Government policy on indigenous Austrians between 1900 and 1940

Introduction

Policies are vital elements in the running of government. As HYPERLINK “http://thinkexist.com/quotes/albert_camus/”Albert Camus a famous HYPERLINK “http://thinkexist.com/nationality/french_authors/”French HYPERLINK “http://thinkexist.com/occupation/famous_novelists/”Novelist quotes “HYPERLINK “http://thinkexist.com/quotation/by_definition-a_government_has_no_conscience/294286.html”By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more.’’ In many cases policies are usually instituted in order to prevent some kind of negative effect that has been noted in a country. Although government policies sometimes have HYPERLINK “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences” o “Unintended consequences”unintended consequences or side effects, they assist governments in making decisions that are both objective and subjective. In the context of the Australian colonial and pre-colonial history a number of policies were designed by the government to guide the decisions and outcomes pertaining indigenous Australians. ” This particular paper therefore seeks evaluate government policy on Indigenous Austrians between; 1900-1940. The objective of the paper is to highlights the implication of these policies on Australia.

In 1905, the Western Australia Aborigines Act was passed by the government with the objective of making the Chief Protector , the legal guardian of each ‘half-caste’ and Aboriginal child under the age of 16 years old (NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs, 2007). The 1905 policy therefore resulted to the introduction of what is known as the Stolen Generation. According to HYPERLINK “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Howson_%28Australian_politician%29” o “Peter Howson (Australian politician)” Howson (2001) the term stolen generation was initially used to express the separation of Indigenous children from their families through a government policy that had the objective of doing away with the Koorie communities. Kuehn and Smethurst,( 2009) on the other hand highlight that the term Stolen Generation was extended to imply the application of government policy to remove children from families not on basis of their Indigenous nature but rather the policy had the objective of assisting indigenous Australian families that were unable to take care of their children . Another similar policy was initiated in 1911 through the South Australian Aborigines Act which increased the legal age of children under the Chief Protector to 21 years. According to the government by then, the main motive behind the establishment of the policy was to assimilate indigenous children into the European society in one or two generations. The children were either fostered by white parents or raised in institutions (White, 2003).

Although a large number of criticism has been raised concerning the motive and the outcomes of these particular polices, such as the fact that the policy was aimed at alienating the indigenous populations and also that it caused suffering to the children and their families, what at is evident is that the policies have to some extent brought a certain significant impacts even of contemporary Australian society. As White (2003) argues history usually has an influence or impact on the present. The policy of separating indigenous children from their families was devised during the early 1900s when no democratic polices or human rights polices were well established. McCarthy, (2000) reveals that the British government in 2008 acknowledged the responsibility of the suffering incurred by indigenous children during this particular period. In addition the Australian Prime minister Kevin Rudd also presented his apology concerning the stolen generation phenomenon. In addition the government initiated the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healing Foundation, which was developed with the objective assisting the victims who went through the Stolen Generations situation (Welch, 2008). It can therefore be argued that indeed Australia is currently focused on ensuring that the indigenous people are accorded equal rights. Although historical policies such as the Australia Aborigines Acts were to some level subjective, we can not deny that the government has tried to change the past by developing democratic polices such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, 2006 which aim at ensuring the indigenous communities are not discriminated against.

Conclusion

From the above analysis what is evident is that historical polices did have an impact on the lives of indigenous people, however it essential to take note of the fact that society keeps on changing and so are government polices.

References

HYPERLINK “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Howson_%28Australian_politician%29” o “Peter Howson (Australian politician)” Howson,P , 2001, HYPERLINK “http://www.nationalobserver.net/2001_winter_legal.htm” Legal Notes: The Stolen Generations True Believers Take One Step Back, National Observer.

NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs, 2007, Aboriginal timeline (1900 – 1969). Retrived From <HYPERLINK “http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-early-20th.html”http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-early-20th.html>

McCarthy, 2000, The Stolen Generation, Times Magazine

Kuehn, T and Smethurst, P, 2009, Travel writing, form, and empire: the poetics and politics of mobility, Taylor & Francis.

White, R, 2003, Cultural history in Australia, UNSW Press.

Welch , D,2008 , HYPERLINK “http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-says-sorry/2008/02/13/1202760342960.html” Rudd says sorry”, Dylan, Sydney Morning Herald, 13 February 2008.

Zierott, N,2005, Aboriginal women’s narratives: reclaiming identities, Verlag Münster.