the law. Land rights and native title to traditional lands now became the major issues

Gough Whitlam and Vincent Lingiari

Control
ATSIC gave the indigenous people control over their lives, and laws that would affect them Total self determination has not yet been achieved.

Still have land control removed Still suffer from disadvantage

MULTICULTURALISM

1975 Racial Discrimination Act In 1976 the Fraser government passed the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Aboriginals were allowed to claim crown land that was not being used by other people. The Aboriginal Lands Council was set up to control this land. Several state governments passed their own Land Rights Acts which recognised Aboriginal claims to land. In 1980 a National Federation Land Councils was set up. Organisations such as this helped to bring the issue of land rights to the attention of white Australia. In 1985 Aboriginal people were given ownership of Ayers Rock, now known by its traditional name of Uluru.

1986 Eddie Mabo begins his case for Native title. In 1992 the High Court determines that the Meriam people hold native title to their land. Native Title Act of 1993 was passed and National Native Title Tribunal was established. 1996 Wik Decision found that pastoral leases did not grant exclusive use and did not necessarily extinguish Native Title. Many people feared Native Title and it was incorrectly believed that Aboriginals would be able to claim peoples backyards under the act. This led to legislation changes in some states.

RECONCILIATION

In 1997 The Native Title Amendment Act was introduced making it more difficult to register a claim and limiting the areas that can be claimed under Native Title. In 1998 the first "National Sorry Day" was held, and reconciliation events were held nationally, and attended by millions people. In May 2000, a "Walk for Reconciliation" was staged in Sydney, with up to 400,000 people marching across the Sydney Harbour Bridge as a gesture of apology. A similar walk was staged in Melbourne later that year.

The Sea of Hands has become a symbol of the people's movement for reconciliation.

Table 1. Comparison of key variables: Northern Territory Indigenous versus Australia Indigenous, 2006. Variable Northern Territory Indigenous Australia Indigenous Ratio Unemployment rate (% labour force) 14.4 15.6 0.9 Labour force participation rate (% adults) 38.9 51.2 0.8 Employment to population ratio (% adults) 33.3 43.2 0.8 Private-sector employment (% adults) 19.2 32.8 0.6 Median income, Individual ($) 215 278 0.8 Median income, Household ($)837 791 1.1 Home owner or purchasing (% households) 20.0 35.9 0.6 Average number of persons per bedroom (persons) 1.8 1.3 1.4 Household size (persons) 4.5 3.4 1.3 Never attended school (% adults) 8.5 2.5 3.5 Completed Year 10 or higher (% adults) 40.2 66.4 0.6 Completed Year 12 (% adults) 10.1 22.2 0.5 Post-school qualification (% adults) 13.1 23.8 0.6 Degree or higher (% adults) 1.8 4.4 0.4

Northern Territory Emergency

Population aged over 55 years (% population)

7.7

8.2

0.9

The Northern Territory National Emergency Response (also referred to as "the intervention") is a package of changes to welfare provision, law enforcement, land tenure and other measures, introduced by the Australian federal government under John Howard in 2007, nominally to address claims of rampant child sexual abuse and neglect in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities. Operation Outreach, the intervention's main logistical operation conducted by a force of 600 soldiers and detachments from the ADF concluded on 21 October 2008

DEBATE John Howards Intervention Policy in Northern Territory

You know, the whole aim here is not to condemn people for their problems. The whole aim is to support them, to get back on their feet again and to take charge of their own families again Noel Pearson 7.30 Report 19.06.07
Fred Chaney, in his 2007 Vincent Lingiari Lecture (2007). Indigenous people will be subject to a level of micromanagement that is unprecedented elsewhere in Australian society. Chaney highlights the suspension of the provisions of the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act and the interference in Indigenous property rights as being of particular concern. He highlights how the lack of meaningful consultation has almost guaranteed that there will be resistance (both passive and active) to the implementation of the policy.

What is suggested by this cartoon? Who is the likely composer?

The intervention in the Northern Territory has come under fire by a variety of

groups. In short, the main criticisms of the intervention are as follows: The intervention has created chaos, increased poverty and racism. The intervention has not uncovered any paedophilia rings and no child sexual abuse cases have been prosecuted.. Only 2 of the 97 recommendations in the Little Children Are Sacred report were implemented In order for the Federal government to implement the Northern Territory Emergency Response, suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 was required making it legal to force communities to sign over control of Aboriginal land in 5 year leases, prohibit alcohol consumption and distribution in Aboriginal communities, control spending patterns through income management and store cards and take-over Aboriginal serviceproviders. The United Nations has expressed concern over the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act, writing to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in March 2009 following a complaint made to the UN by a collective of Aboriginal communities

Impact of Kevin Rudds Apology We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments
and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians. We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry

UN's intervention report finds racial discrimination


Updated Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:33pm AEDT Australia will face the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva in September accused of racially discriminating against Indigenous communities during the Northern Territory intervention. The final report of the UN's special rapporteur on Indigenous rights, Professor James Anaya, found the intervention limits the rights and freedoms of Indigenous people in breach of Australia's international obligations. It follows similar preliminary findings during a visit to Australia last year. The report does not discuss the Federal Government's planned changes to the intervention because they are not yet complete. Professor Anaya says there is little evidence that measures such as welfare quarantining actually work, and he welcomes planned changes.

Ideology Racial Superiority Christianity Equality

External Events World Wars United Nations Human Rights Charter American Civil Rights Movement

Factors influencing Changing Racial Legislation

Internal Protest Day of Mourning 67 referendum Tent Embassy

Mabo

Political pendulum Liberal vs Labor Policy