Undermining Paternalism: UNDRIP and Aboriginal Rights in Australia

According to former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the choice of indigenous Australians to maintain a connection to their land and culture is conducive to the kinds of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have. At a press conference last March, the former prime minister defended the forced closure of remote Aboriginal communities, arguing that it was not the government's place to subsidize the lifestyle choices of Aboriginal Australians who wished to reside on their traditional lands. Cue protests across Australia and worldwide. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] This is hardly the first controversial statement Abbott made as prime minister before he was replaced in a party leadership contest in September 2015, but it is a telling one. In September 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). More than two decades in the writing, this declaration established universal standards for the treatment of indigenous peoples. Only four countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (collectively known as CANZUS), voted against the legislation, pointing to their already strong track records in upholding human rights to justify their rejection of the convention. These were four liberal democracies that already recognized indigenous rights in their constitutions--why did they need to submit to UNDRIP's external standards? Abbott's statement suggests an answer: it is difficult to trust national governments to uphold indigenous rights on their own when their actions display a lack of understanding or respect for the needs of indigenous peoples. Liberal governments may set out in earnest to address indigenous issues, but, as indigenous law expert Anna Cowan has argued, governments' attempts to help indigenous communities often take one of two approaches: integrationist/ assimilationist (treating equality as sameness) or paternalist/protectionist (deciding what is best for indigenous peoples), both of which are themselves discriminatory. Unfortunately, the Australian government's attitude towards indigenous issues, apparent in the ongoing controversy over remote indigenous communities, has often displayed a measure of both. While UNDRIP has faced plenty of international criticism since its inception, recent events in Australia are a testament to its necessity and its influence. In November of 2014, the Western Australian government announced plans to close more than half of the state's 274 remote Aboriginal communities by withdrawing all essential services. This move would force hundreds of indigenous Australians out of their homes and off ancestral lands. In the wake of a federal funding cut, the state government concluded it was better to force closure than prop up communities facing dwindling populations, a lack of jobs, and an array of social problems. In fairness, remote communities in Western Australia do face severe social problems, and there are undoubtedly challenges to servicing small, isolated communities. But the government has been hesitant to actually consult with Aboriginal leaders from the communities that face potential closure. The initial announcement came as a surprise to the involved communities, and the government has kept the process opaque, refusing to release details as to which communities will be closed and how they will be chosen. In February, responding to calls for more consultation, the premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, stated that it would be nonsensical to go speak with each community, but consultation in a general [would] continue. As of June, Barnett had only visited one remote community and had not met with either of the main representative bodies for Western Australian Aboriginals. Consultation in a general sense does not seem sufficient, especially considering the number of lives the government's decision will affect. The plain fact is that Aboriginal peoples do not want to leave their homes, and they have raised strong arguments against closure. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.