Our report: Aboriginal Peoples right to homelands - Amnesty International Australia

Login

Register

Keep in touch

Email Signup

Amnesty International is a global movement of over 3 million people committed to defending those who are denied justice or freedom.

HOME
Home Our Work

OUR WORK

GET INVOLVED

DONATE

NEWS

ABOUT

SHOP

Search

Indigenous Peoples' Rights

Our report: Aboriginal Peoples right to homelands

OUR WORK
Our successes Refugees Indigenous rights Weapons and human rights Countries in crisis Individuals at risk Demand dignity Stop violence against women End the death penalty Torture and terror Human rights education

Our report: Aboriginal Peoples right to homelands

9 August 2011, 12:01AM Like 104 Tweet 20 0

For over three years we partnered with the Alyawarr and Anmatyerr communities of Utopia homelands to develop our report. "'The land holds us:' Aboriginal Peoples' right to traditional homelands in the Northern Territory." Our report highlights the way specific policies on homelands in the Northern Territory undermine the rights of Aboriginal communities, including: All Indigenous peoples have the fundamental human right to their traditional lands. For Aboriginal Peoples of Australia, this connection to traditional lands or country' is of central importance to Aboriginal identity and culture. This report documents the efforts of the Alyawarr and Anmatyerr Peoples of the Utopia homelands in Central Australia to live a healthy April Pyle/AI life on their homelands, despite a series of legislative and policy changes made at a national, state, territory and local level over the last decade that have been detrimental to the rights of Aboriginal Peoples to live on their ancestral lands. These policy initiatives fall below international human rights standards, in particular the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Central to the declaration are the rights of Indigenous peoples to own, live on and develop their lands; to consultation and free, prior and informed consent; and to culture. The themes of land, culture, and informed consent are the subject of this report. Our recommendations focus on the need for governments at both national and territory level to show political and financial support for homelands.

Our successes
Former child prisoner freed Connecticut abolishes the Death Penalty 165,000 people call for Yodok prison camp to close View more success stories

Get email updates

Enter your email
Action alerts by email Privacy policy

Make a donation
30.00
Give what you can. We'll promise to spend your money wisely. How your donation is used

http://www.amnesty.org.au/indigenous-rights/comments/26216[23/05/2012 8:38:14 PM]

Our report: Aboriginal Peoples right to homelands - Amnesty International Australia

Report digest | Open publication - Free publishing Download the report digest (executive summary, 4.25MB PDF) Read or download the full report (2.11MB PDF)]

Rights to adequate housing under International law

In February 2009, Prime Minister Julia Gillard made a statement of support of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and spoke of her government's efforts to "overcome decades of underinvestment in services and infrastructure" in Aboriginal communities. Our research shows that these efforts are not being directed at homelands which consists of approximately 500 communities, and are home to one third of the Northern Territory's Aboriginal population. The Australian Government has transferred the responsibility for homelands to the Northern Territory Government, whose own policy clearly states no new homes and new homelands in the Northern Territory. Instead, the governments are focusing attention on just 21 'hub' towns.

Key issues for homelands:

Under the National Partnership Agreements (NPA) on Remote Service Delivery only 15 towns in the Northern Territory, will receive ongoing funding for municipal and essential services, excluding people living in 500 homelands and many other large communities. Although there are provisions for Indigenous engagement and participation under the Remote Service Delivery National Partnership Agreement, this only applies to growth towns, not to homelands communities. Aboriginal people have not been included as a party to any of the NPA under Closing the Gap, nor have there been national consultations in the development of these agreements. This is reflected in homelands communities being excluded from the policy and decisions such as where the growth towns will be located. Homeland communities - like Utopia - hold a real fear of displacement and there is widespread concern that they will be forced to move to larger communities to receive basic services. Aboriginal people that inhabit homelands see this as a threat to their connection to land.

Australia's obligations to homeland communities

The declaration outlines the rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the rights to: own, use and control their own lands (Article 26) control and develop their culture (Article 31) participate in decisions that affect them. It also states that: Governments shall consult with Indigenous Peoples in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting laws and policies that may affect them (Article 19).

"Let me assure anybody who cares for the Aboriginal people of Australia that once we are moved from our place of origin, we will not only lose our identity, we will die a traumatised tragic end. We must stop this, and we must remain on our country. Its not [simply] attachment to the land, its survival of a cultural practice that is still alive in spite of what has been thrown at it." A woman from the Northern Territory town of Elliot.
Indigenous Peoples have the right to choose their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent (Articles 26, 19, 8).

http://www.amnesty.org.au/indigenous-rights/comments/26216[23/05/2012 8:38:14 PM]

Our report: Aboriginal Peoples right to homelands - Amnesty International Australia The Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, to which Australia is a signatory, also clearly articulates the rights of effective participation and informed consent as fundamental aspects of non-discrimination. Australia is also party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article 11 of ICESCR recognises the right of all people to adequate housing and commits governments to take appropriate steps to ensure the realisation of that right. Australia has an obligation under ICESCR to ensure that minimum essential standards are met in the provision of basic housing for all Australians. The minimum standards are: Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure, including access to safe drinking water and sanitation. Affordability. Habitability. Accessibility for disadvantaged groups, including the elderly, children, the physically disabled and the terminally ill. For Aboriginal people, where land is an integral part of their cultural identity, the relationship between the right to land and the right to adequate housing is even more essential.

Policies of exclusion
Over the last five years, the Australian Government has made considerable financial and political investment in Aboriginal affairs in the Northern Territory. But homelands are not benefitting. The changes to laws and policies outlined below demonstrate how government support for homelands has been incrementally reduced. Common across these changes has been the lack of processes to secure the free, prior and informed consent of the Aboriginal Peoples affected.

Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory and the Working Future policy
In 2009 the Intervention was renamed Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory. This was brought under the National Indigenous Reform Agreement 'Closing the Gap', the overarching national plan to address Indigenous disadvantage in Australia. Closing the Gap is implemented through a series of National Partnership Agreements. The agreements commit state and territory governments to a common framework of outcomes, progress measures and policy directions, and provide funding. A key National Partnership Agreement for people living in remote communities is the agreement on Remote Service Delivery. This agreement establishes the priority or 'hub' town model, which involves supporting a few selected, larger economic centres, relying on them to act as servicing hubs for outlying areas where many Aboriginal Peoples live. The Northern Territory Government is implementing the agreement on Remote Service Delivery through the Working Future policy. Because the agreement is focused on 21 growth towns, the Northern Territory Government additionally developed the outstations/homelands headline policy statement, as part of the Working Future policy. Three key elements of this policy are: - It outlines how government services will be delivered to homelands - mostly through remote delivery from growth towns. - It defines housing on Aboriginal land as privately owned. - It states that no new housing on outstations/homelands will be built by the Northern Territory Government.

Housing policy for homelands communities

One area where the lack of support for homelands is most evident is housing. Since the 1960s, the Commonwealth Community Housing and Infrastructure Program provided grants to Indigenous community housing organisations, Northern Territory government agencies and local governments to deliver housing, including for homeland communities. A review of Indigenous housing in 2007 then recommended a shift away from building new housing on homelands. Additionally, the report's recommendations included examining, 'the benefits of providing mobility incentives' to encourage families to move to more centralised locations. Following the 2007 review, a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments that handed responsibility for municipal and local government services for 500 homeland communities to the Northern Territory Government. Despite the fact that independent assessments of remote Aboriginal housing cite 'extraordinarily poor performance of Aboriginal houses' and the Commonwealth Government's own acceptance that 'many houses in remote communities are overcrowded and in poor condition, impacting on the living conditions of many Indigenous Territorians', funding allocation demonstrates the difference in commitment between larger remote communities and homelands.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/indigenous-rights/comments/26216[23/05/2012 8:38:14 PM]

Our report: Aboriginal Peoples right to homelands - Amnesty International Australia

Source: Northern Territory Government Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services Housing Management and Maintenance Programs guidelines 2010-2011 As a result, remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory are increasingly being separated into different layers or tiers, and differentials in living standards between the tiers are likely to increase. Small communities classed as outstations, including homelands and most excision communities are on the lowest tier and receive no new houses, no refurbishments and a low level of maintenance funding.

Creation of mega-shires in the Northern Territory

In July 2008 small town councils, community government councils, Aboriginal corporations and associations and other local government structures were amalgamated into larger regional or mega-shires in the Northern Territory. In homelands, shires are now responsible for the on-the-ground delivery of essential and municipal services. In the case of the Utopia homelands, their own Urapuntja Council was dissolved and replaced by a larger regional shire - the Barkly Shire Council. Each of the 16 wards in Utopia was represented on the Urapuntja Council - this has decreased to three representatives under the shire system. The amalgamations brought together a wide variety of regional and disparate interests from pastoral, mining, Indigenous and nonIndigenous town-based and remote representatives on shire boards. Aboriginal communities believe that the previous model was more representative of Aboriginal interests. The Aboriginal voice, despite being the dominant demographic in the region, has been diluted by the amalgamation into mega-shires. Research confirms that recent Australian and Northern Territory government policies breach Australia's obligations to protect the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to their traditional lands, their culture and to adequate consultation about laws and policies that affect their lives. One of the most visible outcomes of long-term under-investment and a lack of government commitment to homelands is the state of infrastructure and housing. The housing we surveyed in Utopia is inadequate and poses a threat to Anmatyerr and Alyawarr aspirations to stay on their homelands.

Our recommendations
The Commonwealth Government has transferred the responsibility for homelands to the Northern Territory Government, whose own policy clearly states no new home and new homelands in the Northern Territory. Instead the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments are focusing attention on 21 Territory Growth Towns. In this report, Amnesty International has argued that Aboriginal Peoples have the right to live on their traditional homelands without being effectively denied access to services like public housing and related infrastructure. Both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments need to address this problem with the full and equal participation of those directly affected - the Aboriginal Peoples occupying the homelands of the Northern Territory. As Rosalie Kunoth-Monks says: What we need and demand is our dignity and rightful situation in Australia. We are Australians. We are not reluctant to take up the challenge and own a journey which might take us closer to closing the gap which Prime Minister Rudd [sic] talks about. But he does not have to destroy the spirit or the ethos of who we are. We want that to continue into generations after generations. And Australia is in the unique position of safeguarding and assisting us to continue into the next century. For Australia to uphold its obligation to housing rights, we recommend the following:

Recommendations
The Australian Commonwealth and North Territory governments recognise and fulfil the rights of Aboriginal Peoples to their traditional lands. The Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments apply the Closing the Gap policies to all Aboriginal Peoples in the Northern Territory, not only to those living in Territory Growth Towns. Closing the Gap funding is equitably distributed to include homelands. Criteria for funding must reflect the importance of homelands to Aboriginal Peoples and the significant backlog in housing as a result of historical underinvestment.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/indigenous-rights/comments/26216[23/05/2012 8:38:14 PM]

Our report: Aboriginal Peoples right to homelands - Amnesty International Australia

The Commonwealth Government must ensure that all housing on homelands meets the standards for adequate housing under international law, and that effective, equitable and non-discriminatory processes are in place to ensure the rights of Aboriginal Peoples to their traditional lands and the rights to adequate housing. The Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments engage with homelands communities to secure their free, prior and informed consent on all housing policy and plans for homelands given the significance of these policies for homeland communities. The Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments to take into account the above recommendations when re-negotiating the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding on Indigenous Housing, Accommodation and Related Services.

Read more
5 facts about homelands What are homelands? Learn about the traditional communities that are home to around 30% of Aboriginal people in the NT. Meet the people of Utopia homelands: meet some of the people living on Utopia homelands to better understand what life on their traditional, ancestral land is like. Homelands in pictures: take an intimate look into the lives of the Alyawarr and Anmatyerr Peoples on Utopia homelands. Back to the homelands index page <="">

Dont abandon Aboriginal homelands

Sign our visual petition and tell the government: respect Aboriginal country and culture.

COMMENTS
Michael Wild | Posted on 5 September 2011, 08:20PM | Report comment

Disclaimer

Mietzko I think you need to calm down and read closely. I cant really believe you think there are no complex technical issues in providing services and the right social policy for severely disadvantaged groups. Im aware of the review you mentioned. That just shows how difficult these social policies/problems are. If these problems were easy they would have been solved some time ago. That still doesnt mean an NGO is going to find right policy answers. What I find interesting is the implication that NGOs are likely to be smarter than governments. Its fashionable to knock governments but they include some extremely intelligent people. As I understand it Amnesty is not being an aid agency (where the extra resources and additional enthusiasm of NGO may help). Modern medicine has had very little success with say pancreatic cancer. Lets say an NGO decides this is a failure to provide the right to health. Does this mean the NGO will outperform presently failing medicine? All things are possible but I dont think so. People recognize there are technical difficulties in medicine. They seem to think there are no comparable problems in providing services and the best policy in very adverse conditions. No, Im not saying NGOs should give up on all fronts. If you read what I said youll see this. What I am saying is that most NGOs are not equipped to solve difficult technical problems.

Mieszko | Posted on 5 September 2011, 11:17AM | Report comment I see no reason to believe Amnesty or any other worthy NGO has any deeper understanding/expertise than governments. That is the most bizarre statement Ive read on this website. Youre right, all NGOs and charities should just pack up shop on all fronts and let the government sort things out. They know best. Especially considering a recent major internal government review of Indigenous programs found dismal results with very little return.

Michael Wild | Posted on 3 September 2011, 06:08PM | Report comment Saying forget economics sounds grand but if later on, in the cold light of day, people should realize this you makes irrelevant to absolutely crucial decision makers. These programs cost money and are paid for by governments who will ALWAYS be interested in economics. I expect T.Phillips was making a broad rhetorical statement (I do them too). To my mind Amnesty is getting into tricky social policy problems here. They are extremely complicated with lots of well thought out plans failing and backfiring. I see no reason to believe Amnesty or any other worthy NGO has any deeper understanding/expertise than governments. I note that consultation has become the most widely acclaimed panacea. It sounds great: I like it too. But I feel theres rather more faith than reason being put on it. Doing it is far harder than it sounds. It assumes that the communities always do know the best solutions. If they do will it really be implemented as well as hoped for? What if the communities with the loudest voices are part of the problem, or calling for things that will clearly make things worse? Do we consult with people committing serious criminal offences? Before Im called racist, my professional life is with schools and disabled people and Ive seen plenty of examples of ineffective consultations or where ineffective and destructive strategies got chosen because of it. Before I get criticized for being anti-disabled parents Im the father to a severely disabled youth. Finally, T Phillips belief that things cant get worse suggests s/he lacks imagination. With extremely disadvantaged groups things

http://www.amnesty.org.au/indigenous-rights/comments/26216[23/05/2012 8:38:14 PM]

Our report: Aboriginal Peoples right to homelands - Amnesty International Australia can get worse and sometime do.

T Phillips | Posted on 3 September 2011, 02:28PM | Report comment Forget economics. There is a need for consultation with local indigenous peoples. Ask anyone who works in this area and they consistently complain of the lack of consultation, period, no matter the policy. I personally believe there are many ways to tackle the conditions that indigenous people find themselves in. The problem is that most of the answers are not the conventional quick fixes that bureaucracy likes and often are very much associated with the needs of each place. Which is what you would expect with displaced peoples scattered over long distances. It is much easier to come up with blanket policies that do not take into account individual circumstances and so the band aids keep getting rolled out instead of the fixes that are so clearly needed. If you take away peoples self worth, optimism for the future and treat them differently than the general population social problems are bound to occur no matter who or where you are. Look at all the failed community housing suburbs within capital cites to see how easily this can happen. Disadvantaged people are all put in the same place and given no real reason to empower themselves, and often with underlining social problems which are going untreated to begin with; these social problems often end up becoming the social norms of the community. This is despite more services for treatment being placed in these areas which of course is the very reason for creating these community housing areas in the first place, exactly the same reason being given for forcing indigenous people into Growth Towns. You simply can not make people use services if they do not wish to, and further more why would they when social problems are norm for the area. I say this as someone who has lived this first hand. Why is it that we seem so incapable of simply consulting and following through with locally agreed outcomes. It cant be any worse than policys that have already been tried including this one.

Michael Wild | Posted on 13 August 2011, 08:09PM | Report comment Hi Carmel. Id be cautious making economic statements about the benefits of a homeland versus non homelands. I am not an economist and I expect you arent too. Furthermore neither of us have the sort of data needed to make any statement. What I will say is that Ive seen lots of programs that look like theyd save money fail to do so and others that look dubious turn out to be money well spent. It is the curse of economics that it attracts political passions with all the rancour, refusal to face ugly facts and delighted pouncing on numbers (however flimsy) more to peoples liking. While the Utopian communities seem lovely places I struggle to think that all 500 of the homesteads wonderful. And you can bet good money that the sincere folk in Amnestys Indigenous team arent going to run out with cameras to publicize them either. Even if they were heavily committed to even handedness (activists of any hue rarely are) doing this would be cruel and unethical.

Carmel Leahy | Posted on 12 August 2011, 11:13AM | Report comment The dollar cost per person, of a well supported homeland is a lot less than coping with the same people in a dysfunctional situation on the fringes of an urban centre. It makes good economic sense to allow people to live where, with support they can flourish.

Arthur Bell | Posted on 10 August 2011, 04:33PM | Report comment What evidence is there that the funding invested, in previous decades, in hundreds of now abandoned outstations was a wise investment? How does that investment compare to what might have been achieved if the money had been spent on other priorities, such as early childhood and parenting skills programs, and effective education? Would other impoverished citizens mind if their living standards suffer because a huge proportion of the Australian Governments budget were to be absorbed providing a full range of services to single family outstations in extremely remote places? extract from Rolling back reality by Bob Durnan. from Alice Online 8/6/2011

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry commenting is no longer available on this page.

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ...

http://www.amnesty.org.au/indigenous-rights/comments/26216[23/05/2012 8:38:14 PM]

Our report: Aboriginal Peoples right to homelands - Amnesty International Australia A policeman's job is to protect all citizens, even those he or she doesn't like. I'd have thought that a pretty basic concept. Join the debate
Michael Wild 21 May 2012, 03:59PM

This is just the tip of the iceberg of the human rights abuses that occur under Europe's nose. Join the debate
Amy 21 May 2012, 03:18PM

Please commit to an Arms Trade Treaty.

Thanks for this - a great read and so important right now. Keep it coming :) Join the debate
rahwa 11 May 2012, 12:20PM

Join the debate

Belinda Valenti 19 May 2012, 09:24PM

OUR WORK
Refugees rights Indigenous rights Weapons and rights Countries in crisis Demand dignity Individuals at risk Torture and terror Violence against women End the death penalty Our successes

GET INVOLVED
Take action online Take action locally Donate Work with us Become a member Interns and volunteers School action Raise funds Leave a legacy

ABOUT
About us Our history Frequently asked questions What are human rights? Organisational plans Annual reports Financial reports Governance Research and reports

MEDIA
News releases Contact our media team Speeches

TAKE ACTION ONLINE

Ask your MP to speak up on homelands

Home

Contact us

Update your details

Privacy policy

Legals

Site map

Copyright Amnesty International Australia ABN: 640 0280 6233. All donations of $2 and over are tax deductible.

http://www.amnesty.org.au/indigenous-rights/comments/26216[23/05/2012 8:38:14 PM]