The Uluru Statement: Indigenous Rights and Government Relations

This essay explores the historical context and current implications of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, focusing on the relationship between the Australian government and Indigenous Australians. It delves into the historical alienation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, tracing issues back to the Australian Constitution and the 1967 Referendum. The essay argues that despite some reconciliatory efforts, the government's actions often fall short due to constitutional limitations and a lack of genuine commitment to Indigenous rights. It examines instances such as the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case, the abolishment of ATSIC, and funding issues with the National Congress of Australia’s First People, highlighting persistent discrimination and the need for constitutional reform to address Indigenous grievances. This document is available on Desklib, a platform offering study tools and resources for students.

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

4ULURU STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE
Uluru statement. As Lino (2017) mentioned that there was a long silence about the history and
culture of the aboriginal people in Australia and the white people are least bothered about their
native countrymen even today.
As far as the relationship between the Australian government and the its relationship with
the aboriginal Australians is concerned, it can be stated that there are series of government
project that try to resettle and reconsider an amicable relationship between the two. However,
Little and McMillan (2016) claimed that the Australian government failed to incorporate such
measure due to the constitutional limitation and neglecting the significance of the indigenous
rights. On the other hand, Altman and Markham (2015) argued that there are no such education
or further research that can solidify the urge to take initiatives for the development of the
aboriginal Australians. In this context, the UN Parliamentary report also opined that there are
ample of instances that pointed out the government failure to enact UN recommendations on the
indigenous issues. While trying to figure out the relationship between the government and the
aboriginals Howitt and McLean (2015) tried to develop the research from the foundation of the
white settlement in Australia. At the time of building up the Federation in 1901, the white settlers
thought that aboriginal people were dying race and as a result of that they were excluded from
the part of Constitutional rights. The Crown government tried every measure to prohibit the
native Australian incorporated into the constitutional fold. In the Federal jurisdiction as well
there were limited effort taken out by the government for making betterment for the native
Australians. It can be argued that there were lots of policies taken for the development of
women as women in New South Wales got their right to vote in 1902 but it was not applicable
for the indigenous women despite they were supposed to get the right also (aiatsis.gov.au 2019).
The aboriginal people only got the optional right to vote. They had no willingness or intention to

5ULURU STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE
participate in the electoral chain as the already felt deprived of the existing system where they
became classified as ‘natives’ and ‘wards of the state’.
Things got really bad after the Referendum of 1967 when the indigenous Australian got
their right to vote but the racial discrimination was still existed and entertained by the
government as well to isolate the natives predominantly. The privilege of voting was there but
the government did not take any initiative to make it mandatory. In addition to this, prohibition
of the raising their own children and the freedom of movement, having access to education and
receiving wages made the situation vulnerable for the aboriginal people. The government was
solely responsible for such discrimination between the common people and the indigenous
Australians. As a matter of fact, this discriminating politics is still continued even today. In this
regard, Wahlquist (2017) stated that there are punitive actions and malfunction in the Australian
government that lead to deliver complete isolation of the aboriginal people of Australia.
For an instance, Cornell (2015) stated that there are plethora of reconciliatory practices
initiated by the Australian government. Based on this understanding, the National Congress of
Australia’s First People has been defunct due to lack of fund problem. The government started
arguing that they were no longer willing to continue the organisational because many necessary
steps had been taken for the development of the native people of Australia. This National
Congress was established in 2010 with the purpose to taking the grievances of the indigenous
people seriously. In this regard, the Gillard government managed to increase the fund for the
organisation up to AU$29 million (aiatsis.gov.au 2019). However, the Coalition government was
reluctant to continue the fund as it argued that the government was running ahead of the expected
budget and so that the government was incompetent in funding the organisation. In addition to
this, there was huge debate over the importance of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

6ULURU STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE
Commission (ATSIC) that became abolished in the year 2005. In this regard, it can be stated that
the ATSIC was a legislative national representative structure which was banished by the
government. Therefore, there are no such body of representatives that can raise voice for the
development of the aboriginal Australians. Furthermore, the research of Cunneen (2014) stated
that lack of participation of the aboriginal people and the official set up to isolate the indigenous
people from both politically and culturally further perturbed the situation emphatically. In this
regard, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders felt the need to raise their voice politically and
constitutionally so that the government may take initiatives properly. In response to this, the
Uluru Statement has been staged with the agenda to seek the attention of the government in order
to take necessary action for the aboriginal Australians. In fact, the statement intentionally stated
the aboriginals as the first men of the country and tried to build up a justification to be taken care
of.
From the above discussion, it can be argued that the constitutional framework and the
government role are highly responsible for depriving the native Australian to get their rights. As
a matter of fact, the aboriginal people never treated as the citizen of the new nation and did not
take into consideration as a pivotal factor in the national building process. It was more of the
policy and the constitutional deliberate malfunctioning that identified as a serious impediment to
inclusion of the indigenous people into the fold of mainstream Australian society.
Constitutionally, the half-hearted attempt of the Australian high court to provide equal rights was
obstructed by the existence of colonial discord and manifestation. It still supports the practice of
discrimination even after repealing discriminatory sections like Section 51 and Section 25. As a
matter of fact, random government support and negligence to the aboriginal matter supported the
constitutional framework as a catalyst. Therefore, it became obvious and evident for the

7ULURU STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE
Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to raise their voice and make things right to safeguard
their rights and privileges. The Uluru Statement provided them the authority of their own to
remind the government again and again about the existence of the indigenous Australians. From
that point of view, it can be concluded that the essay is highly resembled with the importance of
Uluru Statement in the light of focusing on the relationship between government and its native
people.

8ULURU STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE
Reference
aiatsis.gov.au, 2019. Indigenous Australians: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
[online] Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Available at:
https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/articles/indigenous-australians-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-
islander-people [Accessed 14 Feb. 2019].
Altman, J. and Markham, F., 2015. Burgeoning Indigenous land ownership: Diverse values and
strategic potentialities. Native title from Mabo to Akiba: A vehicle for change and empowerment,
pp.126-142.
Baldry, E., Carlton, B. and Cunneen, C., 2015. Abolitionism and the paradox of penal reform in
Australia: Indigenous women, colonial patriarchy, and co-option. Social Justice, 41(3 (137),
pp.168-189.
Beck, L., 2014. Jack Balkin's Constitutionalism and the Expert Panel on Constitutional
Recognition of Indigenous Austrlians. UNSWLJ, 37, p.407.
Cornell, S., 2015. Processes of Native nationhood: the Indigenous politics of self-
government. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 6(4), p.4.
Cunneen, C., 2014. Colonial processes, indigenous peoples, and criminal justice systems. The
Oxford handbook of ethnicity, crime, and immigration, pp.386-407.
Howitt, R. and McLean, J., 2015. Towards closure? Coexistence, remoteness and righteousness
in Indigenous policy in Australia. Australian Geographer, 46(2), pp.137-145.

9ULURU STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE
Keenan, S., 2014. Moments of decolonization: Indigenous Australia in the here and
now. Canadian Journal of Law & Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société, 29(2), pp.163-
180.
Lino, D., 2017. Thinking Outside the Constitution on Indigenous Constitutional Recognition:
Entrenching the Racial Discrimination Act.
Little, A. and McMillan, M., 2016. On the wrong track: why Australia's attempt at Indigenous
reconciliation will fail. [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/on-
the-wrong-track-why-australias-attempt-at-indigenous-reconciliation-will-fail-58064 [Accessed
14 Feb. 2019].
McCallum, K., Waller, L. and Dreher, T., 2016. Mediatisation, marginalisation and disruption in
Australian indigenous affairs. Media and Communication, 4(4), pp.30-42.
McKenna, M., 2014. Tokenism or belated recognition? Welcome to Country and the emergence
of Indigenous protocol in Australia, 1991–2014. Journal of Australian Studies, 38(4), pp.476-
489.
Merlan, F., 2014. Recent rituals of Indigenous recognition in Australia: welcome to
country. American Anthropologist, 116(2), pp.296-309.
Morris, S., 2014. Undemocratic, Uncertain and Politically Unviable: An Analysis of an
Response to Objections to a Proposed Racial Non-Discrimination Clause as Part of
Constitutional Reforms for Indigenous Recognition. Monash UL Rev., 40, p.488.

10ULURU STATEMENT AND THE RESPONSE
Morris, S., 2015. The argument for a constitutional procedure for Parliament to consult with
Indigenous peoples when making laws for Indigenous affairs. Public Law Review, 26(3),
pp.166-192.
Wahlquist, C., 2017. Australian governments have failed Indigenous peoples, says Oxfam.
[online] the Guardian. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/apr/12/australian-governments-have-failed-
indigenous-peoples-says-oxfam [Accessed 14 Feb. 2019].