Introduction This essay sites the historic and current relationship between the Constitution. Federalism and Indigenous Affairs as a instance survey of the transmutation and germinating nature of Federalism in Australia. It will briefly sketch the original purpose of the Australian federal system and discourse its early impact on Autochthonal Australians. so place the altering nature of Federalism alongside the altering attacks to Indigenous Affairs. reasoning that despite important developments no clear grounds of betterment in the predicament of Indigenous Australians could be demonstrated.
Through an analysis of this relationship. between Federalism and Indigenous Affairs the essay will reason that the current stage of federalism. described as Rudd’s collaborative concerted federalism. combined with a maturating attack to Indigenous Affairs. if maintained. could see important benefits to Indigenous Australians. The Fundamental law designed to protect rights In planing the fundamental law. the framers drew on the constitutional agreements of both Britain and the United States ( Saunders 2002: 85 ) .
They adopted the rules and establishments of responsible authorities but rejected a comprehensive Bill of Rights. Some characteristics of Australia’s federation include a high grade of liberty for the authorities establishments of the Commonwealth and the States. a division of power. and a judicial authorization to find whether either degree of authorities had exceeded its powers ( Fenna 2007: 176 ) Supporters of the this federal system argue that this division of power provides greater security for single freedoms and autonomy ( Fenna 2007: 178 ) .
The purpose to protect the rights of citizens unluckily did non widen to the First Peoples of Australia. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the First Peoples of Australia and have particular rights originating from that position. To this terminal the author supports Farley’s ( 2003 ) observation that the relationship between autochthonal and non-indigenous Australians deserves particular attending. The Constitution. Federation and Indigenous rights – an overview At the clip of European colony Australia was deemed to be “terra nullius” .
The Indigenous legal system was ignored and with it Autochthonal involvement in land ( Saunders 2002: 87 ) . More than one hundred old ages subsequently. at the clip of federation. the Autochthonal people were expressly excluded from Commonwealth power. Social Darwinism was in full flight and Autochthonal Australians were considered ‘inferior’ people who were doomed to extinction ( Federation Story 2001 ) . Their involvements and public assistance remained wholly with the States. The State Constitutions contained little. if anything to protect them. Autochthonal people were left in a political no-mans land.
The exclusion of Indigenous Australian rights would put the scene for continued disadvantage. As a consequence. throughout most of the twentieth century Autochthonal Australians were treated really severely. Until comparatively late there was no acknowledgment of their jurisprudence and small of their civilization. Many groups lost their linguistic communications and except for the far north. they were they had lost their land excessively. They suffered utmost societal and economic disadvantage. They were politically powerless to rectify their ain state of affairs. ( Saunders 2002: 87 ) The Commonwealth and Indigenous Affairs 1901-1949.
The relationship between the Commonwealth and the States over the first 25 twelvemonth period could be described as co-ordinated federalism. where the Commonwealth and State authoritiess were each coordinate and independent in their several domains. The States relationship with Indigenous Australians was mostly based on a Protection and Control Policy which dominated during the period from the 1880s to 19030. The Commonwealth had small influence over these policies. but played a secondary function through statute law which limited entree to citizenship and public assistance rights.
Autochthonal people were mostly excluded during this period. During the following one-fourth of the twentieth century. a concerted federalism was pursued. This attack is illustrated by the Financial Agreement in 1927 which saw cooperation between the Prime Minister and the State Premiers during the 1930s in explicating budgetary and economic policies in response to the Great Depression. During this period Bleakley’s study on the Aborigines and Half-castes of Central Australia and North Australia ( Dow & A ; Gardiner-Garden 2011: 4 ) was released with recommendations for improved life conditions.
In response the Commonwealth convened a meeting of groups interested in Aboriginal public assistance to at which many of the delegates argued for increased Commonwealth engagement in Aboriginal Affairs but this was rejected ( Dow & A ; Gardiner-Garden. 2011 ; 5 ) . Later in April 1937 the Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Authorities was held to interchange thoughts on the disposal of Aboriginal Affairs. At this conference the assimilation policy was sanctioned. This policy intended to progress and protect public assistance but rapidly became one which farther alienated Autochthonal people.
During this period the remotion of kids from Autochthonal parents became a scheme agreed on by all authorities ; province and federal ( Commonwealth of Australia 1997 ) . Federal and State cooperation and a shared policy led to action. but unfortunately action which led to further Autochthonal disadvantage. The air currents of alteration ( 1947 – 1992 ) In the latter portion of the twentieth century the state of affairs began to alter. as universe sentiment on favoritism changed. The Menzies Government presided over a period that saw turning support for a policy of greater Commonwealth engagement in Indigenous Affairs.
Menzies’ attack to federalism could be described as coercive federalism and was characterised by acrimonious differences over fundss ( Cranston 1979: 121 ) . In 1962 the Commonwealth Electoral Act amended the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 by giving the ballot in Commonwealth elections to all Aborigines. It was non mandatory for Aboriginal people to register. but one time they had. vote was compulsory. This turning force per unit area for the Commonwealth to step in in Autochthonal Affairs culminated in the referendum of 1967 when the Constitution was changed to give the Commonwealth concurrent power in relation to Autochthonal people.
Autochthonal people were hopeful that this would present a new epoch of non-discrimination ( Behrendt 2010 ) ; nevertheless these outlooks were non met. The last one-fourth of the twentieth century saw a return to a coordinated federal theoretical account with the debut of concerted planning to cut down the conditions attached to segment 96 grants and to present revenue enhancement sharing agreements. During this period the Whitlam Government created the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. showing in a period of important Commonwealth outgo and scheduling and in 1973 initiated a Royal Commission into Aboriginal land rights under Justice Woodward ( Hocking 2008 ) .
The Whitlam Government introduced ‘self-determination’ as a cardinal steering rule in Aboriginal Affairs policy devising. The Commonwealth used increased particular intent grants to as its chief arm to promote cooperation by the States. The ‘self-determination’ policy was subsequently described as ‘one of the most radical policy alterations of all time enacted in Australian authorities policy’ ( Altman & A ; Drum sanders 1991: 214 ) . Accompanied by a proliferation of programmes through the 80s. the Commonwealth besides began to implement land rights statute law where it had more complete legislative power.
In South Australia. some public lands were given to Autochthonal people. but in general the States resisted the lands rights motion at this phase. Despite these developments Autochthonal people remained mostly disadvantaged. Reports such as the Toomelah Report ( Einfield 1988 ) and the interim study on Black Deaths in Custody ( 1988 ) confirm this. Commonwealth Autochthonal policy had evolved significantly. nevertheless States attitudes and committedness to bettering the well-being of Autochthonal Australians was non that clearly demonstrated.
The phase had now been set for more important developments. Keating. Howard and Reconciliation ( 1992 – 2004 ) The Keating Government’s response to the Royal Commission’s study on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody ( 1991 ) . a lurid study. was to put up a national enquiry into the separation of Autochthonal kids in an attempt to promote acknowledgment of past unfairnesss ( Gardiner-Garden 2011: 2 ) . Thus began a policy attack of rapprochement.
The Keating Government encouraged concerted federalism as evidenced by the constitution of the Council of Australian Governments ( COAG ) in 1992 which endorsed a National Commitment to Improved Outcomes in the Delivery of Programs and Services for Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders ( Gardiner-Garden 2011: 2 ) In 1992. in the landmark determination in Mabo V Queensland ( No. 2 ) the High Court of Australia ( 1992 ) held that the common jurisprudence of Australia would recognize Indigenous land rubric.
While the Mabo standards were hard for Autochthonal groups to run into. it was a symbolically of import determination. The Commonwealth enacted statute law to command the claims procedure and the States were unable to invalidate the consequence of the Mabo determination. because of supervening Commonwealth jurisprudence. In the strategy of things. these alterations were of import. but minor ; Autochthonal Australians were still fighting for land. equal economic chance and acknowledgment of jurisprudence and civilization.
However. their bargaining power. nevertheless little. enabled them to do the federal system work better for them. More States began sing the return of lands to Indigenous peoples ; some States began experimenting with Autochthonal tribunal systems ; some entered into understandings with Autochthonal people to supply a greater step of self-determination and economic development. The Howard Government failed to capitalize on Hawke and Keating’s committedness to bettering conditions for Autochthonal Australians.
Howard dropped the footings ‘social justice’ and ‘self determination’ . and withdrew support from many of the associated enterprises and establishments declaring the new precedences to be ‘accountability’ . ‘ bettering results in cardinal areas’ and ‘promoting economic independence’ ( Gardiner-Garden 2011: 7 ) . Establishing a Particular Auditor. cut downing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission’s ( ATSIC ) support. amending the Native Title Act and perceived inactivity on rapprochement placed a strain on dealingss with the Indigenous community.
A more coercive federal attack had now been adopted. A coercive concerted attack to rapprochement seemed incongruous to those recommending on behalf of Autochthonal Australians. In 2004 the Howard Government utilised COAG to drive a new ‘shared responsibility’ doctrine trialing a ‘whole-of-government approach’ through ‘Shared Responsibility Agreements’ and ‘Regional Partnership Agreements’ . The Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs was established to drive the bringing of improved services and results for Autochthonal Australians.
Despite these developments. studies on the well-being of Indigenous Australians still identified important disadvantage. An rating of the Wadeye COAG site. a whole of authorities enterprise. identified that a batch of money had been provided with really small result ( Wadeye Evaluation 2006 ) . The Howard government’s coercive attack and deteriorating relationship with the States attracted much unfavorable judgment and calls for federal reform began deriving impulse ( Wan na 2007 ) .
Autochthonal Policy and argument besides entered a new stage when in mid to late 2007. following a series of studies. most noteworthy the June 2007 Little Children are Sacred study about degrees of kid sex maltreatment in Autochthonal Communities in the Northern Territory. the Commonwealth announced and so legislated for a series of exigency steps in the Northern Territory. Howard’s Autochthonal policies. mostly accepted by the following authorities may hold had virtue ; nevertheless the fractured relationships with States and Autochthonal communities provided small chance to see positive results. Rudd’s Collaborative Cooperative attack.
The Rudd Government maintained most of the Howard Government’s Northern Territory intercession steps. but adopted a different policy linguistic communication. Cardinal words were now ‘new partnership’ and ‘closing the gap’ . These footings were used in the Communique from the Council of Australian Government’s meeting on December 2007. where there was a committedness to clear up the functions and duties of different degrees of authorities and to shut the life anticipation spread within a coevals. to halve the spread in mortality rates for Autochthonal kids under five within a decennary. and to halve the spread in reading. authorship and numeracy.
This was the first clip marks had been set. which clearly communicated a message of committedness. Rudd issued a national apology. attempted to revoke the old government’s alterations to the license system for entree to Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Autochthonal Peoples. oversaw statute law which reinstated the full operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1976 and promised audience on a scope of issues from the hereafter of the Community Development Employment Projects ( CDEP ) strategy to the formation of a new Indigenous representative organic structure.
Rudd’s attack to Indigenous Affairs policy was a contemplation of the government’s attack to federalism – a collaborative concerted attack. After a COAG meeting in November 2008 it was announced that State and Territory authoritiess were fall ining with the Commonwealth in major reforms of their fiscal dealingss. A new Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations was to be finalised which reduced 90 old Specific Purpose Payments from the Commonwealth to the States and Territories to merely five ( COAG 2009 ) .
The Rudd authorities decided that COAG would take on a paramount leading function in the federation. including elaborate inadvertence of the execution of federally agreed plans. An ambitious forward plan of reform – the COAG reform docket – was developed. The high point of this procedure was the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations which from January 2009 changed the manner fiscal personal businesss of the Commonwealth and States was conducted.
In the first few months of the Rudd Government. peculiarly instantly after the national apology. a moving ridge of optimism swept through the state and encouraged those who had long advocated for Autochthonal Australians. Those who had called for federal reform during 2007 were besides optimistic: “A new epoch of concerted federalism has begun in Australia. This epoch offers an ideal and rare chance to do permanent betterments in the operation of our federal system …” ( Wan na. et Al. 2009 ) Decision
A figure of observers have identified a signifier of collaborative concerted federalism to be the most effectual federal theoretical account ( Cranston. 1979 ; Uren. 2006 ; Wilkins 2006: 8 and Glover 2006: 6 ) . Although this essay has non attempted to supply conclusive grounds that a concerted theoretical account is more effectual than a co-ordinate or coercive federal attacks. it does utilize the instance survey of Australian Indigenous Affairs to foreground that greater advancement on Autochthonal Personal businesss have been made under authoritiess which have adopted a concerted attack such as the Keating authorities. and to a greater extent the Rudd authorities.
Both these authoritiess placed importance on healthy federal and province relationships. as evidenced through the constitution of COAG under Keating and the paramount leading function played by COAG in the Rudd Government. It could be argued that in the early period of the Rudd Government. Australia witnessed the intersection of a maturating federal system. concerted and collaborative and a maturating Autochthonal Affairs policy of ‘Shared Responsibility’ and Reconciliation’ subjects which led to good will and a great trade of optimism.
Time will judge the effectivity of this attack. but in theory these attacks have gone some manner to run into the calls for federal and Autochthonal policy reform. Although the current informations on get the better ofing Autochthonal disadvantage does non reflect important alteration. there is some grounds for optimism. Of the 45 indexs in the ‘Overcoming Autochthonal Disadvantage: Cardinal Indexs 2011’ study ( Australian Government 2011 ) . available information shows betterment in results for 13 indexs. including employment. educational attainment and place ownership.
For 10 there has been no existent betterment. while for seven results have deteriorated minimally. This is non a bad study card. compared to studies delivered in the yesteryear. There is still a considerable manner to travel in shuting the spread. but advancement is being made. Mentions Altman. J. C. & A ; Sanders. W. 1991 ‘From Exclusion to Dependence: Natives and the Welfare State in Australia’ DISCUSSION PAPER No. 1/1991. ANU. viewed on 22 September 2011 Australian Government 2011. ‘Overcoming Autochthonal Disadvantage: Cardinal Indexs 2011’ viewed on 22 September 2011 & lt ; World Wide Web.
personal computer. gov. au/__data/assets/… /key-indicators-2011-overview-booklet. pdf & gt ; Behrendt. L. 2010. ‘A Constitution for all Australians’ transcript of ABC wireless interview on 11 July 2010. position on 23 September 2011. Cranston. Roentgen 1979. ‘From co-operative to coercive federalism and back? ’ . Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations. ANU. Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia. 1997. ‘Bringing Them Home Report’ Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. viewed on 20 September 2011.
Council of Australian Governments ( COAG ) . Meeting Outcomes. viewed 30 September 2011. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. coag. gov. au/meetings. htm. Dow. C & A ; Gardiner-Garden. J 2011 ‘Overview of Autochthonal Personal businesss: Part 1: 1901 to 1991’ Parliamentary Library. viewed on 28 September 2011. Einfield. M ( Justice ) 1988. Toomelah study: study on the jobs and demands of Aborigines populating on the New South Wales–Queensland boundary line. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Sydney. Family. Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. 2006. Wadeye COAG Site Evaluation. Internal Departmental Report.
Farley. R. 22 January. 2003. Australia “A Bit Lost” . Australia Day Address from the Sydney Conservatorium of Music. viewed on 25 September 2011 Federation Story. 2001. ‘Aboriginal Australia: The Unfinished Business’ Australia’s Centenary of Federation. viewed on 24 September 2011. Fenna. A 2007. ‘The Division of Powers in Australian Federalism: subordinateness and the individual market’ . Public Policy. vol 2. no. 3. pp. 175-194 Gardiner-Garden. J 2011 ‘Overview of Autochthonal Personal businesss: Part 2: 1992 to 2010’ Parliamentary Library. viewed on 28 September 2011. Glover. Roentgen 2006. ‘Collaborative Federalism:
Geting More from the Competition of Ideas’ . Public Administration Today. April. pp. 4-7. Grewal. B & A ; Sheehan. P 2003. ‘The Development of Constitutional Federalism in Australia: An Incomplete Contracts Approach’ . CSES Working Paper No. 22. Melbourne Hocking. J 2008. Gough Whitlam: A Moment in History. Melbourne University Publishing. Carlton High Court of Australia ( 1992 ) MABO AND OTHERS v. QUEENSLAND ( No. 2 ) ( 1992 ) 175 CLR 1 Matthews. R. L. & A ; Australian National University.
Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations 1979. The altering form of Australian federalism. Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations. Australian National University. Canberra Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. 1991. viewed on 23 September 2011. Saunders. C. 2002 ‘Protecting Rights in Common Law Constitutional Systems: A Framework for a Comparative Study’ in D Carter and M Palmer ( explosive detection systems ) . Essaies in Honour of Sir Ivor Richardson. pp 83-112. Victoria University Press. Wellington Uren D. 2004. ‘Howard’s large bogy’ .
The Australian. 25 November ( PSM Manual pp. 139-143 – reproduced under license. in PSM Program 2006. Orientation Assessment and Referencing Guide ( Version 10 ) . 10 May. Wan na. J 2007. ‘Improving federalism: drivers of alteration. fix options and reform scenarios’ . Australian Journal of Public Administration. vol. 66. no. 3. pp. 275-279 Wan sodium. J. Phillmore. J. Fenna. A and Harwood J 2009. ‘Common Cause: Strengthening Australia’s Cooperative Federalism’ . Final Report to the Council for Australian Federation. May 2009 Wilkins. Roentgen 2006. ‘A New Era In Commonwealth-State Relations? ’ Public Administration Today. April. pp. 8-13.
