Bringing Them Home
Human rights are inalienable, no matter what ethnicity or culture one belongs to. Every human is entitled to their Human Rights. For a large period of time in Australian history Indigenous Australians were discriminated against, abused and denied their Human Rights. The Bringing Them Home Report significantly advanced the rights of Indigenous Australians as it began the reconciliation process which recognised the injustices which had been done to Indigenous Australians involved in the Stolen Generations, and set out a list of recommendations to create equality in Australia. Whilst an apology was given to the Indigenous Australians the concept of reparations still remains a major topic in the Bringing Them Home Report
…show more content…
Lavelle’s story is an example of how the law enforcements had intended assimilation to be. However the majority of children removed from their families were placed in institutions where they were physically, emotionally and sexually abused.This was not the aim of the policy but it was a devastating outcome.
The Bringing Them Home Report was a result of the National Inquiry an investigation into the separation of Indigenous Australians from their families. The aims of the National Inquiry were to acknowledge the hardships the Indigenous Australians have faced and encourage reconciliation between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians. The National Inquiry was co-chaired by commissioner Sir Ronald Wilson and Social Justice Commissioner Mick Dodson. The 777 submissions of evidence contributed to the National Enquiry came from numerous sources including: Indigenous, government and religious organisations as well as testimony’s from those involved in the Stolen Generation. The Bringing Them Home Report was tabled in parliament on May 26th 1977 and contained 54 recommendations for the government and Australians to consider. The main recommendations of the Bringing Them Home Report include: reparation, acknowledgement and apology, commemoration, education, Indigenous identification, health and land holdings.
The systematic removal of Indigenous children
Indigenous Australians have faced many changes to their original life style, with numerous policies being brought in. These policies had an incredible affect on how the indigenous Australians lived. The policies inflicted on the indigenous Australians varied widely and had numerous impacts. The policies of assimilation, protection and integration had mainly negative impacts on the community, causing loss of identity, language and religion. The policies of self-determination and reconciliation, had mostly positive effects to the indigenous Australian community, creating a stronger bond between black and white Australians, encouraging the concept of closing the gap between indigenous Australians and non-indigenous Australians. These
Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.
After many years of European settlement in Australia, many Aboriginal people had been removed from their families and placed into schools with white Australians. This was due to the ‘protection policy’ laws that encouraged the removal of Indigenous children. Because fewer indigenous children were able to learn about their own culture, there was a slow decline in the culture of the indigenous people. As a result of this, there were continued tensions between the free settlers and Indigenous people as they had no roles in the government and couldn’t vote. This made them feel as if they were excluded from greater society and had long term negative impacts upon their sense of belonging to the new
The rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since 1945 with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about a change from oppression to equality. Unfortunately on the other hand, some rights and freedoms have not improved at all or have even worsened.
Only in recent years have we seen the recognition that the stolen generation deserves and the essential part it has play in the struggle of Aboriginal rights. Since the end of the stolen generation, numerous organisations and government agency has come out and said sorry for what happened for seventy years and as a result Aboriginal rights are becoming more apparent. The famous “I’m sorry” speech said by Kevin Rudd was the first Parliament apology to the Stolen Generation and was seen as a huge leap forward in the recognition of the Stolen Generation. The Bringing Them Home Report in 1997 was a strong campaign for The
Kevin Rudd’s apology was to the Aboriginals; but in particular, to the Stolen Generations. From 1909-1969, the Australian Government forced a policy know as assimilation upon the Aboriginals. Assimilation is the forced integration of minority groups onto the dominant society. Inhumane acts were inflicted upon these proud people because of the ‘Aborigines Protection Board’ which entailed that the Australian Government had full rights to forcibly remove half-caste children from Aboriginal care without parental consent nor a court order.
Faith Bandler was one of the most prominent figures promoting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders civil rights in Australia, and played a significant role in the success of the 1967 referendum. Bandler’s background and early life significantly influenced her later activism, causing her to question injustices against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Bandler spent most of her adult life promoting the cause of ATSI civil rights and racial equality, and was involved in a number of key events, one of the most significant being the 1967 referendum. Bandler’s legacy is extremely important in Indigenous Australia’s and Australia’s history, and her life will continue to impact millions.
After this time, many atrocities occurred, such as the fact that Aboriginals were often killed for sport, and massacres such as Myall Creek were occurring, where 28 Aboriginal men, women and children were murdered near Myall Creek Station in 1838. There was also the problem of the Stolen Generation, when Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their homes to be raised as though they were white. It was only recently in 2008, that Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia at the time, apologised for the actions that the government had undertaken. In another apologetic move, Prime Minister Paul Keating delivered a powerful speech regarding the fact that Aboriginal Communities were still segregated despite the fact that laws had been changed a number of years ago. This shows that the idea of atonement by Australia is quite a new topic. Does this prove the challenges that Aboriginal’s faced nearly 200 years ago are still present in today’s society? It was enough to force the Aboriginal men, women and children to begin act in support of their rights.
Aboriginal people, since British settlement, have faced great inequalities and much racial discrimination on their own soil. Aboriginal Australians through great struggle and conflict have made significant progress in the right to their own land. To better understand the position of the Aboriginal Australians, this essay will go into more depth about the rights that Aboriginal people had to their own land prior to federation. It will also include significant events and key people who activated the reshaping of land rights for Indigenous Australians and how that has affected the rights Aboriginal people now have in the 21st Century, in regards to their land.
When European colonists settled in Australia they treated the Aboriginal people extremely different to that of their fellow white men. The Aboriginals were not seen as first class citizens through the European eye and as a result were victims of extreme oppressions and had nearly no rights or freedoms. Since then Aboriginal people have fought to be treated equally to the white men through various different ways. I will discuss the previous struggles faced by the Aboriginals, the Australian strife for equality and finally the level of success and degree of rights and freedoms given to Aboriginals in modern Australia.
Terra Nullius was once apparent in Australian society, but has now been nullified with the turn of the century. With the political changes in our society, and the apology to Indigenous Australians, society is now witnessing an increase in aboriginals gaining a voice in today’s society. Described by Pat Dodson (2006) as a seminal moment in Australia’s history, Rudd’s apology was expressed in the true spirit of reconciliation opening a new chapter in the history of Australia. Considerable debate has arisen within society as to whether aboriginals have a right to land that is of cultural significance and whether current land owners will be able to keep their land.
Each example given has also shown how self-determination was and continues to be a major struggle for Aboriginal people. Beginning with the Whitlam government, the Land Rights Act was going to be the national recognition that Aboriginal people had been waiting for, however the swift dismissal of the government and subsequent changes to the bill meant that an uninformed government would dictate claims of Aboriginal land rights. This was continued in the Heritage Protection Act for Western Australia in which no monitoring of abuses of power within the authoritative ministry was assessed; hence damage to heritage sites for the development of industries occurred. Finally the Racial Discrimination Act although making racial discrimination illegal has clearly been violated by the government in the Northern Territory interventions and hence is not valued by Australia despite the international commitments made to recognising Indigenous rights. Although legislation has been introduced to recognise Indigenous rights, there seems to always be a catch. A final reoccurring theme in the legislation discussed is the uninformed views of the non-Indigenous government as decisions are made on behalf of Aboriginal people; hence two major statements were discussed that precisely define Aboriginal self-determination by Aboriginal
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
Reconciliation is the process of building respectful relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the wider Australian community. It is about understanding and respecting their culture and heritage and signifies ‘coming together’ to become one nation without racism and with equality for all. There are still vast differences in health, education, employment, and standards of living of the Indigenous peoples as compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Even today Indigenous peoples have a significantly lower life expectancy, up to 11.5 years for men and 9.7 years for women . The infant mortality rate for the Indigenous peoples is double the rate for non-Aboriginal Australians. Understanding these inequalities is the first step to reconciling the differences. Policies such as the stolen generation and assimilation policy destroyed Indigenous identity and culture and justified the dispossession of Indigenous people and the removal of Indigenous children from their parents. We can’t change the past but we can make a better future by understanding and learning from the mistakes of the past, reconciliation is about that. Many practical and symbolic strategies have been implemented over the last 50 years to achieve reconciliation such as ATSIC, Northern Territory Intervention and the Mabo decision. However, the most significant ones are the 1967 Referendum, Closing the Gap framework in 2008 and the ‘Sorry speech’. The aim is to improve the five dimensions of reconciliation: race relations, equality and equity, institutional integrity, unity, and historical acceptance.
There have been many significant cases that have dealt with the issue of jurisdiction. Among these cases was the Sparrow case of 1990. The Court determined that “Aboriginal Rights were constitutionally protected, and that those rights can only be extinguished with First Nations consent.” Moreover, the Court ruled that “Aboriginal rights could only be limited with justifiable reasons and that Aboriginal rights have to be interpreted in a generous and liberal manner.”