oceania

• AUSTRALIA: ‘Indigenous Australians must be represented at the heart of policy-making’

  CIVICUS speaks about Indigenous peoples’ rights in Australia with Paul Wright, National Director of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR), a civil society organisation (CSO) that works in solidarity with and advocates for the rights of Indigenous peoples in Australia, including by aiming to change the attitudes and behaviours of non-Indigenous Australians.

  What is the current situation of Indigenous peoples in Australia?

  As soon as colonisation began in 1788, Australia’s First Nations peoples, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, were systematically persecuted and marginalised. They were dispossessed of their lands and denied the rights afforded to settlers or colonisers.

  In 2022, more than 230 years since colonisation began and 120 years after the former colonies federated into the Commonwealth of Australia, Indigenous Australians continue fighting for their rights and to have their sovereignty recognised.

  Through the years, there have been big wins, frustrating disappointments and broken promises from governments. Human rights have been consistently denied or violated. Australia was one of the last nations to ratify the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and following ratification it has done very little to honour or domesticate the articles of the declaration.

  More positively, the Australian Human Rights Commission includes an Indigenous Social Justice Commissioner whose role is to advocate for the rights of Indigenous peoples and keep Indigenous issues on the agenda of the Australian federal government. The position is currently filled by a Bunuba woman, Dr June Oscar, who is a great source of information on the human rights situation of Indigenous Australians.

  While things are slowly improving, Indigenous Australians continue to have a lower life expectancy, live in poorer health and have worse employment and education outcomes than non-Indigenous Australians.

  The wide health gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities was highlighted by the Close the Gap Campaign, co-chaired by the Indigenous Social Justice Commissioner and the CEO of the National Association of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers and Practitioners. In response, the Australian government entered into the National Agreement on Closing the Gap with the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations, committing to implementing tangible policy reforms. In July 2020 it issued its second Annual Data Compilation Report that tracks the implementation of the agreement.

  Do you think Australian Indigenous peoples are well represented in policy-making processes?

  They are not, so the current political battle in Australia is to make sure Indigenous Australians are represented at the heart of the policy-making that affects them. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have issued the Uluru Statement from the Heart, an invitation to ‘walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future’. It calls for structural reforms, including constitutional change, to establish a First Nations’ ‘Voice to Parliament’ and kick off a national process of truth-telling and reconciliation. The current federal Labor government has committed to holding a referendum to decide this question. This is a major moment for Australia.

  Since the 1992 Mabo High Court decision, which recognised that a group of Torres Strait Islanders, led by Eddie Mabo, held ownership of Mer (Murray Island), native title has been recognised for all Indigenous people in Australia. In response to that seminal High Court ruling, the government introduced the Native Title Act, and over the next 30 years, 40 per cent of the Australian landmass has been returned to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that have made claims. Not all claims have been successful, however: native title rights are limited and do not entail self-determination at the level outlined in the UNDRIP and other international standards.

  How is ANTaR working to advance the rights of Indigenous Australians?

  ANTaR is a national advocacy organisation that promotes the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that was founded 25 years ago. We began as a grassroots protest movement to resist government attempts to water down legislation on native title rights. We have subsequently worked alongside many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, organisations and communities to advocate for rights and justice. Our priorities have included health equality, justice, anti-racism, advocacy for a treaty, reconciliation and much more.

  As an ally organisation, we operate under the principle of not speaking for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and instead look to their leadership and direction to channel our resources and support. There are a growing number of solid connections between Indigenous peoples globally, which is encouraging. Australia has learned many lessons from Indigenous affairs in Canada, Norway, New Zealand and elsewhere.

  Civic space in Australia is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with ANTaR through itswebsite orFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@ANTaR_National on Twitter. 

• AUSTRALIA: ‘Repressive laws have been introduced to limit people’s ability to protest against climate injustice’

  CIVICUS speaks about the challenges faced by climate activists in Australia with Nelli Stevenson, head of communications and investigations at Greenpeace Australia Pacific.

  Greenpeace is a global environment campaigning network that comprises 26 independent national and regional organisations in over 55 countries across all continents as well as a co-ordinating body, Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

• AUSTRALIA: ‘There will be little change on First Nations people’s recognition, representation and rights’

  CIVICUS speaks with Peter Lewis, president of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR), about the recent defeat in areferendum of a proposal to recognise Indigenous Australians in the constitution and create a permanent institution so they can speak directly to government and parliament on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

  ANTaR is a civil society organisation (CSO) that works in solidarity with and advocates for the rights of Indigenous peoples in Australia,conducting independent research and analysis and providing Australians with quality information on priorities concerning First Nations rights.

  What was the process leading to the referendum?

  In December 2010, an Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians was established and started discussing how to constitutionally recognise First Nations peoples. In January 2012, the panel suggested a new section be added to the Constitution – ‘Section 51A’ – to recognise First Peoples as the original inhabitants of the nation now known as Australia. The federal government later announced that a referendum on the matter would be delayed by two to three years due to an absence of widespread public support.

  In December 2015, a Referendum Council was established and began consultations on how best to establish constitutional recognition of First Nations peoples. A discussion paper was released in October 2016 and articulated the central suggestions for constitutional reform to include a declaration of recognition, a ban on racial discrimination and a First Nations Voice to Parliament, with the right to be consulted on legislation relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

  In May 2017, a convention at Uluru heard the outcomes from the First Nations Dialogues, with 250 First Nations leaders and representatives in attendance. Despite the generosity of spirit embodied by the Uluru statement, in October 2017 the government of then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull outrightly rejected its proposals, breaking is promise of ‘doing things with’ Aboriginal people instead of to them. Turnbull made this decision unilaterally, without any consultation with or regard for the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, a national representative body, or members of the Referendum Council.

  In March 2018 the government established another Joint Select Committee that was tasked to again inquire into and report on constitutional change. Its final report endorsed a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament. By the end of 2018, the Labor opposition had promised to establish a Voice for First Nations people and vowed to take the issue of constitutional recognition to referendum if elected to government in 2019.

  On 29 September 2022, the inaugural meeting of the Referendum Working Group and the Referendum Engagement Group discussed the steps to a 2023 referendum on a First Nations Voice to Parliament. The Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 Bill was introduced to parliament on 30 March 2023. On the same day, a Joint Select Committee was formed to analyse and report on the bill.

  The committee heard from witnesses and published submissions, and recommended that parliament pass the bill without amendment. The House of Representatives passed it on 31 May and the Senate did so on 19 June. This meant a referendum would be called within the next six months.

  A constitutionally enshrined First Nations Voice to Parliament would offer a first step toward structural and symbolic reform, ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders peoples can have a say about the laws and policies that impact on their lives and communities.

  Who sided for and against?

  The federal leadership of conservative parties – the Liberal and National parties – did not support the referendum. However, there was some support for the Voice within the conservative parties federally and in some states and territories.

  There was also some opposition by a minority of First Nations leaders on the basis that the Voice did not represent an adequate transfer of power and that a treaty should come before any changes to the constitution. But a vast majority of First Nations leaders and organisations supported recognition and voice, as did most civil society organisations and some business organisations.

  ANTaR was active in the Yes campaign and worked with others to establish Allies for Uluru. In October 2022 we initiated a Yes to Voice, Truth and Treaty Campaign.

  The Yes campaign also received support from international CSOs such as Amnesty International and Oxfam, and its measures were supported by United Nations (UN) experts, and specifically by successive Special Rapporteurs on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

  But the referendum was used by neo-Nazi and QAnon adherents to stoke fear about First Nations peoples’ aspirations.

  What kind of disinformation was circulated?

  The No side of the debate made a number of false claims ranging from the misleading to clear lies. There were claims that the Voice would be a third chamber of parliament and that it would delay all decision making. There were claims that Australians would lose their homes as a result, and that it would enable First Nations people to establish their own military, and even that it would allow the UN to take over Australia. There were claims that the move was legally risky and that it would divide the nation – although currently the federal government can legislate for First Nations people through the ‘race powers’, a constitutional clause that says the government can make special laws for people of any particular race. So the nation is clearly already divided.

  Why do you think the initiative failed, and what will the consequences be?

  In Australia referendums rarely succeed, and in fact have never succeeded without support from all major parties.

  The No case included much disinformation and fearmongering and a majority of the electorate responded negatively. It should however be noted that many inner-city and inner suburban areas, as well as First Nations-dominated remote areas, voted yes.

  Because of this result, there will be little change and First Nations people’s recognition, representation and rights will depend on whoever is in government at the time. First Nations organisations will renew their calls for justice and recognition of their sovereignty and press on issues such as treaty-making, truth-telling and reducing disadvantage by providing greater agency for First Nations communities.

  Civic space in Australia is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with ANTaR through itswebsite orFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@ANTaR_National on Twitter.

• NEW CALEDONIA: ‘The French parliamentary elections will have an impact on our future’

  CIVICUS speaks with Nathalie Tehio, president of the Human Rights League, aboutrecent protests against electoral changes imposed by the French government in New Caledonia.

  In May 2024, protests broke out in New Caledonia after the French parliament passed a law that would have allowed more non-Indigenous people to vote. The French government presented the measure as a democratic reform, but many Indigenous Kanaks, who make up around 40 per cent of the population, saw the prospects of independence receding. When clashes between pro-independence protesters and police led to riots, the French authorities declared a state of emergency, deployed troops and banned TikTok. The French government suspended the electoral changes, but has recently detained some pro-independence leaders, and the situation remains tense.

  What is New Caledonia’s political status and what how does this mean for its governance?

  The 1988 Matignon-Oudinot Accords, the 1998 Nouméa Accords and the 1999 Organic Law gave New Caledonia special status within the French Republic, transferring many powers other than those of sovereignty – the army, the police, the judiciary and the currency – as part of a scheme of ‘shared sovereignty’. A title on ‘transitional provisions for New Caledonia’ was added to the French Constitution.

  This title provided for the freezing of the electorate for three planned referendums on self-determination and provincial elections, which determine the composition of the Congress that elects the government of New Caledonia. To vote in provincial elections, you have to be born before 1998 and have lived in New Caledonia for 10 years. Other elections follow French national rules.

  What led to recent protests?

  The Nouméa Accord provided for a gradual transfer of sovereignty, with three referendums on self-determination to be held in 2018, 2020 and 2021. The pro-independence Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) had called for the third referendum but then rejected the proposed date because of the pandemic that hit New Caledonia late. In 2021, many families were in mourning and a campaign could not be properly conducted due to restrictions.

  The French government maintained the date of the referendum, and the FLNKS called for a boycott. This call was widely followed by Kanak people, resulting in a turnout of only 43.90 per cent, compared to 85.64 per cent for the second referendum in 2020. In the Loyalty Islands, 95.46 per cent of voters, mainly Kanak people, abstained, and in the Northern Province 83.38 per cent did so. Despite this, the French government recognised the results and declared the Nouméa Accord null and void, urging local politicians to reach a new agreement, specifically on the composition of the electoral body.

  In the absence of an agreement, the government decided to change the make-up of the electorate by amending the constitution, allowing anyone who has lived in New Caledonia for 10 years to vote in provincial elections. This caused tensions as Kanak people, already in a minority as a result of colonisation and the nickel boom of the 1970s, saw this as a threat to their representation in institutions and the conclusion of the decolonisation process.

  After the 2021 referendum, the Caledonian Union, a FLNKS member, set up a mobilisation group, the Field Action Coordinating Cell (CCAT), which has organised protests against the electoral change. The French government ignored our warnings about the dangers of forcefully passing the amendment, and protests degenerated into blockades and fires in and around the capital, Nouméa, leading to the imposition of a curfew, a state of emergency and the blocking of TikTok. The army was deployed. There are reports of police abuse and people forming anti-Kanak militias.

  How did Kanak leaders react?

  Kanak leaders called for calm but were not listened to, nor were traditional leaders or the president of the government.

  The FLNKS refused to talk to the three senior officials who accompanied French president Emmanuel Macron on a whirlwind visit and called for a political solution to the conflict.

  The president of the Southern Province and a former deputy made fiery statements on the question of links with France. Another current in the loyalist – anti-independence – camp, represented by another ex-deputy and the mayor of Nouméa, is in favour of dialogue and the search for a new institutional agreement. Some independence supporters back dialogue with this faction of the Loyalist Party. The Oceanian Awakening party, which represents people from the Wallis and Futuna islands, considers the 2021 referendum to be ‘political nonsense’ and could play a role in dialogue if the French government adopts a position of neutrality, as promised in the preamble to the Nouméa Agreement.

  How is civil society promoting peace in New Caledonia?

  The Human Rights League was instrumental in the signing of the Matignon Accords at a time when civil war had claimed over 90 lives. But recently the Minister of the Interior criticised us and ignored our warnings. We hope the next government will listen to voices for peace.

  The unrest has so far mostly been confined to Nouméa and the surrounding communes, leaving the islands and northern provinces largely untouched. This shows that the peace process has forged links between communities. In 2022, a statue symbolising the handshake between loyalist politician Jacques Lafleur and pro-independence leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou was unveiled in the Place de la Paix (Koo We Joka). Women called for a peace rally on that square.

  New Caledonian civil society, which is deeply attached to this country, can still work towards a common destiny if France respects its commitment to the decolonisation process as set out in the Nouméa Accord.

  France must carry out impartial investigations to restore peace through legal channels. Both pro-independence and loyalist politicians must commit themselves to rebuilding a common destiny and fighting the social inequalities at the root of the revolt of young Kanaks.

  Civil society must influence elected representatives to work towards this goal and demand impartial justice. The decision to transfer CCAT leaders to provisional detention in France, more than 17,000 km away, to the detriment of their private and family lives and their rights to defence, was followed by new riots, this time in the north and on one of the Loyalty Islands.

  The French parliamentary elections will have an impact on the future of New Caledonia, and it’s vital to encourage and seek dialogue and agreement on a common destiny.

  ---

  Get in touch with the Human Rights League through itswebsite and follow@LDH_Fr and@nathalietehio on Twitter.

• PAPUA NEW GUINEA: ‘The mining company must address its human rights and environmental legacy’

  CIVICUS speaks with Keren Adams, Legal Director of the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC), about the victory recently obtained in holding the British-Australian mining company Rio Tinto accountable for the multiple human rights violations caused by its operations in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea. Established in 2006, the HRLC is an Australian civil society organisation that uses strategic legal action, policy solutions and advocacy to support people and communities to eliminate inequality and injustice and build a fairer, more compassionate Australia.

  What tactics does the HRLC use to hold corporations accountable? 

  The HRLC uses a mixture of strategic litigation, high-impact media work, campaigning and shareholder engagement to hold corporations accountable for the human rights consequences of their actions. We work in partnership with affected communities and workers to seek justice and remedy for corporate human rights abuses. We also advocate to improve regulation and oversight over the activities of Australian companies to ensure they uphold their obligation to respect human rights, wherever they operate.

  What were the impacts of the Rio Tinto operations on Bougainville Island, and how did the HRLC support the struggle of local communities for justice and accountability?

  Rio Tinto’s former Panguna mine on Bougainville left a massive legacy of environmental and social devastation on the island. Panguna had been one of the world’s largest copper and gold mines. During its operation, between 1972 and 1989, over a billion tonnes of waste from the mine were dumped directly into the Kawerong river downstream. The environmental destruction this caused, and its associated social consequences, led to a local uprising that forcibly closed the mine in 1989 and triggered a 10-year civil war on the island. In 2016, Rio Tinto divested from the mine and walked away without accepting any responsibility for this legacy.

  As a result, communities all along the Jaba-Kawerong river valley continue to live surrounded by vast mounds of tailings – mine waste – left over from the mine’s operation. Their water sources are heavily polluted with copper and with every rainfall, huge volumes of tailings erode into the rivers, flooding farms and forests downstream with polluted mud, displacing villagers and destroying peoples’ livelihoods. Many people in the area live with serious health problems, including skin diseases and gastrointestinal and respiratory infections, which local health workers attribute to their exposure to pollution. An estimated 14,000 people live downstream of the mine.

  In 2020, the HRLC assisted 156 local residents from several villages downstream of the mine to file a human rights complaint against the company with the Australian government, alleging serious breaches of the company’s human rights and environmental obligations. In response to the complaint, Rio Tinto agreed to re-engage with the communities about these issues and in July 2021 committed to funding an independent environmental and human rights impact assessment of the mine to identify impacts and risks posed by the mine and develop recommendations for what needs to be done to address them.

  What do you hope will be the outcome of the process once the impact assessment is complete?

  The communities we are working with called for Rio Tinto to fund the impact assessment as a first critical step towards addressing the massive and ongoing environmental and human rights problems being caused by the mine. But it is only the first step. They hope and expect that once the impact assessment is complete, Rio Tinto will contribute to a substantial, independently managed fund to help address the harms caused by the mine and assist long-term rehabilitation efforts.

  These communities urgently need access to clean water for drinking and bathing. They need solutions to stop the vast mounds of tailings eroding into the rivers and flooding their villages, farms and fishing areas. They need their children to be able to walk to school without having to wade through treacherous areas of quicksand created by the mine waste. These are just some examples of what remediation means in real terms for the people living with these impacts.

  What challenges lay ahead in achieving rightful compensation and long-term rehabilitation?

  The extent of the environmental destruction at Panguna and the myriad health and social problems caused by the mine, left unaddressed for over 30 years, mean that substantial resources and a long-term commitment will be needed to find solutions and undertake proper rehabilitation of the site.

  So far, Rio Tinto has only committed to funding the independent assessment of the mine. While we see this as an important development, it remains to be seen how serious the company is about addressing its legacy on the island and providing remedy in accordance with its human rights and environmental obligations. We will be continuing to work with local communities and other stakeholders like the Autonomous Bougainville Government to ensure that they do so.

  Civic space inPapua New Guineais rated as ‘obstructed’by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with the Human Rights Law Centre through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@rightsagenda on Twitter. 

• TUVALU: ‘We share Taiwan’s democratic principles, values and struggles for sovereignty’

  CIVICUS speaks about the prospects following the inauguration of a new government in Tuvalu with Kiali Molu, a PhD candidate in Politics and International Affairs at the University of Bergen in Norway and at the University of the South Pacific.

  Kiali is a native Tuvaluan and his research, currently funded by the government of Norway, focuses on Tuvalu’s strategies to maintain its statehood and sovereignty as its territory is threatened by sea-level rise.