Academic literature on the topic 'Indigenous peoples in Australia'

It is unfortunate that people often do judge books by their covers (and in this case, title). What this book represents, however, is not content that is ‘dumbed down’ but reflects an elegantly simple overview of a complex subject that is often treated as a ‘deep dark secret’ and is reflective of the authors profound knowledge and intuitive understanding of a wide range of Indigenous cultures and peoples that make up this continent. It makes a great introduction for the many people who share the continent with its Indigenous inhabitants but know very little about its first peoples. In the past this ignorance was possibly linked to neglect, but today often what is worse is that what non-Indigenous people ‘know’ in this regard can be more accurately characterised as misinformation or reductionist stereotypes that are often ‘way off’ the mark.

Indigenous peoples in Australia have been adversely affected by the process of colonisation by the British Crown. Despite Australia’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (‘Declaration’), there is little evidence that it is an effective means of redressing the historical wrongs suffered by Indigenous communities in Australia. This essay outlines the experience of Indigenous peoples in Australia and examines the utility of the Declaration in international law. While observing that Indigenous peoples have had limited engagement with the Declaration, there is still potential for the Declaration to affect change through its underpinning principles of the right to self-determination and the status of Indigenous peoples as distinct political groups.

In May 2017, the Uluru Statement from the Heart was released, providing an Indigenous response to debates on recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian constitution. The document advocated for a “Makarrata Commission,” which would oversee truth telling and agreement making. This essay analyzes the concept of Makarrata as it has emerged in the context of Indigenous–settler relations in Australia and argues for a deeper engagement of non-Indigenous people with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concepts and practices. By extending some of the methods of comparative political theory to incorporate endogenous as well as exogenous comparisons, the article demonstrates the ways in which Makarrata is likely to contribute to continuing contestation and disagreement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. While the Uluru Statement marked a significant point in the Australian recognition debate because it reflected a relatively consensual Indigenous message articulated on its own terms, the article suggests that “Makarrata” must not be appropriated into a benign settler discourse of reconciliation, if the concept’s potential to inform substantive change in Indigenous–settler relations is to be realized.

The catastrophic 2019/2020 Black Summer bushfires were the worst fire season in the recorded history of Southeast Australia. These bushfires were one of several recent global conflagrations across landscapes that are homelands of Indigenous peoples, homelands that were invaded and colonised by European nations over recent centuries. The subsequent suppression and cessation of Indigenous landscape management has had profound social and environmental impacts. The Black Summer bushfires have brought Indigenous cultural burning practices to the forefront as a potential management tool for mitigating climate-driven catastrophic bushfires in Australia. Here, we highlight new research that clearly demonstrates that Indigenous fire management in Southeast Australia produced radically different landscapes and fire regimes than what is presently considered “natural”. We highlight some barriers to the return of Indigenous fire management to Southeast Australian landscapes. We argue that to adequately address the potential for Indigenous fire management to inform policy and practice in managing Southeast Australian forest landscapes, scientific approaches must be decolonized and shift from post-hoc engagement with Indigenous people and perspectives to one of collaboration between Indigenous communities and scientists.

Aborigine is the indigenous people of Australia who have attempted to oppose the proposal for South Australia to host an international nuclear dump. Even though the rights of indigenous people have been recognized by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the treatment they receive are not in accordance with the standard of living. The object of this this paper is to examine the struggle of Aboriginal Australia as indigenous people who seek to ensure their basic rights to clean environment from nuclear waste by using normative juridical method. The results of the paper show that Aboriginal people have commenced their struggle by the formation of global movement in the form of local campaign (Kupa Piti Kungka Juta), Australian Nuclear Free Alliance (ANFA), in collaboration with Amnesty International and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). All efforts are made to pressure the Australian government not to consider South Australia as a nuclear waste disposal site. This is because nuclear waste can have an impact on public health and environmental damage, trigger nuclear war, and become a threat to the land of Aboriginal people.

The Anglo-Australian legal system has not readily recognised Indigenous constitutions. The absence of such recognition does not, however, deny that Australia's Indigenous nations have had constitutions for thousands of years and continue to do so. In this article, we explain how Indigenous laws, institutions and systems of authority are constitutional. Using the constitutions of the Gunditjmara peoples and Ngarrindjeri nation as examples, we identify three dimensions of Indigenous constitutions in Australia: first, the foundation of Indigenous constitutions in the continuing and inherent authority of Indigenous nations; secondly constitutional features deriving from Indigenous law; and thirdly the use in Indigenous constitutions of institutions and processes that also have status under Australian law. We suggest that this new understanding of Indigenous constitutions provides a basis for contributing to current efforts in Indigenous constitution-making and to the development of a more inclusive understanding of the Australian constitutional system.

The paper begins by noting the low level of reference to Indigenous Australians in the Commonwealth Constitution at the start of Federation, and goes on to discuss the limits to what was achieved by the 1967 amendments. The situation represents a marked contrast with the USA and Canada in terms of treaties and constitutional recognition. In Australia, particularly during the period of the ‘Reconciliation’ process in the 1990s, important steps were taken by Indigenous Australians to identify items of ‘unfinished business’ in a ‘Statement of Indigenous Rights’. But there has been limited progress to meet these aspirations. And Australian law still lacks a tradition of recognition of human rights generally, let alone Indigenous rights. International law, too, largely lacked recognition of human rights, generally prior to the adoption in 1945 of the Charter of the United Nations. The brief references in the Charter were subsequently developed in a range of declarations and of treaties. These applied to people generally, with scant reference to Indigenous peoples. But, since the 1970s, there has been growing international recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples under existing declarations and treaties. Since the 1990s, in particular, the UN system has established specific mechanisms for addressing such issues. On 13 September 2007, the General Assembly finally adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The concept of throughcare as a means to prevent recidivism continues to attract considerable attention in Australia over the last couple of years. This is particularly the case for Indigenous peoples, as the transition to life after imprisonment proves to be particularly challenging for them, resulting in high rates of recidivism and ongoing overrepresentation in Australian prisons. In this contribution, we report on research we conducted in two Australian jurisdictions. After identifying the problems in developing effective throughcare strategies for Indigenous peoples leaving prison, we turn to Canada for examples of good practice. Canada was chosen for comparison as it is also a settler colonial state, experiencing similar problems of overrepresentation of their Indigenous population in the prison. After a critical analysis of these practices, we conclude that the reasons for a problematic re-integration of Indigenous peoples are related to a tendency to impose solutions and strategies developed in the white mainstream onto Indigenous communities without acknowledging traditional cultures and structures.

The term ‘Māori and Pasifika’ is widely used in Aotearoa, New Zealand to both unite and distinguish these peoples and cultures. As a collective noun of separate peoples, Māori and Pasifika are used to acknowledge the common Pacific ancestry that both cultures share, whilst distinguishing Māori as Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa (New Zealand), and Pasifika as migrants from other lands in the Pacific region. The term ‘Māori and Pasifika’ is a ‘label’ established in New Zealand to combine the minority cultural populations of both Māori, and Pacific migrant peoples, into a category defined by New Zealand policy and discourse. Migration for Māori and Pasifika to Australia (from Aotearoa) has generated new discussion amongst these diasporic communities (in Australia) on the appropriate collective term(s) to refer to Māori and Pasifika peoples and cultures. Some believe that in Australia, Māori should no longer be distinguished from Pasifika as they are not Indigenous (to Australia), while others believe the distinction should continue upon migration. Through the voices of Samoan and Māori researchers who reside in Australia, insider voices are honoured and cultural genealogy is privileged in this discussion of the label ‘Māori and Pasifika’ in the Australian context.

Resource development is often presented as a panacea for the problems endemic within Indigenous communities, particularly those remote Indigenous communities with few other options for economic opportunities. However, research to date suggests that the benefits from mineral development are often not realised by Indigenous people, and that the negative impacts can be unmitigated and substantial. One way Indigenous people can minimise the negative impacts and maximise the benefits of mineral development is through equitable participation in the negotiations for development of the mineral deposit. The negotiation period thus represents a critical period for Indigenous peoples. States play a critical role in determining the negotiating environments in which mineral development takes place via their control of the institutional and legislative frameworks that govern mineral development. States thus play a significant role in determining outcomes for Indigenous people from mineral development processes. Despite this, there is a conspicuous absence of any recent indepth interrogations of the role of the state in mineral negotiations involving Indigenous people in Australia, a gap this study seeks to address. The legislative and institutional frameworks governing the relationship between mineral development and Indigenous people were significantly altered during the 1990s in Australia when the High Court handed down the historic Mabo decision, which recognised that Indigenous people had rights to land that preceded the acquisition of sovereignty by the British in 1788. This study presents a case study of mineral negotiations that occurred during that transformative period in Australian history: the Century Zinc negotiations. The study scrutinises the behaviour of the state during these negotiations, employing qualitative research methods such as indepth, semi structured interviews and documentary sources, and establishes a rich empirical base from which it tests three theories that contain potential, yet disparate, explanations of the state’s behaviour. Acknowledging the need for a composite theoretical approach because of the different levels of analysis within this study, policy network theory is employed as a lens to focus the analysis at the meso level of this particular policymaking process. This analysis is then used as a platform from which the most appropriate macro theoretical explanation of the state’s behaviour is determined. This study is thus explicitly theory testing. The findings from this study confirm the critical links between the levels of analysis in policymaking processes and the dialectical interaction between structure and agency at all levels of policy making. The study therefore makes a considered contribution to the literature on the political economy of mineral development in Australia. It also augments the information available to Indigenous people about the mineral negotiation process, information that can hopefully be used to improve the outcomes from future negotiations processes in which they may be involved.
Thesis (PhD Doctorate)
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Department of Politics and Public Policy
Griffith Business School
Full Text

Indigenous self-determination is a spectre haunting colonial settler states. Struggles for land, cultural rights and sovereignty challenge governments built on dispossession, plunder and genocide. As the neoliberal phase of capitalism and its push for greater resource extraction pushes the planet to ecocide, Indigenous communities and their environmental ontologies offer solutions to catastrophic ecological and social crisis. This comparative thesis examines campaigns for Indigenous sovereignty in Bolivia and Australia and briefly explores the topic of Indigenous-led answers to the climate crisis. This study is inspired by a visit to Bolivia in 2006 and a motivation to deepen an understanding around Indigenous struggles in Australia. Bolivia is a focal point for this research because its ‘government of the social movements’ (Achtenberg 2015, para 6) is an experiment in Indigenous emancipation. In Australia, Aboriginal activists Pat Eatock and Ray Jackson encouraged my research around local campaigns. Engaging and convincing, Aunty Pat and Uncle Ray lived by a ‘political commitment to take up the side of the oppressed and exploited’ (Kinsman 2008, para 4). A good deal of intellectual and activist work on Indigenous self-determination employs a contrastive framework. Drawing out similarities and differences across nation-state boundaries clarifies colonial strategies and strengthens a global solidarity response. However, there is a scholarship emphasis towards the global north due to the domination of imperialist narratives. This explains why self-determination studies within Australia do not feature research on Bolivia’s sovereignty model. The research fills a gap within scholarly texts, because, as yet, no comparison between Bolivian Indigenous resistance and Indigenous Australian struggles exists. Research road map This investigation starts with an introduction, delves into the research’s theoretical and methodological approach, divides into three chapters and concludes. Each chapter compares Bolivia and Australia’s three structural pillars that form the basis of Indigenous self-determination: land, cultural rights and self-governance bodies. The concluding chapter assesses and compares the strengths and weaknesses of First Nation struggles in each country. The research finds that Indigenous sovereignty battles have benefited from coalitions between Indigenous and socialist forces in ‘black-red’ alliances (coalitions between Indigenous, communists and socialist forces) (Townsend 2009, p.5). Finally, an emancipatory vision of Indigenous self-determination, based on battle models within Australia and Bolivia, is proffered. Theoretical framework and methodological approach This investigation fuses Indigenous cosmological tenets and a Marxist philosophical framework. It engages a participatory activist research methodology through engagement with and interviews from Indigenous and mestizo activists and scholars. The research finds commonality between Marxist philosophical foundations and aspects of Indigenous ontologies. Marxism was the theoretical child of Western liberal thought, which hosted a range of pro-colonial positions. In comparison, Karl Marx critiqued colonialism’s enslavement of Aboriginal people (Marx 1867 p. 531). Marx and Friedrich Engels developed Marxism’s philosophical and scientific tenets — dialectics and materialism - arguing the material world is primary and provable. Marxism’s dialectics notes ‘an interconnected, eternal motion existing within all phenomena’ (Engels 1873-1886, para 1) (Marx and Engels 1869, para 4) (Engels 1896, para 4, 5). That is, A equals A, and non-A. Dialectics is built upon in Indigenous Bolivian Aymara philosophies. Aymaran ‘trivalent logic’ is the Indigenous Bolivia’s hyper-dialectical cosmological tenet. Trivalent logic advances the Marxist dialectic, through adding one more recognised dimension. The Aymaran ‘plurivalence’ is neither formalistic nor absolutist. It is neither A nor B, but can be A, B, or C. Another commonality between Marxism and Indigenous cosmologies are their ecological positions. The emphasis on a communitarian ethic in both Marx’s writings and Indigenous approaches point to additional parallelisms. However, a key contrasting tenet of Marxism to Indigenous spirituality, is its scientific approach – it’s materialism. However, this study concludes that a Marxist approach and Indigenous cosmologies host more similar ideas and concepts than oppositional ones, and so fuses both frameworks. The participatory action research method situates this study within an empowerment frame. Colonisation attempts to silence Indigenous people. Therefore, this study features the judgements of Murri elder Ken Canning, active in the Sydney based Indigenous Social Justice Association, alongside Gumbaynggirr man Roxley Foley, and Zachary Joseph Wone, from the Kabi Kabi Nation of the Dundaburra clan. All the Bolivian interviewees, Enrique Castana Ballivian, Odalis Zuazo and Pablo Regalsky work within Indigenous communities, or publish articles about land management and Indigenous rights. Complications in comparisons This research uncovers a difficulty in comparing self-determination battles in Australia and Bolivia. Bolivia was colonised by Spain, Australia, by Britain. Bolivia holds the highest percentage of indigenous people of any nation in the Western hemisphere – 42% (Fontana 2013 para 3), (TeleSur 2015, para 2). Yet only 2.8% of the population identify as Indigenous in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017, para 1). Australia is a rich imperialist country, while Bolivia is part of the exploited, impoverished third world. However, this study reveals, Indigenous Australian and Bolivian communities confront common enemies. Imperialism’s profit motive targets homelands, kinships and organisations. In this, the two resistance struggles interlink. Struggles for land in Bolivia and Australia An examination of Bolivia and Australia’s land rights battles in the neoliberal phase uncover more differences than similarities. Bolivia’s struggles proved more powerful, ending with the election of President Evo Morales, who leads an Indigenous government. However, a constant between the two nations struggles was the critical role of the black-red alliances. In Australia, the modern land rights movement was sparked by Aboriginal labourers strike in 1946–1949, in the Pilbara, Western Australia - assisted by non-Aboriginal communist Don McLeod. Then, in 1966, Aboriginal communities in Gurindji led the longest strike in Australia’s history, winning nine years later. Frank Hardy, Communist Party member, was a critical ally in the struggle. Following these seminal fights, Aboriginal people have won some control over 33% of Australia’s land mass. In Australia’s neoliberal period, land rights were attacked. Firstly, through the Northern Territory (NT) Intervention in 2007, then in 2015, with attempts to close remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia (WA) and South Australia (SA). The ‘Stop the NT Intervention’ movement was not successful, but mass protests in 2015, led by the #sosblakaustralia movement stopped the closures of remote communities. Both the Indigenous rights movement and black-red alliances have not been strong enough to assuage neoliberalism’s assault on land rights. While 33% of land in Australia has been re-won, in some form, to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, the majority of land to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is in remote and arid lands. In comparison, Bolivia’s land rights movements and black-red alliances in the neoliberal phase proved incredibly hardy. On the back of strong movements: The Coca, Gas and Water Wars, Indigenous Aymara Evo Morales was elected in 2005. Sections of the government proposed a ‘communitarian socialist’ Bolivia and Morales’s agrarian revolution handed 9600 square miles of state-owned land to Indigenous communities. However, Bolivia’s pro-Indigenous land reform and pachamama (mother-earth) approach was questioned by a proposal build a highway through the Isiboro Secure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS) in 2011. Various Non-Government Organisations (NGO) charged Morales with coercion and ignoring Indigenous wishes. On the other side of the debate, Vice-President Alvero Garcia Linera argued anti-government NGOs led a green imperialist intervention against the TIPNIS project. After withdrawing from the highway’s timeframe and consulting with communities, a number of TIPNIS opponents withdrew their opposition. Struggles for cultural rights in Australia and Bolivia Spanish and British colonial projects both attempted ethnocide against thirty-six Bolivian communities and five hundred distinct First Nations in Australia. Britain sought to physically eliminate Indigenous people, but when resistance proved too robust, they began a cultural war through protectionist policies and an assimilation wave. By comparison, Spain’s strategy was to attempt genocide against Indigenous Incas, then co-opt a layer of compliant Incan nobility to enslave remainder Indigenous population. In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander campaigning in the 1960s forced the end of assimilationist policies with Freedom Rides, the resilient Tent Embassy in Canberra and an urban expansion in Redfern leading a powerful cultural revival. In the neoliberal phase, governments in Australia are leading a second assimilation phase. A culture war decrying a ‘black armband’ view of history included the abolition of the national Indigenous self-governance body Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and $534 million in cuts from Indigenous services in 2014. Despite these obstacles, communities fought off a government-funded ‘Constitutional Recognition’ campaign. However, school history textbooks continue to portray Australia in a colonial white frame. Language reclamation battles have only elicited incremental progress. Comparatively, under the Morales government, Bolivia’s Indigenous cultural rights have progressed. The Bolivian government established a ‘Vice Ministry for Decolonization’. The new constitution acknowledges thirty-six recognized indigenous peoples, compels universities to teach Indigenous languages and memorializes anti-colonial warriors. On increasing Indigenous identification, the government has received a set-back. However, on balance, the MAS government is advancing a decolonizing program. Struggles for self-governance Winning self-governance structures in an anti-colonial frame is critical for Indigenous self-determination. The research uncovers socialists have developed autonomy structures for minority governance that aid Indigenous self-governance projects. From the Russian Bolshevik federated structure model, to Bolivia’s plurinationalism and Indigenous native peasant autonomy structures (AIOCs), socialists have, and are experimenting with democratic structures that benefit to Indigenous and ethnic minorities. However, in Bolivia, there appears to be a retreat from an AIOC model, as Indigenous autonomies do not feature in the 2025 government strategy document. In Australia, British genocide policies weakened First Nations governance, but nation-wide resistance organisations developed from the 1920s. By the 1970s Aboriginal communities had won elected national representation and localised land councils. In the neoliberal phase ATSIC was established – but the government disbanded it in 2004. Militant, national alliances such as the Freedom Summit, Grandmothers Against Removal, #sosblak and Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance (WAR) formed to fight land grabs and a re-assimilation push. The research discovers a weaker self-governance movement in Australia compared to Bolivia. Additionally, Australia’s socialist movement is more fragile– although a number of Aboriginal militants joined the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) in the 20th century. This study concludes that two organisations, Socialist Alliance and Solidarity, assist Aboriginal campaigns in the 21st century. Aboriginal activists stand as Socialist Alliance candidates in state and federal elections. Socialists in Australia only gather 1.5–5% in state and federal elections. However, three socialists at the local council level have been elected with 30–55% of the vote. In comparison, openly socialist Bolivian presidential candidate Evo Morales wins 65% of the national vote. Conclusions This comparative study discovers strong Indigenous self-determination battles and structures in Bolivia, and weaker ones in Australia. Australian Indigenous resistance offers a rich experience of decolonising lessons to Bolivia’s Indigenous struggles. Equally, Bolivia’s empowerment structures hold encouraging insights. This research concludes that neoliberalism’s strength, a small Indigenous population and the weakness of progressive forces, leave the battle for a pan-Aboriginal republic at an embryonic stage. In contract, Bolivia’s Plurinational project is empowering Indigenous people with land, cultural rights and governance structures. While under pressure due to its positioning in the global capitalist market, Bolivia’s revolution is building Andean capitalism and an Indigenous nationalist model, with a communitarian socialist trajectory. This tension of having to operate within imperialism, I contend, do not detract from Bolivia’s positive example of a Indigenous sovereignty model. The study concludes that vying for state power hosts contradictions for Indigenous self-determination battles. However, Bolivia’s example shows that building Indigenous power from within and separate from the state, has benefited the majority of its people. Black-red alliances have been critical in both Bolivia and Australia’s battles for land, culture and governance rights. Indeed, Bolivia’s Plurinational structures can be viewed as a continuation of a socialist democratic principle. Bolivia points to a pathway for Indigenous emancipation in Australia. A multi-national, pan-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander anti-corporate republic offers a powerful decolonising frame. Through songlines and memorias, heroic wars, embassies and sovereignty plans, these autonomist models are providing robust self-determination prototypes.

This study argues for the necessity of a psychoanalytic perspective in the study of colonization, while recognizing the complicity of psychoanalysis in the colonial project. My first chapter situates the Oedipal subject as a historic effect and attempts to trace some of the conditions of its emergence. In this way, I seek to call into question the universal status that Freud attributed to the Oedipal subject. From this historicized perspective, I then read Freud's Totem and Taboo, and its construction of the 'savage', as an effect of displacement, and in so doing, suggest a relation between the Oedipalized subject and the colonizing subject. The following three chapters are comprised of detailed readings of specific events and texts in Australian cultural history. All of these chapters focus on Aboriginal writers, and argue that the texts they have produced can be read as challenging, in a variety of ways, the naturalized construction of the patriarchal nuclear family in the colonial context, and the Oedipalized subject that supports it. The first of these contextualizes the life and work of David Ilnaipon, and argues for a more positive reassessmenot f his work that takes into consideration modes of Oedipalized subjectification operative in the colonial domain. The following chapter focuses on Sally Morgan's My Place, Australia's best-selling, Aboriginal autobiography, and suggests that its overwhelming popularity masks profound anxieties about the intimate and sexualized nature of colonial exploitation as manifest in the settler family home. The final chapter considers recent allegations that Mudrooroo, Australia's most wellknown and prolific Aboriginal writer, is actually an African American. This chapter suggests that a re-reading of his novels, Master of the Ghost Dreaming and Doctor Wooreddy's Prescription for Enduring the Ending of the World, provide possible ways of rethinking simplistic notions of identity and theirgrounding in Oedipalized identifications. All three textual events act as imperatives to remember the legacy of colonialism that continues to pervade contemporary Australian culture.

The thesis is an exploration of how indigenous knowledge has emerged as a subject within Australian intellectual property law. It uses the context of copyright law to illustrate this development. The work presents an analysis of the political, social and cultural intersections that influence legal possibilities and effect practical expectations of the law in this area. The dilemma of protecting indigenous knowledge resonates with tensions that characterise intellectual property as a whole. The metaphysical dimensions of intellectual property have always been insecure but these difficulties come to the fore with the identification of boundaries and markers that establish property in indigenous subject matter. While intellectual property law is always managing difference, the politics of law are more transparent when managing indigenous concerns. Rather than assume the naturalness of the category of indigenous knowledge within law, this work interrogates the politics of its construction precisely as a ???special??? category. Employing a multidisciplinary methodology, engaging theories of governmental rationality that draws upon the scholarship of Michel Foucault to appreciate strategies of managing and directing knowledge, the thesis considers how the politics of law is infused by cultural, political, bureaucratic and individual factors. Key elements in Australia that have pushed the law to consider expressions of indigenous knowledge in intellectual property can be located in changing political environments, governmental intervention through strategic reports, cultural sensitivity articulated in case law and innovative instances of individual agency. The intersection of these elements reveals a dynamic that exerts influence in the shape the law takes.

Doctor of Philosophy
This thesis analyses the concept of indigenous peoples’ right to self–determination within the international human rights system and explores viable avenues for the fulfilment of indigenous claims to self–determination through the design, implementation and evaluation of development policies. The thesis argues that development policy plays a crucial role in determining the level of enjoyment of self–determination for indigenous peoples. Development policy can offer an avenue to bypass nation states’ political unwillingness to recognize and promote indigenous peoples’ right to self–determination, when adequate principles and criteria are embedded in the whole policy process. The theoretical foundations of the thesis are drawn from two different areas of scholarship: indigenous human rights discourse and development economics. The indigenous human rights discourse provides the articulation of the debate concerning the concept of indigenous self–determination, whereas development economics is the field within which Amartya Sen’s capability approach is adopted as a theoretical framework of thought to explore the interface between indigenous rights and development policy. Foundational concepts of the capability approach will be adopted to construct a normative system and a practical methodological approach to interpret and implement indigenous peoples’ right to self–determination. In brief, the thesis brings together two bodies of knowledge and amalgamates foundational theoretical underpinnings of both to construct a normative and practical framework. At the normative level, the thesis offers a conceptual apparatus that allows us to identify an indigenous capability rights–based normative framework that encapsulates the essence of the principle of indigenous self–determination. At the practical level, the normative framework enables a methodological approach to indigenous development policies that serves as a vehicle for the fulfilment of indigenous aspirations for self–determination. This thesis analyses Australia’s health policy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as an example to explore the application of the proposed normative and practical framework. The assessment of Australia’s health policy for Indigenous Australians against the proposed normative framework and methodological approach to development policy, allows us to identify a significant vacuum: the omission of Aboriginal traditional medicine in national health policy frameworks and, as a result, the devaluing and relative demise of Aboriginal traditional healing practices and traditional healers.

This study takes as its focus the contrasting manner in which the Nyoongar indigenous people and the early European settlers utilised three wetland environments in southwest Australia over the century between 1829 and 1939. The thesis offers both an ecological and a landscape perspective to changes in the wetlands of Herdsman Lake, Lake Joondalup and Loch McNess. The chain of interconnecting linear lakes provides some of the largest permanent sources of fresh water masses on the Swan Coastal Plain. This thesis acknowledges the importance of the wetland system to the Nyoongar indigenous people. The aim of this research is to interpret the human intervention into the wetland ecosystems by using a methodology that combines cultural landscape, historical and biophysical concepts as guiding themes. Assisted by historical maps and field observations, this study offers an ecological perspective on the wetlands, depicting changes in the human footprint on its landscape, and mapping the changes since the indigenous people’s sustainable ecology and guardianship were removed. These data can be used and compared with current information to gain insights into how and why modification to these wetlands occurred. An emphasis is on the impact of human settlement and land use on natural systems. In the colonial period wetlands were not generally viewed as visually pleasing; they were perceived as alien and hostile environments. Settlers saw the land as an economic commodity to be exploited in a money economy. Thus the effects of a sequence of occupances and their transformation of environments as traditional Aboriginal resource use gave way to early European settlement, which brought about an evolution and cultural change in the wetland ecosystems, and attitudes towards them.

Since the 1980s, there has been an increasing emphasis on drama, in live theatre and on film, which re-addresses the ways in which the post-colonial histories of Australia and New Zealand have been written. Why is there such a focus on �historical� drama in these countries at the end of the twentieth century and what does this drama contribute to wider debates about post-colonial history? This thesis aims both to explore the connections between drama and history, and to analyse the interface between live and recorded drama. In order to discuss these issues, I have used the work of theatre and film critics and historians, supplemented by reference to writers working in the field of post-colonial and performance theory. In particular, I have utilised the methods of Helen Gilbert and Joanne Tompkins in Post-Colonial Drama: Theory, Practice, Politics, beginning with their claim that in the post-colonial situation history has been seen to determine reality itself. I have also drawn on theorists such as Michel Foucault, Linda Hutcheon and Guy Debord who question the �truth� value of official history-writing and emphasize the role of representation in determining popular perceptions of the past. This discussion is developed through reference to contemporary performance theory, particularly the work of Richard Schechner and Marvin Carlson, in order to suggest that there is no clear separation between performance and reality, and that access to history is only possible through re-enactments of it, whether in written or performative forms. Chapter One is a survey of the development of �historical� drama in theatre and film from New Zealand and Australia. This includes discussion of the diverse cultural and performative traditions which influence this drama, and establishment of the critical methodologies to be used in the thesis. Chapter Two examines four plays which are intercultural re-writings of canonical texts from the European dramatic tradition. In this chapter I analyse the formal and thematic strategies in each of these plays in relation to the source texts, and ask to what extent they function as canonical counter-discourse by offering a critique of the assumptions of the earlier play from a post-colonial perspective. The potential of dramatic representation in forming perceptions of reality has made it an attractive forum for Maori and Aboriginal artists, who are creating theatre which has both a political and a pedagogical function. This discussion demonstrates that much of the impetus towards historiographic drama in both countries has come from Maori and Aboriginal writers and directors working in collaboration with white practitioners. Such collaborations not only advance the project of historiographic drama, but also may form the basis of future theatre practice which departs from the Western tradition and is unique to each of New Zealand and Australia. In Chapter Three I explore the interface between live and recorded performance by comparing plays and films which dramatise similar historical material. I consider the relative effectiveness of theatre and film as media for historiographic critique. I suggest that although film often has a greater cultural impact than theatre, to date live theatre has been a more accessible form of expression for Maori and Aboriginal writers and directors. Furthermore, following theorists such as Brecht and Brook, I argue that such aspects as the presence of the live performer and the design of the physical space shared by actors and audience give theatre considerable potential for creating an immediate engagement with historiographic themes. In Chapter Four, I discuss two contrasting examples of recorded drama in order to highlight the potential of film and television as media for historiographic critique. I question the divisions between the documentary and dramatic genres, and use Derrida�s notion of play to suggest that there is a constant slippage between the dramatic and the real, between the past and the present. In Chapter Five, I summarize the arguments advanced in previous chapters, using the example of the national museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa, to illustrate that the �performance� of history has become part of popular culture. Like the interactive displays at Te Papa, the texts studied in this thesis demonstrate that dramatic representation has the potential to re-define perceptions of historical �reality�. With its superior capacity for creating illusion, film is a dynamic medium for exploring the imaginative process of history is that in the live performance the spectator symbolically comes into the presence of the past.

In her book Decolonising Solidarity: Dilemmas and Directions for Supporters of Indigenous Struggles, Clare Land suggest how non-Indigenous people might develop new frameworks supporting Indigenous struggles. Land argues research is deeply implicated with processes of colonisation and the appropriation of indigenous knowledge. Given that architectural archives are central to the research of architectural history, how might these archives be decolonised? This paper employs two disparate archives to develop a framework of how architectural archivists might begin to decolonise these archives. Firstly, these archives are the Grounds Romberg and Boyd Archive (GRB) at the State Library of Victoria (SLV). Secondly, the Greg Burgess Archive is now located at Avington, Sidonia in Victoria. The materials from each of these archives will be discussed in relation to two frameworks. These are the Tandanya-Adelaide Declaration endorsed by The Australian Society of Archivists (ASA) and the Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) framework developed by Janke (2019). These archival frameworks suggest how interconnected architectural histories and historiographies might be read, reframed and restored. Decolonising architectural archives will require a continuous process of reflection and political engagement with collections and archives. In pursuing these actions, archivists and architectural historians can begin to participate in the indigenous Reworlding of the archive.

"Many Australian universities have recently incorporated Indigenous graduate attributes into their programs, and the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) is no exception. This project aimed to investigate students’ perceptions and experiences of learning about Indigenous Knowledge systems and culture while developing science communication skills. Advanced Communication Skills in Science is a core subject in the Master of Science program at UTS. An existing assessment task, a three-minute thesis style oral presentation, was reworked to include the Indigenous Graduate Attribute (IGA) developed for the Faculty of Science. Students researched an aspect of Indigenous Science, an area of emerging interest for cultural and scientific understanding, and a mechanism for empowering Australia’s diverse first nations peoples. They then presented their key message in three minutes using a single PowerPoint slide. This task allowed students to demonstrate an awareness and appreciation of multiple ways of developing understandings of nature while enhancing their ability to understand the role of science communication in the modern world. Students were surveyed at the beginning and end of the semester to establish their Indigenous Science conceptions and reflect on their experiences. Students demonstrated an outstanding ability to integrate appropriate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges, experience, and analysis into a key message. Most students reported greater familiarity with concepts such as Indigenous Science and provided richer definitions of what this means. When asked if understanding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges and cultural practices might impact their practice as a scientist, many felt their perspective had changed and that reflecting on their cultural values and beliefs had improved their cultural capability. Most students responded that this subject challenged (at least to a degree) some firmly held assumptions, ideas, and beliefs."

This report explores the engagement between Indigenous Peoples and the Responsible Investment (RI) industry in Canada. Based on interviews with stakeholders, observation of industry conferences, and documentary evidence collected during the first year of the pandemic (i.e., March 2020-March 2021), this report offers an overview of the current discussions regarding Indigenous Peoples in the RI industry. RI is an investment approach that incorporates Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors into the selection and management of investments (RIA, 2021). In 2019, the Responsible Investment Association (RIA) estimated that assets in Canada managed using one or more RI strategies2 were worth $3.2 trillion, or 61.8 per cent, of total Canadian assets under management (RIA, 2020).

In July 2021, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a Law on Indigenous Peoples. It provides a framework for the protection of the rights of the indigenous peoples of the Crimean Peninsula, namely Crimean Tatars, Karaites and Krymchaks, and excludes Mariupol Greeks as a minority potentially qualifying for the status of the fourth indigenous group residing outside of Crimea. What was the general context of the adoption of the Law? What rights does it envisage? And what could the Law potentially bring to the recognized indigenous peoples? This blog post attempts to answer these questions.

Indigenous peoples have experienced heightened vulnerability during the COVID-19 pandemic and face disproportionately high COVID-19 mortality. To better address these vulnerabilities, it is critical to adapt COVID-19 programmes to the particular needs of indigenous peoples, as articulated by indigenous voices. It is also vital to link up with responses already ongoing and led by indigenous peoples to mitigate this crisis. This SSHAP brief discusses key considerations for COVID-19 response and recovery, with a particular focus on the Amazon region of South America. The considerations in this brief are drawn from a review of evidence and insights provided by indigenous leaders and researchers from several different continents. The considerations are rooted in key principles for indigenous community engagement, as articulated by indigenous peoples and organisations. This brief may be of interest to health and development policymakers and practitioners working in indigenous communities and territories and can be read in conjunction with the SSHAP background report on ‘Indigenous Peoples and COVID-19.’

This study aims to assess the cumulative risks and impacts of all REDD+ initiatives in Mai-Ndombe on the rights and subsistence of local communities and Indigenous Peoples, using existing tools while taking into account gray areas of the REDD+ process. Findings come from existing project documentation, field studies conducted in recent years, and a series of interviews with REDD+ stakeholders in Mai-Ndombe. The study provides a mapping of all existing and planned REDD+ initiatives in the province, as well as a cross-cutting contextual analysis of risks which connects REDD+ to human rights. This is followed by an assessment of these initiatives’ cumulative impacts as well as of national and project strategies to address and reduce risks. It thus offers a perspective on the link between the accumulation of REDD+ initiatives and conflicts at different scales.

Indigenous territories (ITs) in the Amazon protect approximately 24.5 GtC aboveground, act as significant barriers to deforestation and forest degradation, and serve as an important buffer against climate change. Demarcated ITs have significantly less deforestation than unrecognized lands, demonstrating the importance of demarcating ITs to both protect the livelihoods and cultures of the Amazon’s native peoples and to conserve its forests and rivers.