Forwarded by Les Malezer, Deputy Chairperson
National Indigenous Working Group on Native Title
NIWG from Geneva
********************************
HERRON ADDRESSES THE UNITED NATIONS
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Minister John Herron today told
the United Nations there had been a positive and fundamental shift in Australia
about the thinking of solutions to some of the most intractable problems
confronting indigenous communities.
Addressing the 17th Session of the Working Group of Indigenous Populations
(WGIP) in Geneva, Senator Herron said that until quite recently it had been
impossible to have an honest discussion about issues such as individual
responsibility and the right to welfare.
"There was what I call 'the great silence' at the core of much discussion of
indigenous policy issues. We talked about the problems caused by history and
society but few dared speak of some of the fundamental problems nurtured within
many indigenous communities themselves," Senator Herron said.
He said the Australian Government over the past three years had sought to change
the direction of indigenous affairs away from welfare dependency but that did
not mean any lack of compassion.
"It also means policies that facilitate and promote genuine economic
independence for indigenous people, policies that go beyond the catchcry of land
and mining royalties and encompass both individual-skills development and
productive business enterprises," Senator Herron said.
"There have been ... assertions that the solution ultimately lies in the
direction of forms of Aboriginal sovereign self-government as contemplated by
the 'self-determination' provisions of the Draft Declaration of the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. The Draft Declaration itself is at risk of becoming a
distraction from the real tasks and priorities before us. The Australian
Government rejects 'the politics of symbolism'. We believe in practical
measures leading to practical results that improve the lives of individual
people where they live."
"It is the skills of people in which we must invest for the long-term future and
that is what we are doing in Australia," he said.
Senator Herron said that through very active government support the number of
indigenous Australians attending university had increased from 1600 in 1990 to
almost 8000. Four years ago there had been just 800 indigenous Australians
learning trades through apprenticeships - today there were 4,800. There was
unambiguous empirical evidence Australia's policies were working and that the
socio-economic status of indigenous Australians was improving.
A Copy of the Minister's Speech is attached and it can be viewed at
www.atsia.gov.au
29 July 1999
Statement on behalf of the Australian Government
17th Session
United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations
29 July, 1999
Madame Chairman, Distinguished members of the working group, Representatives of
member states and of the specialised agencies of the United Nations system,
Indigenous peoples and their representatives and all attending this 17th session
of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations.
This is the second time that I have had the privilege of taking the floor in
this forum. I also attended the session in 1997.
May I begin by offering my warm congratulations to you, Madame Chairman, on your
re-election to the chairmanship of this important working group. You first
presided over this working group in 1984. Since then its meetings have grown in
both size and status and the working group has completed many important tasks.
I note, for example, that this week you have presented your second progress
report on indigenous people's relationship to land and I look forward to reading
it with interest.
Much of the success of the WGIP can truly be said to be a direct result of your
vision, Madame Chairman, to create a unique forum in the United Nations system
where indigenous peoples may speak freely of their concerns and aspirations.
Your words of constructive dialogue, freedom, human rights and equality
encourage all of us.
Australia, through its government and NGO representatives, has a long and active
record of involvement in the Working Group on Indigenous Populations and related
UN fora. It is an indication of the importance we place on indigenous rights,
and, on a practical level, the importance we place on addressing indigenous
disadvantage.
We come here this year for a number of reasons, partly to learn from the
experiences of others and partly to share the Australian experience with other
participants. We believe that in recent times in Australia there has been a
positive and fundamental shift in thinking about solutions to some of the most
intractable problems confronting indigenous communities. I want to spend some
of my time today speaking about that change in approach, but first of all I want
to address a few remarks to the main theme of this week's meeting - land and
land usage.
Land and Native Title: Pre-Mabo Two years ago when I was here the issue of land
and native title featured prominently in public debate in Australia. It was
even mentioned in some of the proceedings of this group.
I am pleased to report today that the domestic debate has now largely subsided,
following the enactment of amended native title legislation by the federal
Parliament last year.
Considering Australia's unique historical experience it should have come as no
surprise that indigenous land issues would be a source of public debate at the
end of the twentieth century. The reason is that eighteenth century British
settlement of Australia proceeded on an entirely different legal basis to that
in other parts of the world, North America and New Zealand, for example.
Unlike there, British colonization of Australia proceeded on the legal
assumption, albeit factually and demonstrably wrong, that the continent was not
settled - "terra nullius". With the result that, unlike other colonies, there
were never any formal treaties or agreements made with the indigenous
population.
As a consequence indigenous land rights were not acknowledged and did not evolve
as part of Australian land and property law.
Of course indigenous Australians, quite rightly, never accepted this legal
argument and from the 1960s began a series of political campaigns and court
challenges to assert and establish their land rights.
>From the early 1970s Australian governments - both federal and State - began to
develop policy and legislative responses to accommodate these aspirations and
needs.
A national program of land purchases for indigenous Australians began over a
quarter of a century ago and continues to this day. Under the indigenous
controlled Indigenous Land Corporation, A$48 million is available every year for
land purchase and management in perpetuity.
Legislation was enacted by both federal and state governments, transferring
Crown land to indigenous ownership and control. This included most of the
settlements and reserves on which many Aboriginal Australians lived as a result
of past policies.
There are 390,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders representing 2.1 per
cent of the Australian population and today they own or control approximately 15
per cent of the Australian continent. That is an area equivalent to the size of
France and Spain combined.
In many instances, such as the Northern Territory where 42 per cent of the land
is Aboriginal owned, this includes the right to control any mining development
on that land. For example, one of the largest, undeveloped uranium ore bodies
in the world is being developed on Aboriginal land at Jabiluka, following the
original consent of the Aboriginal traditional owners.
Just two weeks ago the World Heritage Committee gave its endorsement to this
development, which adjoins the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park. The
equivalent of the mineral royalties that would normally flow to Government are
being paid to Aboriginal people and are estimated at A$210m over the course of
the project.
Mabo and Wik: Native Title Specific legislative schemes of vesting land in
indigenous ownership and control pre-dated the Australian High Court's historic
Mabo decision of 1992. In that case the court found that a common law property
right of "native title" existed and had survived where indigenous people
maintained traditional connection with the land. The exception was where
governments had intentionally extinguished it by the grant of inconsistent
property rights.
This decision represented a major challenge for Australian society, not least
because it involved integrating a newly recognized form of property right into
an established system of property law.
As a result of that 1992 decision it was assumed that native title might
therefore exist on existing Aboriginal land and on the 25 per cent of Australia
that remained vacant Crown or public land. In 1993 the federal government
enacted the Native Title Act on that basis to give clarity and effect to the
Mabo decision.
The Native Title question changed again in 1996 when the High Court brought down
its controversial Wik decision. In effect, this decision extended the possible
existence of common law native title to that large proportion of the continent
that was effectively privately owned in the form of pastoral leases and similar
titles.
Approximately four-fifths - 80% - of Australia became potentially subject to
native title claim. The existing 1993 legislative framework that was designed
to apply to Crown land and that therefore took no account of co-existing private
property interests, was thrown into disarray.
There were competing claims, conflicting interests, anxiety and emotion on all
sides. A delicate and complex compromise was needed. Following lengthy public
and parliamentary debate, an amended Native Title Act was eventually enacted
last year through the Australian Parliament. It's important to note that the
Australian Senate, which is not controlled by the current Government, passed
that legislation.
Australia is aware of course that earlier this year the CERD Committee was
critical of some aspects of the 1998 legislation. In passing judgement on
Australia's native title legislation, the Committee was dealing with complex
domestic issues that had been the subject of lengthy and thorough political
debate and legal processes in Australia.
The Committee had less than a day to come to grips with this sensitive domestic
issue. The Australian Government was disappointed that the views of the
Committee did not record the substance of the Government's submission and
evidence on key issues reported on by the Committee. The Government has since
provided comments to the Committee which seek to redress what it considers to be
an unfortunate omission of relevant material from the Committee's report.
Australia's recent experience with the Committee has highlighted specific
concerns about the way the UN treaty bodies consider sensitive and complex
policy issues, many of which have required a delicate balancing of interests by
the Government concerned. The Australian Government believes that the validity
and relevance of the treaty bodies' views will suffer, as well as the
credibility of the system as a whole, if there is a perception that committees
are not able to respond effectively to such issues.
Australia has long recognised and supported the central role of the treaty
bodies in elaborating and monitoring human rights standards. However, we share
the broader concerns that the treaty body system as a whole is not functioning
as effectively and as efficiently as it should. The Australian Government gives
a high priority to treaty body reform. This is important in the interest of
ensuring the long term sustainability and effectiveness of the human rights
treaty body system and of ensuring that the treaty bodies are able to fulfil
their role in the UN human rights system as a whole.
Is Land the Answer? Madam chair, I want now to address some wider indigenous
issues, from the Australian perspective. We recognise of course that for
cultural, historical and symbolic reasons, land is important to indigenous
people.
It is possible however to expect too much from simply restoring land ownership.
Land is not a panacea to the social and economic challenges facing indigenous
communities.
We know, for example, that similar social problems persist throughout the
indigenous community in Australia. It makes no difference whether it involves
people whose land has been restored or people whose land was never taken or
people who have been irrevocably alienated from their traditional country.
For example, the substance abuse and family violence rates in some Aboriginal
regions of northern and remote Australia - irrespective of whether the area is
Aboriginal owned or controlled - are truly horrific. In a recent editorial
("Indigenous gains need honest debate") Australia's national newspaper observed:
"Those who genuinely seek further progress for indigenous Australians must be
prepared to acknowledge ... uncomfortable truths. They must even be prepared to
debate the definition of progress and expand it to include not only the concepts
of land rights and self-determination but also their practical benefits.
Self-determination and land rights do not automatically deliver benefits, as the
experience of many communities has starkly demonstrated: in many cases land
rights have failed to improve basic facilities." (The Australian 27.4.99)
An Australian indigenous leader, Noel Pearson has said:
"the most important and powerful resource that an individual can have is
education. Education is the resource which can most mobilize and empower an
individual and a society."
I agree completely. In a world where increasingly economic wealth and power are
knowledge-based, it is the skills of people in which we must invest for the
long-term future. That is what we are doing in Australia. Let me give you a few
basic statistics that clearly emphasise this approach.
In 1990 there were just 1,600 indigenous Australians attending university.
Through a very active government program of support there are now almost 8,000.
Four years ago there was just 800 indigenous Australians learning trades through
apprenticeships and the like. Today through active government participation
there are 4,800.
The Real Issues What then are the real issues? Until quite recently it was
impossible in our country to have an honest debate about some of these issues.
There was what I call "the great silence" at the core of much discussion of
indigenous policy issues. We talked about the problems caused by history and
society, but few dared speak of some of the fundamental problems nurtured within
many indigenous communities themselves. One of my Ministerial predecessors
refers to this as, quote:
"the double standard in the debate." (Fred Chaney, Alan Missen Memorial Lecture
27.8.97)
That has now changed partly because of the recent intervention of one
individual, an indigenous leader, Noel Pearson, who in the past has been a
critic of governments. This year he publicly attacked welfare dependency within
the indigenous community, describing welfare as "a poison", the results of
which, he said, were destroying family and community life. He said, and I quote:
"Welfare is a resource that is laced with poison and the poison present is the
money-for-nothing principle."
By "welfare" he meant those forms of financial support provided directly to
able-bodied individuals for which no reciprocity is required - what he called
"money for nothing". This violates the essential link between rights and
responsibilities. Until recently the emphasis has been on individual rights, to
the effective exclusion of personal responsibility.
The result, Pearson says, has been a downward spiral of devastating social
consequences. Again to quote him:
"Despite all the assaults on Aboriginal society, the poison of welfare may yet
prove to be the most effective cause of the unravelling and ultimate destruction
of Aboriginal society."
The indigenous reaction to Noel Pearson's comments were mixed. Interestingly,
however, no one denied the truthfulness of his observations. Most merely
questioned whether it was wise to speak out on this issue.
And there are others prepared to speak the plain truth. Referring to the
alcohol abuse and violence so frequently associated with welfare dependency in
many communities, one female indigenous leader, Boni Robertson said, (and I
quote):
"We must all admit that something has gone desperately wrong." (The Courier
Mail 8.5.99).
And other leaders have spoken out. Jack Dann, a Ngarinyin Elder from the
Kimberley area of Australia, in an address entitled "WORK IS SACRED: THE
JOURNEY OUT OF WELFARE" said, and I quote:
"Socks up to the the knees people (government people) told us that the sit down
money was our right when we knew in our heart that Land and Work was our right.
The sweet lolly idea of sit down money and welfare services was really the
biggest highway to a short life of rubbish food, gambling, and tobacco and
alcohol abuse."
I might add that not for a moment do I believe that the Australian experience is
unique. A prominent member of the Australian High Court, Mr Justice Kirby,
recently commenting on the new Canadian Territory, Nunavut said:
"As with the Australian indigenous people, so with the people of Nunavut, the
handout mentality which has occurred in the last 30 years has really depressed
the self-dignity and self-sufficiency of the people ... It's just as important
in Australia as it is in Nunavut to find an economic solution to that problem so
that they can stand on their own two feet and can really play an active part not
only in their own nations but in the world". (The Canberra Times 2.4.99).
The handout mentality is closely associated with the debilitating perception of
oneself as merely a victim. If we encourage people to see themselves as
victims, they absorb the passive and destructive mindset of victimhood. Again
to quote Noel Pearson:
"It is time we analysed our condition as a people without being defeated and
paralysed by the racial issues .... We have to stop being seen as victims. A
victim implies a person is incapable of helping himself. Aboriginal leadership
has seen it politically useful to portray our people as victims. It is a
politically powerful position to carry an argument publicly. It is a very
tricky business dealing with people who have been victims. But it is a terribly
bad thing to perpetuate. The view that people are victims is very
disempowering." (The Courier Mail 1.5.99)
Until recently it was not possible - because of political correctness - to speak
in such terms. At least now we are having an honest discussion of the issues.
We are now able to talk about individual responsibility as well as systemic
failure.
I am relieved and reassured to be able to say that this new candour in
indigenous debate within Australia is not confined to one side of politics. A
prominent member of the Opposition Labor Party, Mr Mark Latham, recently said,
and I quote:
"This is the tragedy of groups that, after a long period of disadvantage and
defeat, start to see the world solely in terms of victimisation. They pursue a
politics of symbolism and self-justification, rather than the real world of
results. Legal rights become a substitute for personal responsibility. As they
see it, the system is always at fault, never the individual." (The Daily
Telegraph, 7.5.99)
The current Australian Government takes the view in relation to its key social
policies that government assistance will not work unless the beneficiaries also
make a commitment to self-help. We call it mutual obligation but the same
principle is known by other names in Britain, America and elsewhere. The Blair
and Clinton administrations are adopting a similar approach to welfare reform.
And it is just as relevant to the indigenous community as to any other segment
of the population. Lowitja O'Donoghue, who has attended this forum in her time
as chairman of ATSIC, recently said, and I quote:
"It is true that we have got to talk about the responsibilities we have on the
ground, to make sure our people actually take up their responsibilities...."
(The Age 1.5.99)
The end of welfarism, as it has been called by some, does not mean any lack of
compassion. What it does mean is distinguishing those measures that perpetuate
welfare dependency from those that genuinely alleviate disadvantage and
inequality in the long-term.
It also means policies that facilitate and promote genuine economic independence
for indigenous people, policies that go beyond the catchcry of land and mining
royalties and encompass both individual skills development and productive
business enterprises.
As a Government we have sought, over the past three and a half years, to change
direction in indigenous affairs away from welfare dependency. This has caused
not unexpected controversy and debate but after years of stagnation the
Government believed there was no other way forward. Real Progress There is a
commonly expressed view in Australia - in both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
circles - that we have too little to show for the huge efforts, both legislative
and financial, of recent decades.
After those wasted years of stagnation, many non-Aboriginal Australians - and
not just the hostile critics - feel that the effort and the resources have been
wasted or that the problems are insoluble. A lot of indigenous leaders are
similarly frustrated, even to the point of claiming that nothing has really been
achieved.
There have been claims that this is because of governmental incompetence,
parsimony or mischief, and assertions that the solution ultimately lies in the
direction of forms of Aboriginal sovereign self-government as contemplated by
the "self-determination" provisions of the Draft Declaration of the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples.
The Draft Declaration itself is at risk of becoming a distraction from the real
tasks and priorities before us. I note that on this issue, Noel Pearson has
also not been silent, and I quote:
"Rather than deal with these hard and real questions, our concept of
self-determination has instead occupied the realm of legal and political theory
and rhetoric. About the right to self-determination and international law.
About concepts of autonomy and sovereignty and so on. Whilst this level of
discourse is important, the practical realities of self-determination are being
ignored."
The Australian Government rejects "the politics of symbolism". We believe in
practical measures leading to practical results that improve the lives of
individual people where they live. And in Australia there is unambiguous
empirical evidence that the socio-economic status of indigenous Australians is
progressively improving. Australia's policies are working. Of course there are
some who refuse to consider the facts, and instead campaign on empty, emotive
rhetoric.
The quite substantial increase in funding over the past 30 years perhaps
highlights best the commitment of successive Australian governments to
indigenous programs.
In comparable dollar terms, in 1969/70 the Australian federal government spent
$60 million on indigenous programs. By 1979/80 funding grew six-fold to $350
million. By 1989/90 it had grown to $950 million. And by 1999/00 expenditure
reached $2.2 billion dollars Australia. That is $1.5 billion US dollars this
year. And of the 390,000 Australians who identify themselves as indigenous,
only 230,000 rely on government support.
Let me now illustrate what has been happening in Australia with a few simple,
unarguable facts.
Despite claims by some to the contrary, total funding on Indigenous support
programs has not been cut under the current Government. Not only has it been
redirected (into priority areas such as health, education and employment) but it
has also increased substantially in real terms. This years funding of A$2.2
billion is an all time record high.
Today 15 per cent of Australia (including many mineral-rich areas) is already
Aboriginal owned or controlled. That is an area the size of France and Spain
combined.
Almost 80 per cent of the continent can now potentially be claimed under the new
common law right of native title.
20 years ago the indigenous infant mortality rate was 20 times the
non-indigenous rate. Today it has been slashed by over 75 per cent, to a level
equivalent to that of non-indigenous Australians in the early 1960s.
Today the principal threats to Aboriginal health, especially adult health, come
less from infectious diseases associated with environmental or living
conditions, than from contemporary lifestyle influences such as tobacco and
substance misuse and resultant behavioural problems, including violence and
injury.
Although there is still much more to be done in the field of education, there
has also been dramatic improvement with the proportion of indigenous children
who stay on until the final year of schooling quadrupling since the mid 1970s.
The proportion with post secondary school qualifications has more than doubled
over the same period and as I mentioned earlier higher education (university)
enrolments have tripled in the past decade alone.
In the area of law and justice, progress has been slow. There are complex
reasons for this, including the continuing socio-economic disadvantage
experienced by indigenous people and hardening community attitudes towards drugs
and crime. Aboriginal imprisonment rates remain unacceptably high but the rate
of Aboriginal deaths in prison custody is now lower than the non-Aboriginal
rate, and that, at least is good news.
In the case of employment, the proportion of indigenous Australians employed in
professional occupations has increased from 14 per cent to 22 per cent in the
last decade. And as I mentioned earlier, the number doing trade training through
apprenticeships and the like has jumped substantially over the past four years.
Finally, in the area of housing, we have moved from a situation in the early
1970s where up to 20 per cent of indigenous families lived in improvised
dwellings to the situation today where less than 3 per cent do so. One dollar
in every five of federal government spending on public and community rental
housing now goes specifically into Aboriginal housing. It is also a measure of
improving Aboriginal socio-economic circumstances that over the same period the
proportion of Aboriginal families who own or are purchasing their own home has
increased from one in four to one in three of all families.
This issue of individual home ownership is an appropriate point at which to
return to my opening comments and to the theme of this week's deliberation -
land and its significance. There is no doubt that land is important, for all
sorts of historic, social and cultural reasons.
But it is no economic panacea on its own. In the long term it is education -
developing and realizing the skills and capabilities of individuals - that is
the only sustainable source of economic independence. That is the way the world
is heading. As Nelson Mandela said, and I quote:
"There are two ways to break out of poverty. The first is by formal education
and the second is by the worker acquiring a greater skill at his work and thus
higher wages."
I recently attended a national indigenous awards night and a young man called
Gary Green, from Adelaide University, won the youth of the year award. In his
acceptance speech he echoed the words of Nelson Mandela when he said, and I
quote:
"We, as indigenous people, are the only ones to face our challenges and
struggles head on. In order to fight those challenges in the new millennium we
have to equip ourselves with the tools and knowledge of the current
communications revolution... Education for me has been a tool in which I have
had the ability to develop further skills that will help indigenous people move
into the new millennium with the use of information technology and new
electronic media as means of new communication... A waterfall had to start with
a drop of water. I guess I am that drop of water in the path I have chosen to
take...."
Government support services remain essential but, in order to take advantage of
available opportunities, people must see themselves as creating their own
future, rather than being simply victims of the past.
Ends
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
