Has Australian Law Adequately Protect the Health of Indigenous People?

Good afternoon, my name is Stephanie Jones and I am a currently a human rights lawyer. Human rights are the basic freedoms and protections that everyone is entitled to purely for simply just being a human being. Today I would like to use this opportunity to discuss with you the greatly debated issue of an Australian Bill of Rights. Australia currently does not have a Bill of Rights, but is the current legal system coping without one? The answer to that question in my opinion is no. Australia currently is not adequately protecting individual human rights without having a Bill of Rights. While many people would argue that yes, Australia protects individual rights well enough as it is, just as many people passionately argue that Australia does indeed need a Bill of Rights for a variety of reasons which will be talked about in greater depth later on. In my talk with you today, I would like to discuss with you all what exactly a Bill of Rights is and what it aims to achieve, how a Bill of Rights has worked in other countries and some of the more popular arguments for and against having one.

The 1967 referendum was the repeal of section 127 and section 51 in the Commonwealth Constitution. With the repeal of these two sections the “Federal Government were allowed to make laws for Aborigines and Aborigines were now counted in the national census”(About the 1967 Referendum). The 1967 referendum can be commonly considered the turning point in Australian history and culture for finally addressing discrimination towards the Indigenous people and taking responsibility for Aboriginal affairs. However, some do not have the same representation of the results of the 1967 referendum because of the little improvement it has done for the Indigenous people.

Firstly the change in legal and constitutional rights have been a great creator of rights for the Aboriginal people. Up until 1967 the Aboriginals did not have the right to be counted in the census. This was basically a way of saying that the Aboriginals were not Australians, almost not even people. Fortunately the 1967 referendum gave Aboriginals citizenship. It did however not end any discrimination against the Aboriginal people and

This has come from the Australian community and international human rights monitors who have stated that “There are still areas in which the domestic legal system does not provide an effective remedy to persons whose rights under the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] have been violated … [Australia] should take measures to give effect to all Covenant rights and freedoms.” There hasn’t only been a recent push for a Bill of Rights, Former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason wrote in 1997 that “Australia's adoption of a Bill of Rights would bring Australia in from the cold, so to speak, and make directly applicable the human rights jurisprudence which has developed internationally and elsewhere. That is an important consideration in that our isolation from that jurisprudence means that we do not have what is a vital component of other constitutional and legal systems, a component which has a significant impact on culture and thought, and is an important ingredient in the emerging world order that is reducing the effective choices open to the nation state”. Brian Galligan who is an academic expert on citizenship stated that “the old confidence in the effectiveness of parliamentary responsible government and the common law for protecting human rights has been undermined by more realistic accounts of the weakness of parliament and the increasingly residual domain of common law compared with the plethora of statutory laws.” The answer to whether Australia needs to adopt a Bill of Rights in order to protect Australian citizens is simple… yes and

Aboriginal health standards are so low today that all most half aboriginal men and a third of the women die before they are 45. Aboriginal people can expect to live 20 years less than non-indigenous Australians. Aboriginals generally suffer from more health problem and are more likely to suffer from diabetes, liver disease and glaucoma. The causes of their poor health and low life expectancy are poverty, poor nutrition, poor housing, dispossession of their traditional land, low education level, high unemployment, drug and substance use, unsafe sex, limited health care and diseases.

“The status of Indigenous health in contemporary Australia is a result of historic factors as well as contemporary socio-economic issues” (Hampton & Toombs, 2013, p. 1).

This paper will examine the healthcare of Indigenous Australian peoples compared to non-indigenous Australians. The life expectancy gaps between the two are a cause for alarm when statistics show Indigenous Australian peoples die on average 17 years earlier than non-indigenous Australians (Dick 2017). This paper will examine the social determinants of health to explore these factors and what interventions are in place to improve health status and life expectancy gaps for equality. The Federal Government has seen the implementation of the Northern Territory Intervention and the Closing the Gap Initiative. This essay will examine these two strategies and discuss the effectiveness of both policies. It will explain the differences, similarities and look at the success so far to

As health professionals, we must look beyond individual attributes of Indigenous Australians to gain a greater understanding and a possible explanation of why there are such high rates of ill health issues such as alcoholism, depression, abuse, shorter life expectancy and higher prevalence of diseases including diabetes, heart disease and obesity in our indigenous population. Looking at just the individual aspects and the biomedical health model, we don’t get the context of Aboriginal health. This is why we need to explore in further detail what events could have created such inequities in Aboriginal health. Other details that we should consider are the historical and cultural factors such as, ‘terra nullius’, dispossession and social

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginal people have changed significantly during the 20th century after facing many years of neglect and inequalities. In that time, change in indigenous rights and freedoms was brought about as a result of government policies, political activism and legal changes.

Human rights are the rights of humans, regardless of nationality, gender, race, or religion. We should all have this in common as we are all part of humanity. However, Indigenous people did not always have these rights (Ag.gov.au, 2015). Aside from basic human rights, Indigenous people also have their own rights specific to their culture. Before 1967, Indigenous people had different rights in different states and the Australian federal government did not have any jurisdiction over Aboriginal affairs until Australia’s constitution was amended for this purpose in 1967 (Moadoph.gov.au, 2015). Between 1900 and the present time, there have been significant changes to the rights of Indigenous Australians. The effects of the European Settlement on the Indigenous people of Australia have been devastating. When white people began arriving in Australia, the Aboriginal people believed them to be ghosts of ancestor spirits. However, once they realised the settlers were invading their land, the Aborigines became, understandably, hostile (Slater & Parish, 1999, pp.8-11). In 1788, the total Indigenous population was believed to be between 750,000 and one million. By 1888, the Indigenous population was reduced to around 80,000 Australia wide (Korff, 2014). The three main reasons for this dramatic decline were the introduction of new diseases, violent conflicts with the colonisers, and settlers acquiring Indigenous land (Digital, 2015). In 1848, the Board of National Education stated that it

Since the 1970’s, many Indigenous communities have established their own independent, community-controlled health services (ACCHs) and an over-arching representatives advocacy body, the National Aboriginal Controlled Community Health Organisation (NACCHO previously NAIHO) was formed in 1975.

Human rights are the right that any individual is entitled under their government, and it can be provided in divergent forms. Thus in Australia, there are no set of ‘Bill of Rights’, comparable to many other western countries that share similar legal values and standards. The American ‘Bill of Rights’ states that the government ensures the freedom of speech and religion, protection from torture and punishment, and the fair procedures of law . There has always been a great debate on whether Australian government should acquire a constitutional Bill of Rights. I believe that it is not necessary to obtain a Bill of Rights as it is not necessary for Australian legal system, and further, it can bring confusion, greater debate and litigations. There are other forms of human rights law introduced into Australian legal system which sets boundaries for the government to respect individual rights. Consequently, it proves the unnecessity for a Bill of Rights in Australia.

This paper has assessed the historical context and manifestations of health inequities of indigenous peoples and ethnic and cultural minorities. Literatures have shown that on most accounts, these groups suffer from hugely disparate health outcomes in comparison to non-indigenous or majority societies. Indigenous, ethnic or cultural rights to health can be achieved when the following benchmarks are incorporated in to the policies.

In conclusion, its indispensable that the Australian citizens be engaged in the content of the Bill of Rights, thus giving Australians the opportunity of greater outcomes, ownership, associations and human rights protection. The challenge for Australians is to take ownership of our constitutional arrangement and by doing so, an enactment of a Bill of Rights would provide a starting point to respect the rights of minorities and protect basic constitutional principles, such as the independence of judiciary and the rule of law.

Australia stands alone as the only democratic western country without a Bill of Rights. Australia has experienced division amongst its people on whether a bill of rights is necessary for the protect of the rights of the nation. The purpose of this essay is to examine if a Bill of Rights is necessary for the protection of the Australian citizens from the government. There are many tenable arguments for leaving Australia as is without the application of a bill of right to the constitution, but there are also equal arguments for the need of a bill of rights. In the first section of this essay, the main arguments for a bill of rights will be addressed. In the second section of this essay, the case against a bill of rights being implemented in Australia will be discussed. As the debate for or against a Bill of rights grows and external and internal Pressure arise.