|
Human rights, environmental justice
and land rights issues of
Australian Aborigines
by Richard Blant
|
Looking at the contemporary treatment of Aborigines, we can see both a continuity with and a break from the past. A huge gain and break from the past is that formal, democratic rights have been won. Aborigines are counted in the census, can vote and administer many of their own affairs through land councils, and can negotiate directly with mining companies. But in a similar vein to other minority groups throughout the World, there is a gap between formal and informal treatment. Both at the elite level and the mass level, informal treatment has been contemptible. The Howard Government has seriously eroded gains made through land title legislation in recent years. This situation has resulted in Australia being the only developed country to be condemned as racist by the United Nations. This paper shall identify legislative gains (and losses).
|
|
|
A Brief History of Indigenous Australia
James Cook discovered Australia for the British in 1770 and it was used primarily as a penal colony. The steady flow of virtual slave labour (some people were deported for as little as the theft of bread) continued until 1868 by which time the non-indigenous population was roughly 165,000. The native population totalled around 300,000 but a lethal combination of new diseases, harsh treatment and mass slaughter reduced this to - at one stage - as little as 100,000. Today the aboriginal population is roughly 283,000 [1 footnote]. In terms of population growth or contraction, the settler population today is 111 times greater than in 1868; the indigenous population is only 93% its 1868 size.
The European settlers used the Latin term terra nullius to describe the land: it was empty, unused. This was their justification for the theft of the land. Lockean notions of private property saw land not properly tilled and mined as being tantamount to a grave sin. It mattered not that people were driven from the land because, without fences - anathema to the Aborigines - it was free to be colonised. Where enclosure was resisted, the people were met with violence. The Aboriginal lawyer, Noel Harrison, put it thus: "We occupied the land, but we were fauna." [2 footnote] Australia is extremely rich in natural resources: coal, aluminium, uranium, iron ore, bauxite, natural gas, lead, zinc, gold, opal, fish, wool and furs. It was originally access to these resources that the settlers coveted. However, the best way to not only gain access to, but to control, was by ownership of the land itself. The indigenous peoples were forced inland to 'light soil' (resource-starved) and arid lands - the most fertile land taken by the white farmers.
|
|
|
Of course by the norms of the 19th century this was not deemed unusual. Mercantilism - Commerce - was just one imperial 'C'. The other two (Civilisation and Christianity) created a front for one of the most inhumane subjugations of one culture over another. Thousands of Aborigines were rounded up and settled on church-run missions (little better than concentration camps). Native languages, dances, songs and ceremonies were banned. Governor Gawler in Adelaide declared: "We wish to make you happy but you cannot be happy unless you love God, love white people and learn to speak English." [3 footnote] In this kulturkampf, there was to be only one winner. This struggle to create Britons amongst the indigenous populations manifested itself at its most ugly during the first three decades of the 20th century. During the 1900s, 1910s and 1920s, the Australian police force was used to kidnap and steal Aboriginal children in order to 'civilise' them. Children were sent to Christian, semi-militaristic, schools. The boys were then sent to work on farms and the girls entered domestic service. Robert T Donaldson, armed with lollipops, became infamous as the "Kid's Collector" whilst working for the Orwellian-named Aborigines Protection Board. As Aborigines keep no record of births or deaths, children were all given the same birthday (1st July). In most cases they never got to see their families again. The creation of new Britons - a noble aim by the jingoistic standards of the day - has a flipside: the eradication of a culture, a nation, and a people.
The teaching of history in Australia has polarised since 1987, when a team of researchers at Sidney University, discovered that the indigenous population might have been as high as 750,000 in 1788 - meaning that more than 600,000 had been wiped out as a result of the actions of the white settlers. This somewhat unpopular analysis has been derided as 'black-armband' history. [4 footnote] But having to confront this possibility has been difficult to a country which until very recently did not even mention the indigenous populace in its teaching - not even Aborigine children were allowed to learn about their own history.
|
|
|
The Sanctity of Land
The theft of land has not merely robbed the indigenous population of an economic base, but has had a deeper consequence in the loss of culture and identity. Land to the Aborigines is sacred. The mythologisation of the Land has a long, deep, history. "Dreamtime stories", talking about antecedents and creation, afford the land a spiritual significance lost in Western thought. A Westerner might look at the land and wonder about the price per acre, how it can be developed or mined. For the Aborigine it is everything - they are inseparably related to it. As one puts it: "[...] it provides the intelligence for why I exist and who I am." [5 footnote] The land, of course, is a source of food, medicine and clothing but it is more than that - it is the one thing that links all of its inhabitants and thus is a source for, and a fully-fledged part of, the human soul.
This spirituality manifests itself in the Law - Aboriginal Law. Though tribal Elders pass knowledge of the Law on to subsequent generations, through stories and songs, its ultimate foundation is the land itself. All of the flora and fauna has a meaning that dictates behaviour. Whereas in the West, a person's value derives from his wealth, his ownership (or lack of either), in Aboriginal culture a person's stature is measured by contribution to, participation in and wisdom of, the sea, hills, grass, wind, clouds, trees, birds, insects and rivers etc. If we are to bear this in mind, then the importance of Land Rights takes on a new significance.
The Situation Today
Looking at the contemporary treatment of Aborigines, we can see both a continuity with and a break from the past. A huge gain and break from the past is that formal, democratic rights have been won. Aborigines are counted in the census, can vote and administer many of their own affairs through land councils, and can negotiate directly with mining companies. But in a similar vein to other minority groups throughout the World, there is a gap between formal and informal treatment. Both at the elite level and the mass level, informal treatment has been contemptible. The Howard Government has seriously eroded gains made through land title legislation in recent years. This situation has resulted in Australia being the only developed country to be condemned as racist by the United Nations.
Post-imperial racism has manifested itself in popular attitudes to Aborigines. The situation has been stuck in a self-reinforcing vicious circle. For example, rates of alcoholism are extraordinarily high amongst Aborigines in comparison with white Australians. But alcoholism is merely a symptom of poverty and abuse. The direct correlation between alcohol abuse (and, increasingly among the young, petrol or glue abuse) and racist or cultural abuse is patently obvious. However, this in its turn fuels racism as 'abos' (or more insultingly 'gins') can be portrayed as feckless and indolent. Popular attitudes are marked by a distinct cleavage between 'worthy' and 'unworthy' Aborigines. Black sportspeople, such as the Olympian Cathy Freeman, are heroes and role models but sadly they are also an aberration. They are 'worthy' because they have almost become 'white'. They have commodified - if not totally lost - their culture. The town of Alice Springs is a prime example of this cleavage. The small but prosperous tourist town is a microcosm of Australian attitudes to the Aborigines. Tourists can visit sacred Aboriginal lands, enjoy Aboriginal culture or purchase Aboriginal arts and crafts. But the tourist side masks a different side to Aboriginal life in the town. Few visitors get to 'enjoy' the dozen or so non-sacred 'town camps' (shanty towns) situated just a few kilometres outside the city centre or the new Aborigine culture of getting drunk under gum trees or visit a 'bottle shop' to purchase cheap wine. (Alice Springs has the highest number of 'bottle shops' per capita in the country.)
The health of the Aborigines - living in a prosperous, developed country - is very much on a par with that expected in the Third World. Rates of trachoma for example - a classic Third World scourge - are extremely high. Official governmental statistics acknowledge the discrepancy between the indigenous and white populations. Life expectancy is matched only by India and Central America. Infant mortality rates in Western Australia are higher than in Bangladesh. In a Queensland Health Department study, Aboriginal deaths from infectious, preventable diseases were as much as 300 times higher than those of whites in that state. [6 footnote] Furthermore, unemployment rates are high (Aborigines are four times more likely to be without work than white people), incomes are low and working conditions poor. Basic services like electricity and running water can be scarce. Access to education is patchy - Whites are 12 times as likely to be in education beyond the age of 15 than Aborigines. [7 footnote] It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that suicide rates, especially amongst the young, are extraordinarily high.
Legislative Changes
As far as the issue of Land Rights, the most significant gain for Aborigines at the elite level has been the 1993 Native Title Act. This removed from Common Law the notion of terra nullius (that had justified the dispossession of the indigenous population). It was enacted following the Mabo Judgement in the High Court - named after Eddie Mabo who successfully made claim to land rights. The legislation decreed that Aborigines might have title to crown land where they have lived continuously. However, the existence of freeholds or leaseholds on pastoral lands nullified this - even though such agreements had been made by theft during the 19th century. The legislation also did not offer reparations for lost lands. Furthermore it did not grant the rights, merely offered a mechanism for dealing with anomalies that might arise. Paul Keating, the Prime Minister, sold the deal to leaders of the Aborigine communities as almost a fait accompli - that it was all they could reasonably expect to receive. But in truth any gain is still a gain. The major problem with the legislation, of course, was that the onus was placed squarely on the Aborigines to prove that they had always owned the land, and if that was proved then they could expect to receive it back. But the (Aboriginal) Law dictated that land could not be given or taken away. It had always been theirs without title deeds. This obviously created some difficulties.
The legislation was tested in 1996. In an appeal court case involving the Wik people in Queensland, the High Court found that leasehold did not necessarily cancel Native title of the land. A lease is a lease: it only grants possession for a limited and specific period of time. Thus lands acquired in the mid 19th century did not necessarily still belong to those who had made the acquisition. The decision was fiercely criticised by Agribusiness and mining groups. Although, financially and legally, the Aborigines have made only minor gains from the Mabo and Wik decisions and the 1993 Act, the most significant gains were moral. Their dignified actions belied the response of those (supposedly 'civilised people') who were outraged by the decisions.
So the gap between legislation in words and legislation in deed persists. In theory 'x' might happen, but in practice little will change. This makes the actions of John Howard all the more puzzling. The little gains of the 1993 legislation have all but been eradicated by the most recently passed legislation. Of course, the resentment of white people to claims on 'their' land is nothing new. In 1981, the Pitjantjatjara tribe won the title to 100,000 square kilometres of land that had belonged to them for centuries. In 1983, however, the South Australia Supreme Court ruled significant sections of the decision invalid. This meant that they nominally were allowed to remain on the land without actually owning it.
The decision of Howard to implement his 'ten-point plan' does seem to be simply mean-spirited and greedy. The legislation - which, as we have seen was condemned as racist by the UN - converts leaseholds to freeholds thus wiping out Native Title in all but name. This is a huge shift in the balance of ownership in the country, benefiting some of the world's richest men. Kerry Packer, Rupert Murdoch and members of the Australian Government have all benefited from this. In practice, 42% of all of Australia is now owned by less than 0.25% of the population. This has firmly placed race as a major issue in Australian politics. Pauline Hanson, an overt racist who freely uses the term 'gin' for Aborigines (akin to the word 'nigger') was elected to Parliament on a provocative anti-Aboriginal platform. (Aborigines had been 'privileged' for too long, she declared.)
Environmental Justice
One of the best examples of environmental abuse since the Second World War was the nuclear testing sites. During the 1950s, the Australian Prime Minister gave permission to use vast swathes of the Outback for testing nuclear weapons. As the land was 'terra nullius', the official record showed the lands to be uninhabited. But Patrick Connolly, who served with the RAF, testified, "during the two and a half years I was there, I would have seen 400 or 500 Aborigines in contaminated areas. Occasionally, we would bring them in for decontamination. Other times we shooed them off like rabbits."
A more recent case study can be the Jabiluka Mine. In the early 1970s, Pancontinental Mining Limited discovered high-grade uranium deposits in the Northern Territory. The Northern Land Council representing some Aboriginal landowners (and apparently under governmental duress) approved mining at the Jabiluka location. The by-products of uranium mining are highly toxic pollutants and often contain 85% the radioactivity levels of the original element. The site of this mine is adjacent to an Aboriginal, low-income community and potential leaks into the Alligator River system have been identified. It is a major threat to the health of the community: a community that depends upon the river for food and drinking water. Bob Hawke, former Labour Party Prime Minister, effectively put an end to uranium mining in Australia during the 1980s, due to environmental concerns. However, the election of John Howard in 1996 - and particularly following his re-election in 1998 - jump-started the uranium mining industry. Despite a coalition of protestors (including environmentalists, students and Aborigines) successfully manning a blockade of the site, mining commenced in 1998. Anxieties about the environmental effects have fallen on deaf ears. One noteworthy thing about the mine and protest movement is that it has not been flagged as a specific 'environmental justice' issue. It has been mentioned as a Land Rights issue (for example, who can give the authority for mining the land?) It has also been an environmental issue per se (the polluting effect on the surrounding area has been discussed). However, the effects on the nearby Aboriginal community have largely been ignored. This could be simply due to a lack of awareness about theories of Environmental Justice.
Solidarity Groups
If we bear in mind the historical - and, indeed, current - treatment of Aborigines, there are very few worldwide solidarity groups. Very little organisation appears to have been done with regard to protesting about the plight of the Aboriginal population. For example, there is no evidence of recent protests at the Australian Embassy in London: there have been protests against Australian actions in East Timor, but none specifically about the Aborigines. One reason for this may well be that the issue has 'disappeared' in recent years. Like the treatment of Afro-Americans in the USA, once 'formal' civil rights have been won, the issue disappears. One huge demonstration did take place in June 2000 when 200,000 marched onto Sidney Harbour Bridge to protest at the treatment of the indigenous population, but this might be seen to represent an Australian protest about an Australian issue.
- – Richard Blant
Footnotes:
- maps.unomaha.edu
- J Pilger, Hidden Agendas, (Vintage: London, 1998), p.234
- W Ellwood, "Back From the Brink: The Native Peoples and the Future", New Internationalist (186), August 1988
- aph.gov.au
- W Ellwood, "Giant Jigsaw Puzzle", New Internationalist (186), August 1988
- abs.gov.au
- abs.gov.au
|
|
