As England in the 19th century continued imperialist and colonialist policies in Australia, the marginalization of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population’s civil rights was intertwined in their pursuit of manifest destiny. From the very beginnings of colonization through contemporary society, what will be highlighted and supported in this research, drawing on journal articles, censuses, government documents, and international treaties and mandates is an Aboriginal population that has struggled to find its place within the new race and ethnic world order. Similar to the native Americans in the United States, as a people and a nation they were not discovered, instead, a population that emerged as a result of European exploration, an unwanted and unwelcomed nuisance that through the initial design of Constitutional rights extending to this population, from the beginning has sought to undermine their claims to land, their heritage, and their very existence on the continent.
In qualifying the actions made by the Victorian government through laws, policies, and mandates, what will become clear, coinciding with international treaties on human rights has been a subtle and covert form of ethnic, social, and civil genocide waged against the Aboriginal population. In outlining the actions of the British and Australia government, wild speculation and accusations on the abhorrent treatment of the Aborigines, relegating them as second class citizens will be confirmed through fact check, supporting validity in the assessment and drawn conclusions (Kiernan, 2002).
Analysis
In the 2011 census taken on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of Australia, identified the number of people being at 669,900 people, or 3% of the total Australian population, with a standard deviation of five percent. While the small percentage of the Australian population would not suggest special treatment or consideration, the history of the degradation of the Aborigines has involved international organizations such as Amnesty International, The United Kingdom’s Minority Rights Group International (MRG), and the United Nations (UN), working in conjunction with The Australian Rights Commission.
As these international groups have sought to acknowledge the civil rights violations and seek redress, such as the redrafting of the Australian Constitution to acknowledge the equality of the Aborigine in society, the UN charter and its mandates has begun to promote, advocate, and subsequently lead to positive changes. The UN drafting legislation supporting Aboriginal And Treaty Rights, Articles 1 & 2, in effecting these changes continue to seek uniformity in the assignment of civil rights through the application of world-wide pressure and the assignment of sanctions (State Records Office of Australia, 2014; United Nations Charter, 2015).
As the indigenous movement in Australia is being championed by Aboriginal leaders, collaborations between Reconciliation Australia, an international movement born out of Australia to address all minority civil rights has been successful in developing social media campaigns to educate the world’s population on the degradation of the Aborigine. What is unique is that the challenge to the status quo, reflected in centuries of marginalization in cultivating social norms which undermine the status of the Aborigine is making progress, awakening the Australian consciousness to the conflict through several international organizations. The movement towards equality for the Aborigine and their civil rights which continues to be a fluid battle continues to make incremental progress, with these international governing bodies and their mandates applying pressure which will lead to the restoring of Aboriginal rights, on issues concerning land and equality.
As the economic considerations play a key role in the restoring the cultural heritage of the Aborigine who not only believes they belong to the land, but also own it. In applying 21st century economics to retroactive land transfers, restoring the Aborigines to their land, coinciding with a restoration of civil rights, the cost considerations of equality have been argued by these international organizations as a primary hindrance, resulting in a lack of Australian government action in supporting basic human rights and equality for the indigenous population (The University of British Columbia, 2009).
As UN articles 1 & 2 have drawn the world’s attention in restoration, more disturbing claims, filed by civil rights groups in this forum address genocide and a systemic approach by the Australian government to first, marginalize and as the centuries have moved forward, destroy the people and their culture. As the argument of war crimes and genocide made its way through the Australian Court System and then on to the UN Genocide Convention, Robert’s (2004) research challenged the commitment by the government to protect and secure the welfare of the Aborigines from the moment the British stepped on to the continent.
The central argument promotes the development of a culture in Australia which was racially oriented and coercive, committed to undermining the indigenous population and their civil rights. In bringing attention and possible litigation in international courts, drawing attention to the plight of the Aborigine both in past and present Australia, confusion and concern over the term genocide and its application has marred the international litigation process. With international and Australian courts seeking a clear definition and an appropriate timeline for possible adjudication, which would likely come in the form of transfers of land, which have occurred, the punitive damages while providing a start, lack the restoration of civil rights. The arguments identifying Aborigine cultural diffusion, emersion, and subjugation of the population, offers a harsh history lesson to the world, but has yet to promote substantive change in leading to the restoration of civil rights for the indigenous people of Australia (Robert, 2004).
The political context of the Aborigines and their civil rights, in review of the percentages they reflect in the census at only three percent, suggest that they are not a priority, lacking the numbers within the population to challenge traditional government power structures. As a constituency, they lack the ability to promote change at the ballot box, thus removing any perceptions or possibilities of change in utilizing the democratic process. In instances where the international outcry has been great as a result of a single or series of sensationalized incidents addressing the lack of civil rights being assigned to the Aborigines, action has resulted, such as the Constitutional Section of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs’ Report, which reviewed the Administration of the Working Definition of Indigenous Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. The legislation, drafted in Canberra (1981), revised the outdated 1901 Constitution of Australia, which failed to acknowledge the Aborigines as the indigenous population, mentioning them only twice in the entire document.
The revision in 1981 sought to resolve Section 51, “giving the Commonwealth parliament power to legislate with respect to “the people of any race” throughout the Commonwealth, except for people of the aboriginal race (Canberra, 1981, p. 25).
Additional revisions sought to rectify “Section 127, providing simply that aboriginal natives shall not be counted in reckoning the size of the population of the Commonwealth or any part of it (Canberra, 1981, p. 26). In using this text as an example of domestic disparity, the content is clearly dehumanizing and reflects outdated perceptions that the Aborigines were second class citizens and a minor after-thought, not worthy of acknowledging their size, scope, and participation in society. As the Aborigines have and continued to gain support from world-wide humanitarian organizations such as the UN, and sympathetic, humanist government officials who appreciate the overt racism of the original documents, requiring revision, leading to Constitutional amendment.
However, the process of restoring the Aborigines to their rightful place in Australian society, assigning the population equality through the restoration of their civil rights, remains a slow and arduous process. Both the domestic and international communities, appreciating and realizing the need for change and equality among this vulnerable and at-risk group, has made progress, but not to the level and degree that could and should be expected in a civilized and enlightened civilization (Blandy, & Sibley, 2010).
As changes to the Constitution, with an emphasis on Section 51, which now gives parliament the power to create laws specifically for Aboriginal peoples as a “race”, the testing of these new powers occurred in the in the Tasmanian Dam Case of 1983. In this test case, which was focused on assessing the progress of the assignment of civil rights to the Aboriginees, the High Court of Australia was challenged to determine as to whether Commonwealth legislation, where its application could in-fact and in law, directly relate to Aboriginal people. The suit was a result of parts of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, in addition to other and related legislations which the Aboriginees believed their cultural heritage and civil rights as Aboriginal Tasmanians had been violated.
The verdict of the High court indicates judicial and societal evolution among the Australian people, where the verdict acknowledged that Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders, independently or together, could be identified and regarded as a “race” for the purpose of adjudication. The implications of this verdict now allow for inequalities to be addressed in the court room, which in the future, as civil suits are filed, it is possible that punitive damages could serve as a significant catalyst in restoring the rights of the at-risk and vulnerable Aboriginees. With this court decision, validating the Aboriginees under the law in Australia, with the all the rights thereto, dismissing this small segment of the population will not be as easy for the majority as it has been for over 200 years (Williams, 1999).
With the Australian Constitution having been amended and content such as Passage 51 being revised which now officially recognizes the legal rights of the Aborigines in Australia to bring suit, it would now be in their best interest to begin to file civil suits whenever possible in the courts. The use of the legal system to bring about change would be the most effective way to expedite larger revisions to the Constitution while seeking to draw on the strength of international coalitions, working with UN civil rights representatives, the MG, and more progressive minded domestic organizations such as The Australian Rights Commission.
In spotlighting key cases, drawing on media attention to increase awareness within the general public of Australia on the disparities and lack of rights experienced by the Aborigines, the expected result can be positive social changes. As the government would now see substantive increases in the number of civil rights filings by Aborigines, the expectation could then be that the government would seek to take a proactive position, utilizing the Australian Rights Commission to bridge gaps and develop legislation. In creating a bridge and working with the Aborigine population in an effort to restore their civil rights and promote equality, the end result would be a reduction in the number of case filings, where common laws supporting the Aborigines and their rights would resolve the need for adjudication (Arzey, & McNamara, 2011; Greer, 2007).
Currently, the Australian Human Rights Commission serves as an expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples, with a sitting counsel of five experts who engage at-risk populations, the UN, and the government. What appears lacking in its design is a formal complaint process, the inclusion of Aborigines on the counsel, and the ability to create laws and assign sanctions for egregious civil right violations. It is not enough for a counsel to simply catalog and bear witness to the failures of society in supporting the Aboriginal civil rights, instead, the future must promote transparency, accountability, relativity, practical application, and currency, all serving as key variables in supporting the necessary changes. As a starting point, the Australian Human Rights Commission provides an excellent foundation, however, it must continue to grow and evolve if it is to serve its true purpose and lift those up who have been marginalized and been put at-risk by society (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2016; Paisley, 1998).
Conclusion
While this research in its conclusions offer hope for the Aborigines, with changes being made to the Constitution, the acknowledgment of the problem at the international level by the UN, and the High Courts and governmental departments such as The Australian Human Rights Commission, seeking to operate as part of the solution, there still remains a very long way to go to promote equality among this marginalized race.
The outstanding challenge is awakening the consciousness of Australian society at all levels and calling attention to the disparity of classes and lack of civil rights among the Aborigines, with the message being so clear, loud, and possessing a longevity that cannot be discounted or ignored by the remainder of the population. It would appear that this battle will require continued due diligence by the Aboriginees as centuries of prejudice, racism, and inequality are resolved in civil court rooms, with these incremental victories leading to substantive change in Australian society (Moran, 2009; Pravda, 2001).
References
Arzey, S., & McNamara, L. (2011). Invoking international human rights law in a “rights-free
zone”: Indigenous justice campaigns in Australia. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(3), 733-
766, 922–923.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013, August 13). 3238.0.55.001 — Estimates of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Australians, June 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3238.0.55.001
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2016). Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples. Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/indigenous-international-issues
Blandy, S., & Sibley, L. (2010). Law, boundaries and the production of space. Social & Legal
Studies, 18(3), 275–284.
Greer, G. (2007. July 3). Worlds Apart. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/03/australia
Moran, A. (2002). As Australia decolonizes: indigenizing settler nationalism and the challenges
of settler/indigenous relations. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 25(6), 1013–1042.
doi:10.1080/0141987022000009412
Moran, A. (2009). What settler Australians talk about when they talk about Aborigines:
reflections on an in-depth interview study. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 32(5), 781–801.
doi:10.1080/01419870802023936
Paisley, F. (1998). Federalising the aborigines? Constitutional reform in the late 1920s.
Australian Historical Studies, 29(111), 248.
Pravda, R.U. (2001, October 1). Australian aborigines: Degradation vs. integration. Retrieved
from http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/10-01-2011/116469-
australian_aborigines-0/
Robert, V. K. (2004). Rethinking cultural genocide: Aboriginal child removal and settler-
colonial state formation. Oceania, 75(2), 125–151.
State Records Office of Australia. (2014). Aborigines Protection Board. Retrieved from
http://aeon.sro.wa.gov.au/Investigator/Details/Agency_Detail.asp?Id=1200
United Nations Charter. (2015). Article 1(2) of the United Nations Charter. Aboriginal And
Treaty Rights. Manitoba, Justice Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter5.html#9.
The University of British Columbia. (2009). Indigenous Rights. Retrieved from
http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/land-rights/aboriginal-rights.html
Watts, R. (2003). Making Numbers Count. Australian Historical Studies, 34(121), 26.
Williams, G. (1999, May 11). The Federal Parliament and the Protection of Human Rights.
Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Li
brary/pubs/rp/rp9899/99rp20
