# data[].attributes.body
These sources may contain the names, images, and/or voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people now passed and resting in the Dreaming.

These sources cover themes of racism, violence, brief mentions of sexual assault, incarceration, torture and human rights violations.

# data[].attributes.body
We, [Name of Class] acknowledge that we live, study and work on the stolen, unceded lands of the Boon Wurrung and Wurundjeri people. We recognise that they are the custodians of this land, and pay respect to the sovereignty and knowledge of Indigenous people and their elders, past, present and emerging.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘Absolutely No Mercy’: Leaked Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of Muslims (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 400 pages of internal Chinese documents provide an unprecedented inside look at the crackdown on ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region.

# data[].attributes.headline
Source 1: Australia's condemnation of the treatment of Uighur Muslims in PRC

# data[].attributes.subject
Source 1: Australia's condemnation of the treatment of Uighur Muslims in PRC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This was published 1 year ago

Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

Australia and New Zealand have backed sanctions imposed by the United States, Britain, Canada, the European Union on four Chinese officials for human rights abuses in Xinjiang amid growing international concern over Beijing's treatment of Uighurs.

The countries - which all have "Magnitsky" laws allowing for the sanctioning of individuals for human rights breaches - announced sanctions overnight on four high-ranking officials for their role in Beijing's forced labour camps in the far-western province.

One of the centres housing Uighurs in China's Xinjiang region. Credit:AP

The Australian government will introduce to parliament its own Magntisky laws later this year, suggesting it could follow the four other blocs of countries in sanctioning the Chinese officials including a top security director.

Countries with the laws - named after Sergei Magnitsky - occasionally sanction human rights offenders jointly to ensure they are appropriately punished and to lessen the blowback against any one country.

In a joint statement, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne and New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said they wanted to "reiterate their grave concerns about the growing number of credible reports of severe human rights abuses against ethnic Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang".

"In particular, there is clear evidence of severe human rights abuses that include restrictions on freedom of religion, mass surveillance, large-scale extra-judicial detentions, as well as forced labour and forced birth control, including sterilisation," they said.

"Australia and New Zealand welcome the measures announced overnight by Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. We share these countries' deep concerns, which are held across the Australian and New Zealand communities."

The two foreign ministers said Australia and New Zealand had consistently called on China in the United Nations to respect the human rights of Uighurs since reports began to emerge about detention camps in Xinjiang in 2018.

"Today, we underscore the importance of transparency and accountability, and reiterate our call on China to grant meaningful and unfettered access to Xinjiang for United Nations experts, and other independent observers," they said.

The Chinese officials targeted include Chen Mingguo, the director of the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau, who the EU said was responsible for "serious human rights violations".

The EU accused Mr Chen of "arbitrary detentions and degrading treatment inflicted upon Uighurs and people from other Muslim ethnic minorities, as well as systematic violations of their freedom of religion or belief".

The Chinese government has repeatedly denied accusations of human rights abuses, including genocide, in the far western province.

The Chinse embassy in Canberra said the Australian government's decision to back the sanctions was made "in disregard of facts and based on disinformation and lies" and were "unwarranted attacks against China and out of pure political manipulation".

"They once again fully expose the deep-seated ideological prejudices and the despicable tactic of smearing China on the Australian side," the embassy said on its Facebook. "Such attempt is entirely futile. Our commitment to national sovereignty, security and development interests remains firm and strong. We urge the Australian government to stop vilifying China, refrain from meddling in China's internal affairs and cease to apply double standards on human rights."

On Monday the Morrison government on Monday allowed debate on a bipartisan motion which criticised China for "serious and systematic breaches of human rights" in the strongest ever condemnation by the Australian Parliament of the Chinese government's treatment of Uighurs.

Earlier this year the BBC reported first-hand accounts of systematic rape, sexual abuse and torture in Uighur detention camps.

Connect via Anthony Galloway is foreign affairs and national security correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. email.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Severe human rights breaches': Australia and NZ back sanctions against Chinese officials

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This was published 1 year ago Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size Australia and New Zealand have backed sanctions imposed by the United States, Britain, Canada, the European Union on four Chinese officials for human rights abuses in Xinjiang amid growing international concern over Beijing's treatment of Uighurs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A UN Special Rapporteur has shone a bright light on Australia's Indigenous practices and reached some dark conclusions. Ms. Tauli-Corpuz's end of mission statement detailed her findings that included numerous criticisms but also some praise in the way Australia manages its Indigenous population.

The Special Rapporteur said it was a priority of her trip to review the implementation of recommendations put forward by her UN predecessor as well as the findings from other authorities such as Royal Commissions and coroner reports.

"I find it disturbing that despite having been reiterated time and time again, many recommendations have not been implemented in practice," she said in the mission statement.

While she praised the "strength of spirit and commitment" of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to find solutions to solve problems, she condemned the Federal Government's efforts to work closer with communities. She made special mention of the Government's relationship with one of the most important groups representing indigenous Australians.

"The key and constructive role played by the national representative body for indigenous people, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, has been dismally disregarded by the Government," Ms Tauli-Corpuz said.

She pointed out Australia had vowed to reset relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in 2009 when it committed to the UN's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. She went on to label as "alarming" the "failure to respect the right to self-determination and the right to full and effective participation".

"The compounded effect of these policies has contributed to the failure to deliver on the targets in the areas of health, education and employment in the Closing the Gap strategy," she said.

Ms Tauli-Corpuz said these failures had "contributed to aggravating the escalating incarceration and child removal rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders."

The statement also points out that only one of the seven Close the Gap targets, relating to youths completing Year 12, was on track; there was a suicide epidemic among Indigenous Australians and reiterated the criticism of the previous UN Special Rapporteur about the Northern Territory Intervention. Ms Tauli-Corpuz found the debate about 18C "disheartening"; the prevalence of racism "deeply disturbing" and the overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in jail as "simply astounding". She urged the Federal and state governments to reconsider funding cuts for support services, particularly advocates for change. She urged authorities to assess the benefits of rehabilitation programs and look into justice programs.

She was particularly concerned about child removal practices in Australia. Ms Tauli-Corpuz pointed out that 20 per cent of Indigenous children were in out-of-home care in 1996 when the "Bringing Them Home" report was published. She pointed out this figure had climbed to 35 per cent in 2016. She said the situation had now reached "critical levels".

Her report finishes by calling for "adequate reparation, including compensation" be provided to the Stolen Generations; the need for a plan to counter violence against women and for authorities to make it easier to declare successful native title claims as protected areas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UN statement on Australia's "disturbing", "alarming" and "deeply troubled" Indigenous policies - UNAA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A UN Special Rapporteur has shone a bright light on Australia's Indigenous practices and reached some dark conclusions. Ms. Tauli-Corpuz's end of mission statement detailed her findings that included numerous criticisms but also some praise in the way Australia manages its Indigenous population.

# data[].attributes.body
Compare how the government wants to portray its relationship with First Nations people and cultural diversity, to the sources or background information. What do you notice? What is the tone of this source compared to the one about Linda Burney?

# data[].attributes.body
The constitutional recognition of First Nations people in Australia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The claim

The question of Indigenous recognition has been debated for many years in state and federal politics in Australia.

On ABC's Q&A, opposition spokeswoman for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney said: "The Australian constitution is the only constitution of a first world nation with a colonial history that does not recognise its first people."

"That's the truth," she said.

Is that correct? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates.

The verdict

Ms Burney's claim checks out.

Fact Check contacted experts for assistance in determining which countries fit the criteria of a "first world nation with a colonial history" and have first people.

The common candidates among these experts were Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America.

Fact Check considered and rejected other potential countries, so the list is a short one.

Having said that, Canada, New Zealand and the United States all provide greater constitutional recognition of their first people than Australia.

Defining 'first world nation'

The Macquarie Dictionary defines "first world" as "the economically developed, capitalist countries collectively, characterised by industrialisation, a comparatively high standard of living and usually a long-term democratic political system".

As examples, it lists: "the United States, Japan, Great Britain, other Western European countries, Canada, Australia, etc".

Lexico.com, the online dictionary powered by Oxford defines "first world" as: "The industrialized capitalist countries of western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand."

Experts told Fact Check the term was originally used to describe the geopolitical world order during the Cold War, but is now regarded as outdated and sometimes offensive.

Susanne Schech, a professor of geography at Flinders University provided Fact Check with some background.

"'Third World' refers to the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America," she said in an email.

"'Second World' refers to the communist/socialist countries of the Eastern bloc aligned with the Soviet Union, and 'First World' refers to the industrial, democratic and capitalist countries aligned with the US."

Simon Feeney, a professor of economics, finance and marketing at RMIT University, said that referring to countries as "first world" is rare in a modern context and it has been replaced by other terms.

"Today, it probably means different things to different people, but I expect it is most commonly used to identify high income, industrialised, democratic countries," he said.

"Such a hierarchical ranking can be viewed as offensive," he said.

As an alternative, Professor Feeney suggested the World Bank's distinction between "developing" and "developed" countries, or its categorisation of nations according to income per person.

He also pointed to the Human Development Index (HDI), which is used by the United Nations Development Program and combines information on health, education and living standards.

Both experts also pointed to a newer, more relevant term: the "fourth world".

Professor Feeney told Fact Check: "The 'fourth world' is another (albeit contested) term that has sometimes been used to describe Indigenous populations experiencing exclusion and much lower living standards in wealthy countries."
Professor Schech said: "In addition, the term 'Fourth World' was developed in the 1970s in reference to 'First Nations' living within or across national state boundaries."

Fact Check has previously written about the difficulty in defining which countries count as "developed".

So in the search for broadly comparable first world countries relevant to Ms Burney's claim, we revisited the lists of countries in the World Bank's high income economies, the United Nations very high level of "human development", the International Monetary Fund's advanced economies and the OECD members.

Defining 'first people'

Ms Burney spoke of "first people", while in the Australian debate on constitutional recognition and in government more generally the more commonly used term is "Indigenous people".

A working definition of "indigenous people" is provided by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs in The United Nations' State of the World's Indigenous Peoples' fourth volume, published in 2019.

The report said not adopting a formal definition for "indigenous peoples" was deliberate.

"This decision was taken intentionally by the drafters based on the rationale that the identification of an indigenous people is the right of the people itself - the right of self-identification and a fundamental element of the right to self-determination," the report read.

But its working definition was: "Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them.

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.

Watch Madeleine Morris present the facts.(Madeleine Morris)

"They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems."

The United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs also describes "indigenous people" as: "inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and ways of relating to people and the environment."

"They have retained social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live."

Both these definitions refer to dominance as a key concept.

Professor Schech told Fact Check there was a distinction to be drawn on the basis of dominance. She cited former colonies such as India and Indonesia, "where the colonisers did not establish mass settlements. Most went back to their 'mother countries'," she said.

So, in assessing the claim, Fact Check considered countries where the first peoples are not the dominant population in society.

Defining "colonial history"

Ms Burney referred to first world nations "with a colonial history".

The Macquarie dictionary defines "colony" as: "a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent state."

It is clear from the wording of her claim that Ms Burney was not referring to colonising countries. Professor Schech pointed to Spain, Portugal, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Japan as examples of countries that had colonies.

Rather, it is clear that Ms Burney was referring to countries, such as Australia, settled by colonisers, such as Great Britain, that have indigenous populations.

Human Rights and International Law expert from the University of Newcastle Amy Maguire told Fact Check a common term is "settler colonial nations".

Fact check: Have a lot of people been dispossessed of their land due to native title?

One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson says a lot of people have been dispossessed of their lands because of the High Court's Mabo decision in 1992.

Read more

"Australia tends to sit in this category very clearly alongside New Zealand, Canada and the US," Associate Professor Maguire said.

Professor Schech agreed: "Countries like Australia, Canada, USA and South Africa are settler colonial countries".

"This is a group of countries which has a colonial history with a colony settled by Europeans, which involved displacing Indigenous people from their land.

"Therefore, it is argued that the current population of these countries must deal with the ongoing legacy of dispossession," she said.

Monash University Lecturer of Human Geography, Julian Yates considers the phrase "colonial history" used by Ms Burney to be vague.

"Settler colonial would certainly be more specific (in referring to particular histories of colonisation)," Dr Yates told Fact Check.

Therefore, in assessing the claim, Fact Check has taken "colonial history" to mean settler colonial countries rather than colonising countries.

Professor Schech said there was no universally agreed list of settler colonial countries.

Comparable countries

When Fact Check approached Ms Burney in relation to her claim, her spokesman responded by listing four "first world nations with colonial pasts": Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.

These four countries were also common ground among the experts contacted by Fact Check, who cited them as the obvious comparable countries with first peoples.

Fact Check considers these four to fit the criteria.

Beyond these four, Fact Check explored other potential candidates with the experts.

Sweden, Finland and Norway were mentioned, but despite being developed countries and home to the indigenous Sami people, they were excluded as not being "settler colonial".

The same applied to Russia with the Sami, Tatars and other indigenous populations as well as Turkey with the Kurds, Armenians and others.

Singapore has a history of being settled by migrants and it was a British colony until 1963, but Fact Check excluded it as not directly comparable after experts said it was not discussed in this context among academics.

The World Bank's list of high income economies includes Greenland, the autonomous self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.

But, the indigenous Inuit people of Greenland constitute the majority of its population, and so they are the dominant culture in society. Therefore, Greenland is not comparable to Australia for the purpose of this fact check.

Lorenzo Veracini, an associate professor of history at Swinburne University, suggested using the term "settler societies" which could include Israel.

"Settler societies are societies that results from processes of settler colonisation. Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the US and Canada are these societies," Dr Veracini told Fact Check.

But Associate Professor Maguire and Professor Schech said that Israel's status was not comparable in the context of Ms Burney's claim.

"In relation to the specific focus of your article, I don't see that the analysis of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians fits naturally alongside, say, Australia's treatment of its Indigenous peoples," Dr Maguire told Fact Check.

"Israel has certainly been analysed through the lens of settler colonial theory, but I haven't seen it compared to the CANZUS [Canada, Australia, New Zealand, US] countries," she said.

And Professor Schech noted: "Settler colonial theory has been applied to understanding conflicts in countries like Israel, but Israel is a complicated case for many reasons."

Fact Check decided to exclude Israel from the list of comparable countries.

South Africa, which Professor Schech nominated as a "settler colonial country" was not found in any of the "developed" countries lists so Fact Check considers it does not fit the definition of "first world".

There are also countries in Latin America that could qualify as being settler as well as colonial nations.

Chile with Rapanui, Mapuche and other indigenous populations, Argentina with Aonikenk, Mapuche and others, as well as Mexico with the Maya and Otomi people among others, appear in one or more of the economically developed countries' lists.

However, some of the experts disputed that these countries would qualify as first world.

And Dr Yates noted the ongoing debate amongst scholars internationally whether Latin American countries should be considered "settler colonial nations".

"I think it is simplistic at best to conflate Latin American colonial histories with the settler colonial histories of places such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand," he told Fact Check.

"For example, in Peru (where I work) and many other Latin American countries, the purpose of Spanish colonisation wasn't to settle with another population, but to inter-breed - to explicitly create a new creole race and to found society on a blend of Spansh and Indigenous institutions," he said.

"That is quite different to the British history of colonisation and subsequent settler colonialism."

With the above countries excluded from the comparison, Fact Check investigated the constitutional recognition of Indigenous people in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America.

The Australian constitution

When the Australian constitution came into force in 1901, Aboriginal people were mentioned twice, in section 51 and section 127.

Dr Yates told Fact Check the original mention of Indigenous people in Australia was only to exclude them from it.

Section 51 read: "the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to ... The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is necessary to make special laws."

Section 127 read: "in reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted."

Then, as a result of the 1967 referendum, any mention of Aboriginal people was removed.

"While this [exclusion] was removed, it then left Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples without Constitutional recognition," Dr Yates told Fact Check.

"So perhaps Australia is somewhat unique in the sense that the Constitution was amended to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' rights, but all that happened was the removal of negative and exclusionary references." he said.

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 recognises Aboriginal people in parts I and II in relation to equal rights of people before the law "without regard to their race, colour or national or ethnic origin".

Ron Levy, an associate professor in the College of Law at Australian National University, told Fact Check that some might argue the Racial Discrimination Act, although inferior to the constitution, could be considered a "constitutional recognition".

"Over time, and it's been around since 1975, it really sort of controlled governmental action in various ways, then maybe it could be considered to be constitutional, especially because it binds the states," Dr Levy said.

Dr Levy and other experts disagreed with this interpretation, however.

University of Toronto's Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Peter Russell wrote a book that charted Indigenous recognition across Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US.

He told Fact Check: "I do not regard the Racial Discrimination Act to be constitutional recognition of Australia's peoples - even though they may have been its greatest beneficiaries."

And Associate Professor Maguire told Fact Check that although the Racial Discrimination Act was a significant measure in Australian law, it was not specifically focused on Indigenous peoples.

"It is also subject to suspension at the prerogative of parliament, as occurred in the Northern Territory intervention," she said.

"One of the distinctive and important features of constitutional reform is that it is much more deeply entrenched and much harder to alter in the future," she said.

Canada

Canada was colonised from the 15th century by both the French and the British.

In 1982, the Canadian constitution was altered to include two forms of recognition for its first people in sections 25 and 35.

Section 25 provides: "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada."

And section 35 says: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed".

"In this Act, 'aboriginal peoples of Canada' includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada."

In addition to being named specifically in the country's constitution, section 35.1 says any future changes to relevant sections will have to be done in consultation with representatives from those groups.

New Zealand

British settlement in New Zealand began in the 1800s, some 500 years after the ancestors of the Maori people arrived.

New Zealand does not have a single constitution.

However, experts told Fact Check it is a "constitutional monarchy" and has "constitutional practices".

University of Otago constitutional expert, Andrew Geddis referred Fact Check to New Zealand's Cabinet Manual, written by Sir Kenneth Keith, a former New Zealand Supreme Court judge.

The Cabinet Manual reads: "The New Zealand constitution is to be found in formal legal documents, in decisions of the courts, and in practices (some of which are described as conventions). It reflects and establishes that New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy, that it has a parliamentary system of government, and that it is a democracy."

The manual refers to the Constitution Act 1986, which it says is "the principal formal statement of New Zealand's constitutional arrangements" but then goes on to list "other major sources of the constitution".

Dr Levy said the term "constitutional" referred to anything superior to other laws in hierarchy.

"Either because it's entrenched, like we have our written Constitution in Australia which trumps other laws, or because over time it has grown to be something more significant than other laws," he told Fact Check.

Dr Geddis, Dr Maguire, Dr Yates and Dr Veracini, all agreed the New Zealand framework provides recognition for the indigenous Maori people via the Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840 between the British and various Māori chiefs.

The treaty states that in exchange for the Māori tribes ceding sovereignty to the British Crown, the crown: "confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries."

It also provided the Māori people with "protection" and the "rights" of British subjects.

The Cabinet Manual says the constitutional framework "increasingly reflects the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi is regarded as a founding document of government in New Zealand."

The treaty "may indicate limits in our polity on majority decision-making," it says.

The United States of America

Colonisation of the Americas dates back to the 1500s, while the United States constitution has been in operation since 1789.

Two sections of Article I, one of which was altered as part of the 14th amendment, recognise the existence of "Indians", the first people of what is today the United States of America.

Section 8 reads: "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

And the 14th amendment, section 2 now reads: "representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed."

Experts Fact Check spoke to agreed the above mentions are considered constitutional recognition of first peoples.

Professor Geddis told Fact Check: "The US Constitution only mentions Indian Tribes as it empowers the Federal Government to "regulate commerce" with [Indian Tribes]. However, that rather limited mention actually recognised the importance of the tribes and their place in what became the USA."

And Professor Russell said: "I consider that section 7 of Article I of the US Constitution giving Congress power 'To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes' to constitute constitutional recognition of First Peoples in the USA."

Professor Maguire pointed out the mentions in the US constitution should be considered alongside the existence of treaties between the US government and various indigenous nations.

"Treaties may sit outside constitutions, but they can inform the direction of the legal system," she said.

Treaties between the individual sovereign Native American nations and the US government were negotiated from 1774 until about 1832.

In an article series published in the Conversation on Indigenous Recognition, Sarah Maddison, co-founder of the Indigenous-Settler Relations Collaboration research unit at Melbourne University explored the Indigenous reconciliation in the United States of America.

Professor Maddison wrote: "The power of native treaty rights is reinforced by the significant recognition of the nation-to-nation relationship between Indian tribes and the federal government contained in the Constitution."

"Despite continuing legal arguments about whether native nations should be understood as 'domestic dependent nation', or part of a system of 'constitutional trifederalism' (where tribes are understood as constitutionally recognised sovereigns, along with the states and federal government), there's little dispute that Indian tribes have a degree of legal recognition as sovereigns," she said.

"The existence of treaty relationships and constitutional recognition of tribal sovereignty are further buttressed by the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act," she said.
Principal researcher: Christina Arampatzi Additional research: Brinley Duggan and Claire Maher
Sources

ABC's Q&A program, August 15, 2019

Lexico.com, online dictionary Powered by Oxford

Fact Check: Is Australia's population the fastest growing in the developed world?, ABC News, October 18, 2018

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Indigenous Peoples at the UN

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs: State of the World's Indigenous Peoples, 4th Volume, 2019

Parliament of Australia website: The Australian Constitution

Parliament of Australia website: Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, Section 51 (original enactment)

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, Section 127 (original enactment)

National Archives of Australia, Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginals) Act 1967

Parliament of Australia: Racial Discrimination Act 1975

Australian Government website: Federal Register of Legislation, Racial Discrimination Act 1975

Government of Canada website: Canada's History

Government of Canada website: Constitution Act 1982, Part I, Section 25

Government of Canada website: Constitution Act 1982, Part II, Section 35, Rights of the Government of Canada website: Justice Laws website, Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada

Government of Canada website: Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada

Government of New Zealand History website: Taming the frontier

Government of New Zealand History website: Encounters

New Zealand History, NZ government website: The Treaty of Waitangi (text)

The Governor-General, NZ government website: The Constitution of New Zealand

Parliamentary Counsel Office, News Zealand Legislation: Constitution Act 1986

Cabinet Office Wellington, New Zealand: Cabinet Manual, 2017

United States Government, Library of Congress: Colonial Settlements

Constitutioncentre.org Website: The Constitution of the US (document)

US National Archives website: The Constitution of the United States: A Transcript

Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute: 14th Amendment

United Nations: State of the World's Indigenous Peoples, 4th Volume, 2019

The Conversation, article: Despite gains, Europe's indigenous people still struggle for recognition, May 18, 2016

The Conversation, article: Indigenous reconciliation in the US shows how sovereignty and constitutional recognition work together, May 17, 2016

Singapore Government website, Singapore Statutes Online: Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, Minorities and special position of Malays

UNHCR, United Nations Refugee Agency: World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Chile

International Labour Organisation, UN Agency: Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 1989, (No. 169) - Chile

Editor's note (October 14, 2019): This fact check was updated to include additional comments by Dr Ron Levy. It does not change our verdict.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We fact checked Linda Burney's claim on constitutional recognition. Here's what we found

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The question of Indigenous recognition has been debated for many years in state and federal politics in Australia. On ABC's Q&A, opposition spokeswoman for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney said: "The Australian constitution is the only constitution of a first world nation with a colonial history that does not recognise its first people."

# data[].attributes.body
Canada too, has a violent colonial past. Knowing that, what purpose might this source serve? Who does it denigrate? What does is purposefully leave out?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australia's slow progress on Indigenous rights - Open Canada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When I travelled to Australia late last year to attend an international conference, there was no doubt that issues related to Indigenous peoples were as much a part of the public conversation down under as here in Canada. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders make up three percent of the population in Australia, but they are part of daily discourse.

# data[].attributes.body
Consider how The Guardian is funded. Do they have a vested interest in ensuring the Australian Government is portrayed in a positive way?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's 50 years since Indigenous Australians first 'counted'. Why has so little changed?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1967 Australia voted in a landmark referendum to finally include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in its census. But, as Paul Daley reports, the fight for genuine equality is far from over

# data[].attributes.body
The history of colonisation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Prior to British settlement, more than 500 First Nations groups inhabited the continent we now call Australia, approximately 750,000 people in total. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures developed over 60,000 years, making First Nations Peoples the custodians of the world's oldest living culture. Each group lived in close relationship with the land and had custodianship of their Country.

Are you a teacher looking for curriculum resources?

Easy-to-use, ready-made resources that will help your students understand First Nations stories, experiences and perspectives. They include teacher guides, student handouts, activities and more.

Captain Cook claims possession for England

In 1770, during his first Pacific voyage, Lieutenant James Cook claimed possession of the east coast of Australia for the British Crown. Upon his return to Britain, Cook's reports inspired the authorities to establish a penal colony in the newly claimed territory. The new colony was intended to alleviate overcrowding in British prisons, expand the British Empire, assert Britain's claim to the territory against other colonial powers, and establish a British base in the global South.

Disease, dispossession and direct conflict

In 1788, Captain Arthur Phillip and 1,500 convicts, crew, marines and civilians arrived at what is now called Sydney Cove. In the 10 years that followed, it's estimated that the First Nations population was reduced by 90%. Three main reasons for this dramatic population decline were the:

introduction of new diseases

acquisition of First Nations lands by colonisers

direct and violent conflict with colonisers.

The most immediate consequence of colonisation was a wave of epidemic diseases including smallpox, measles and influenza, which spread ahead of the frontier and annihilated many First Nations communities. Governor Phillip reported that smallpox had killed half of the First Nations people in the Sydney region within 14 months of the arrival of the First Fleet. The sexual abuse and exploitation of First Nations girls and women also introduced venereal disease to First Nations people in epidemic proportions.

"The Government is fast disposing of the land occupied by the natives from time immemorial. In addition to which settlers under the sanction of government may establish themselves in any part of this extensive territory and since the introduction of the numerous flocks and herds ... a serious loss has been sustained by the natives without an equivalent being rendered. Their territory is not only invaded, but their game is driven back, their marnong and other valuable roots are eaten by the white man's sheep and their deprivation, abuse and miseries are daily increasing."
Francis Tuckfield, Wesleyan Missionary, 1837

The expansion of British colonies, including the establishments in Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania), Adelaide, Moreton Bay (Brisbane) and Port Phillip (Melbourne), resulted in competition over land and resources, and quickly resulted in violence. Levels of frontier violence are hotly debated (see Reynolds and Windshuttle), but historical records document numerous occasions on which First Nations people were hunted and brutally murdered.

Massacres of First Nations people often took the form of mass shootings or driving groups of people off cliffs. There are also numerous accounts of colonists offering First Nations people food laced with arsenic and other poisons.

"In less than twenty years we have nearly swept them off the face of the earth. We have shot them down like dogs. In the guise of friendship we have issued corrosive sublimate in their damper and consigned whole tribes to the agonies of an excruciating death. We have made them drunkards, and infected them with diseases which have rotted the bones of their adults, and made such few children as are born amongst them a sorrow and a torture from the very instant of their birth. We have made them outcasts on their own land, and are rapidly consigning them to entire annihilation."
Edward Wilson (Editor), The Argus, 17 March 1856

It's important to recognise that from the beginning of colonisation, First Nations people continually resisted the violation of their right to land, and its impact on First Nations cultures and communities. It's estimated that at least 20,000 Aboriginal people were killed as a direct result of colonial violence during this era of Australian history. Between 2,000 and 2,500 European deaths resulted from frontier conflict during the same period.

F-Y10 Curriculum resources to help unpack the complexities surrounding Australia Day

With teacher guides, student handouts, activities and more, they're designed to help you put together a thought-provoking and engaging lesson.

Stop and think: how important is your way of life?

Imagine how you'd feel if you welcomed strangers into your home and they never left. In fact, what would it be like if they took control of your house and made you relocate far away? What if they abused you physically, sexually and financially, and spread disease throughout your community? Can you imagine how this would affect your children and grandchildren's views of these strangers for generations to come?

Consider what it would be like to see a previously unknown disease, with a 50% fatality rate, sweep through your community, affecting your family and friends. How would it make you feel to know that so much of your culture had been permanently devastated, with no way to fully rediscover it in all its richness?

The reality of the collision of cultures between First Nations Peoples and the British colonials has gone unacknowledged for most of our shared history. Many First Nations people have wrestled with defining their identity when so much of their pre-contact culture has been lost, and at the same time their relationship with mainstream Australian culture is complicated by its role in the deterioration of First Nations cultures.

References

1. Behrendt L (2012) Indigenous Australia for Dummies®, Wiley Publishing Australia Pty Ltd, Milton, Queensland, p. 94, accessed 8 November 2021.

2. Harris J (2003) 'Hiding the bodies: the myth of the humane colonisation of Aboriginal Australia', Aboriginal History Journal, vol. 27, pp. 79-104, accessed 8 November 2021.

3. Bladen FM, Britton A and Cook J (1892) Historical records of New South Wales, vol. 1, Part 2 (1783-1792), Government Printer, Sydney, accessed 8 November 2021.

4. Harris J (2013) One blood: 200 years of Aboriginal encounter with Christianity, (Kindle edn) p. 27, accessed 8 November 2021.

5. Tuckfield F (1837) The Journal of Francis Tuckfield, missionary to Port Phillip, Southern Australia, 1837-ca. 1842, (manuscript), State Library of Victoria, accessed 8 November 2021.

6. Behrendt L (2012) Indigenous Australia for Dummies®, Wiley Publishing Australia Pty Ltd, Milton, Queensland, p. 274, accessed 8 November 2021.

7. Harris J (2013) One blood: 200 years of Aboriginal encounter with Christianity, (Kindle edn) p. 209, accessed 8 November 2021.

8. Reynolds H (2006) The other side of the Frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia, p. 126, University of New South Wales Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Colonisation | History Of When Australia Was Colonised

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Prior to British settlement, more than 500 First Nations groups inhabited the continent we now call Australia, approximately 750,000 people in total. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures developed over 60,000 years, making First Nations Peoples the custodians of the world's oldest living culture.