Uluru Statement and the Response

Running Head: ULURU STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE
ULURU STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE
Name of the Student:
Name of University:
Author Note:

1ULURU STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE
Uluru statement is considered to be one of the most remarkable and significant
manifestations in the history of aboriginals in Australia and tries to identify the relationship
between Australian government and the indigenous Australians. Released on 26th May, 2017 by
the delegates in the Aboriginal and Torres State Islander Referendum Convention at Uluru,
Central Australia the statement started to raise voice for the rights and liberty of the indigenous
people of Australia to enjoy their distinctive culture and constitutional privileges as the ‘First
Nation Voice’. On the backdrop of such a remarkable statement, lit can be argued that there are
series of discussion and debates between the Australian government and the aboriginals over
their constitutional rights and cultural respect that somewhat perturbed due to random
interventions. As a result of that the aboriginal people fear about their extinction and try to
safeguard the age old practices as far as they can. Based on this understanding, this easy aims to
investigate the historical background of the relationship between Australian government and
Torres Strait Islanders people and also evaluate the present equation in which the statement
seems highlight a relevant point. Moreover, the empirical researches and discussions are also
considered to take a pivotal part in this essay in order to justify the argument of the author.
The clash of interest between the aboriginals Australians and the government is not a new
thing but has its legacy since the Constitution came into effect on 1st January, 1901. According to
the research of Merlan (2014) it can be stated that there were some provisions in the Australian
constitution that alienated the Australian indigenous people from the mainstream society.
Moreover, the research of McKenna (2014) advocated that it is pertinent to make an
understanding with reference to the constitutional development in Australia. In this regard, two
important sections in the Australian constitution can be mentioned that will deliver better
understanding of the then scenario. Morris (2014) stated that the Australian Constitution was

2ULURU STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE
influenced by the British Crown as the white settlers were mainly belonged to their native
country. Therefore, Section 25 and 51 was enacted that kept the indigenous people aloof from
the so called ‘mainstream society’ (Morris 2015). It was within the Australian Constitution that
recognised the discrimination against people on the basis of race. In this context, the Australian
Referendum of 1967 has great significance that was trying to be the symbol of the indigenous
people as their political and moral right. According to McCallum, Waller and Dreher (2016) the
1967 Referendum tried to include the aboriginals into the Constitutional framework and provided
constitutional rights as well. It also empowered the Federal Parliament to legislate the aboriginals
as racial group. Repealing or amending the racial laws was the primary objective of that
referendum. However, it never eradicated the practice of isolating the native Australian from the
course of ‘civilised society’. Apparently, it can be stated that the new amendment could bring
justice to the rights of the Australian natives but unwillingness of the Federal Court proved that
the process was just a mere illusion and it had no intention to incorporate the indigenous people
into the manifold.
As per the research of Beck (2014) on the participation of the aboriginals people in
Australian people, it can be seen that there are very few examples where the indigenous
Australians took participation into Australian politics. On the contrary, Lino (2017) claimed that
it was a political hindrance staged by the white politicians to segregate and isolate the ‘First men
of Australia’. Baldry, Carlton and Cunneen (2015) opined that in the Hindmarsh Island Bridge
case during 1990s the government deliberately interfered into the personal and private life of the
aboriginal people. Not only that the act of Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 was designed to
repeal the existing heritage protection law. There were so many questions regarding the stand of
the Australian Constitution on the question of supporting racism and racial discrimination. The

3ULURU STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE
constitution did not answer to those questions rather covered it up by protecting the foundation
of itself. It was evident that the Referendum of 1967 did not change the situation except the right
to vote for the aboriginals. It supposed to mean that the native Australians were recognised as the
citizen of the country and should be under the same constitutional framework as the rest of the
country followed.
From that point of view, the historical exclusion of the aboriginal people from the nation
building process was staged so dramatically that the Constitution made dubious and
contradictory terms for the aboriginals. Deprived and isolated aboriginals never got their land
rights and the so called manifestation of the European modernity created a hostile situation for
them as they de facto became identified as criminals. Stereotypes and pre-conceived approaches
of the constitution was the foundation basis that still continues the question of aboriginal rights
in Australia. In the research of Keenan (2014) it was mentioned that the constitutional
framework was set in some sense outright the existence of the aboriginal people who should be
identified as the first men of the country. Moreover, McCallum, Waller and Dreher (2016)
sensed some sort of European dominance that fervour with the practice of making the aboriginals
uncivilised and backward. It is true that the aboriginal Australians are backward but not in terms
of their culture. As far as the research of McKenna (2014) is concerned, it can be argued that
there are huge differences between the culture of the natives and the white settlers in Australia
but that cannot mark the backwardness of the indigenous people. Rather the role of the
constitution was considered to be a driven factor that lured the petty politicians and populace to
think that way and make the indigenous people in a complete isolation.
Subsequently, this background requires the present case scenario between the relationship
of the aboriginals and the Australian government that compels the first men to manifest the