Extractive Industries And Indigenous People -Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Extractive Industries And Indigenous People? Answer: Introduction The British settlers arrived in Australia in 1788 and since 40,000 years indigenous people lived in Australia. These indigenous people include the Aboriginal and people of Torres Straight islanders. The British colony seized land from the indigenous people. Though the rights of citizenship was deprived from the indigenous people in most states of Australia, but before the period of post war, the western legal system that had discriminators laws against indigenous people was dismantled. In the year 1967,a referendum was passed in the western legal system to protect the rights of the Aboriginal people and the 90 % approval was achieved from the electorate . After the post- war period, a policy of multiculturalism was prevalent in Australia and there was increasing immigration from Eastern and Southern Part of Europe. In the 21st century reforms, the western legal system has acknowledged the land rights of the Aboriginal community. The western legal system in Australia has evidence of r acism towards the Aboriginal community. The land was seized from the community, health of the community continued to deteriorate and in the year 2008, apology was presented by the western legal system for separating Aboriginal children who had mixed ethnicity from their parents. The Western legal system has passed several acts like the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, racial hatred act of 1995 and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act of 1986 which had policies against racial discrimination still the rights of the Aboriginal people are not fully recognized in the Western legal System (Glaskin and Weiner 2013). Discussion The British invasion in Australia in 1770 and the settlement of the Europeans in the country has deprived the indigenous community of their land rights. The first 100 years of colonization has imposed serious threats to the Aboriginal community and very few of them survived. Humanitarian societies took active steps to protect the Aboriginal community and lobbied with the Australian government to formulate laws in favor of the Aboriginal community which was already considered as a dying race by the middle of the nineteenth century. The Aboriginal communities were afflicted to atrocities and adverse circumstances by the white rural settlers. These settlers wanted the Aboriginal communities detested the presence of the Aboriginal community in their towns, public places, schools and neighborhood. The Aboriginal community was considered as a visible problem for ministers and members of the government and for the state and colonial officials. However, the Australian government formulated a vivid network of administration and Western Legal System related to and dealing with the rights of the Aboriginal community. The indigenous people had to continue living in remote places and were not in physical contact with the white people, Aborigines had to hunt to earn their livelihood. The Western Legal System was also concerned about the growing population of the half-caste, octoroon and quadroon and the groups of half castes who were mixture of Asiatic blood or Negro and the Aboriginals were a cause of concern for the Western Legal System. The half castes were considered to be neglected and destitute and they posed serious threats to the culture and race of pure white Australians. This was reflected from the beginning of the nineteenth century in records of the parliament and the Western Legal System which were concerned with the Aboriginal issues (Glaskin and Weiner 2013).The 1936 Act clearly reflects that the intention of the Western Australian government to plan for biol ogical absorption. The Aboriginal problem could be resolved by the biological absorption process and the Western Legal system could uphold a white Australia by the process. The Western Legal System continued with efforts to culturally assimilate the Aborigines. The different states of the Northern Territory adopted different process of cultural assimilation which was influenced by the Western legal system, administration, jurisdiction and policy of different states and the conditions of life of the Aboriginal community in those states determined the nature of the cultural assimilation process. The Western Legal System formulated policies and schemes for educating the Aboriginal community and there was evident effort to train and employ the members of the Aboriginal community. The Western Legal System also demonstrated efforts of proving housing facilities for the Aboriginal community into the neighborhoods of the White Community. The policies of the Western Legal System also demonst rated efforts of adoption of aboriginal children by the white families. Though the Western Legal system made consistent effort to remove any reference to race in the law and regulations which deal with the Aboriginal community, but the white communities frequently resisted the process of assimilation especially the efforts of the government to develop the education and the housing system (Moreton-Robinson 2015).There were many members of the Aboriginal activists who supported the process of cultural assimilation because of the true desire of some Australians to support the Aboriginal community who were living under poor condition of unemployment, poverty, diseases and were subjected to discrimination and prejudices. However , the motives of the Australian government behind cultural assimilation was not only humanitarian, the Western Legal system had mixed intention of preventing the resistance of the Australians towards cultural assimilation as well as to deal with the problems of r acism and the Western Legal System focused on the improvement of the national community as a whole(Koch 2013). Difference between the native title and land rights There were campaigns of equal rights for land which continued from the year 1920s to 1960s and the Australian Aboriginal land right movements of the 20th century are highly influenced by these campaigns. Three distinct phases could be observed stage of equal citizenship and civil rights for land which continued from the year 1920s to 1960s, phase of self-determination and right for land which stretched from the year from the end of 1960s to 1980s and the current phase has witnessed several campaigns to protect the Aboriginal community. In the year 1927, a modern political organization was founded by Aboriginal activists Fred Maynard and Tom Lacey which was known as Australian Aborigines Progressive Association (AAPA).In the year 1934, the Australian Aborigines League (AAL) was founded by William Cooper and Doug Nicholls in Melbourne. Members of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) and trade unionist AP Bordeu were members of the white community who supported the Australian Aborigi nes League. In the year 1938, the 150th anniversary of white settlement was celebrated in Australia and the Australian Aborigines Progressive Association (AAPA) and the Australian Aborigines League (AAL) jointly worked to challenge this celebration. This protest received substantial coverage from the media as it was marked a significant protest from the Aboriginal community in the 21st century. The protection era was replaced by the policy of assimilation in the year 1937. The members of the Aboriginal community started to reclaim and demand rights of their long lost land (O'Faircheallaigh 2013). The members of the community were shifted to land reserves and this led to the spread of diseases among Aboriginal community. In the nineteenth and the early twentieth century, ideas were exchanged between the government officials and the Western legal system tried to discuss about the indigenous population in Australia. However in the year 1937, the first formal discussion and conference was carried during the Initial Conference of Commonwealth and the State Aboriginal Authorities to address the racial discrimination faced by the indigenous community in Australia. There were mixed views which were presented in the discussion and the Chief Protector of the Aboriginals in the Queensland argued that the biological absorption of the aboriginal race into the white race will destroy the national lives of the Aboriginal community. The Western Legal System like the British Common Law recognized the members of the indigenous people and the Aboriginal community as British subjects and entitle s them with equal rights. But the policies of the colonial government and opinion of the public has evidence of racial discrimination towards the indigenous community in Australia. In January 26, 1949 the Nationality and Citizenship Act was passed which vested upon the Aboriginal community in Australia the rights of the citizenship; however this right to citizenship co-existed with treating the Aboriginal community as mere subjects of the British(Kingsley et al 2013). The post world war II witnessed the Western Legal system to address issues like racism which dominated civil rights and services. The year 1946 witnessed a strike among stock workers of the Pilbara area of Western Australia and these workers were not receiving their due wages. Police seized the Aboriginal strikers at the revolver points and they were put in chains. Indigenous station and stock workers throughout regional Australia demanded better wages and conditions and the Pilbara strike received support from 19 unions of Western Australia, Trade and Labor councils and various federal unions. The Pilbara strike inspired the Gurindji action which was held after two decades. These campaigns for land rights, better wages and living condition by the indigenous people continued for a decade and finally in the year 1967, a referendum was passed in the Australian constitution which improved the civil rights of the Aboriginal and Torres Islander people. The referendum managed to receive 90 percentage votes but unfortunately the referendum did not vest upon the Aboriginal community the right to vote, the referendum only gave rights to the federal government to provide services to the Aboriginal people. The land rights of the Aboriginal people continued nationwide in Australia during the late part of 1960s but it can be contemplated that the civil rights and the land rights movement in Australia involving the Aboriginal communities were intertwined for decades in Australia (Weir 2013). There were campaigns of civil rights and equal opportunity to be provided to the indigenous community and these campaigns continued from the year 1920 to the year 1960. The labour party betrayed the national land rights to some extent that was promised to the Aboriginal community in 1983 and the resolution that was passed in the parliament recognized the control of the Aboriginal community in mining lands and it was proposed in the resolution that the Aboriginal land will be held under the title of inalienable freehold. The Western Legal System continued with racism towards Aboriginal community and the members of the indigenous people were banned from the Common Wealth games in Brisbane in 1982. The National Coalition of Aboriginal organizations were formed to conduct campaigns of land rights and sovereignty. The decision of the High Court in the Mabbo and Wik gave an opportunity to the Western Legal System, the white citizens to protect the rights of the indigenous people of Torres Islanders community and Aboriginal community (Bauman and Lauder 2013). The Mabo judgment of 1992 tried to eliminate fear and uncertainty of the non-Aboriginal land owners. The Native Title Act was passed by the High Court in the year 1992 and but there has been an existing myth that native rights is equivalent to land rights. The lawyers of the Mabo judgment, for instance, Stephenson and Ratnapala 1993 created the misconception and misunderstanding that the law of Australia recognized the land rights of the Aboriginal community in the year 1992.The committee of ministers of Mabo case was chaired by Prime Minister Keating and there was absence of Aboriginal voices in the Mabo and Native Title Act. Only a few members of the Aboriginal community were involved during the Keatings administration when the Mabo deal was done in 1993.An equivalence of the native title and land rights was suggested by Graeme Neate, head of the Federal Native Title Tribunal. According to him, before the Mabo case, title to specific parcels of land was vested upon the Aboriginal c ommunity, however, the traditional land rights of the Indigenous people under the traditional law was recognized by the Australian court after the Mabo decision. But according to. it can be argued that the Mabo case did not address full claim of land rights of the Aboriginal community (Morphy and Smith 2013).The Aboriginal affairs minister Robert Tickner argued that he was demoralized by the lack of commitment of the cabinet to social justice of the Indigenous people. The native title is a weak and subordinate title and it has proved to be irrelevant to more than 80 percent of the population of the Aboriginal people .Only few members of the Aboriginal community were benefited by the native title, and these people were the Aboriginal groups who lived in secluded areas of far North Queensland, and the north of Western Australia and the Torres Strait. More than 25,000 to 30,000 members of the Aboriginal community were not benefited by the native title (Short 2016). The year 2008 was of paramount importance for the Aboriginal community and the Torres Islanders people. The Howard government conservatively ruled Australia for 11 years and the Wik 10 Point Plan continued to degrade the native title of the indigenous people and these people were subjected to racial discrimination; however the labor government was elected in the year 2008 which tried to protect the rights of the indigenous people of Australia. There was National Apology to the Aboriginal community and members of the Torres Islanders from the Western Government, for depriving them of their rights to land and water. The new government recognized the rights of the indigenous people on land and water in Australia and acknowledged that native titles to the indigenous community are instrumental in protecting the social justice of the community (Altman and Jackson 2014). Conclusion It can be concluded that the western system surrounding the native title legalized the theft of the land of the Indigenous people. The native title approved the land right claims of very few members of the Aboriginal community very similar to the case of Eddie Mabo. The Mabo decision and Native Title Act was denounced by the Social Justice Commissioner- Mick Dodson of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and it can be concluded that the injustice to indigenous Australians was legalized by the native Title Act. There were 37 successful claims in the year 20024, 10 years after the Native Title came into force, but the land claims were mainly in arid regions of Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland was the only state that witnessed successful claims. No successful claim was made in Victoria or South Australia. Between the years 2002 to 2005, policy of the Indigenous rights shifted focus to individual rights more than right as a whole community. The native titl e of the western legal system did not benefit 80 percent of the Aboriginal community, and racial privilege was maintained but restoration of land rights and rights of the indigenous people is of paramount importance for development of the self-esteem of the community. Reference Lists Altman, J. and Jackson, S., 2014. Indigenous land and sea management.Ten commitments revisited: securing Australias future environment. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, pp.207-216. Bauman, T. and Lauder, G., 2013.Pathways to the co-management of protected areas and native title in Australia(Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 117-22). Glaskin, K. and Weiner, J., 2013.Customary Land Tenure and Registration in Australia: Anthropological Perspectives(p. 306). ANU Press. Kingsley, J., Townsend, M., Henderson-Wilson, C. and Bolam, B., 2013. Developing an exploratory framework linking Australian Aboriginal peoples connection to country and concepts of wellbeing.International journal of environmental research and public health,10(2), pp.678-698. Koch, H., 2013.Aboriginal Placenames: Naming and re-naming the Australian landscape. ANU Press. Moreton-Robinson, A., 2015.The white possessive: Property, power, and indigenous sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press. Morphy, F. and Smith, B.R., 2013.The Social Effects of Native Title: Recognition, Translation, Coexistence(p. 223). ANU Press. O'Faircheallaigh, C., 2013. Extractive industries and Indigenous peoples: A changing dynamic?.Journal of Rural Studies,30, pp.20-30. Short, D., 2016.Reconciliation and colonial power: Indigenous rights in Australia. Routledge. Weir, J.K., 2013.Country, native title and ecology(p. 174). ANU Press.