---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This material © The Northern Review and Peter Jull, 1997 and earlier.
Reproduction of this document is permitted provided this notice remains
intact. The Northern Review would like to be informed of any large volume
copying of this document. This material originally appeared in The Northern
Review.
[Image]
        Canada and the Antipodes: Mirror Images?

by Peter Jull

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Zealand's current land-claims politics resemble those of British
Columbia, but may be less well prepared. On the other hand, the indigenous
autonomies of Cook Islands and Niue are ahead of Canada, even if issues of
economic sustainability are no less challenging, especially in Niue.
(Niue's long-time indigenous premier has a legal background; he has argued
that as Magna Carta still applies in his land, no further rights laws are
needed!)

Australia' s Northern Territory (NT) government is preparing a
constitutional smash-and-grab when a gullible Thatcherite Right government
takes office in Canberra later this year or early next. While national
Right leaders are impeccable on matters of the visible minorities from Asia
or Black America, some travel North to sit at the feet of an
indigenous-unfriendly Territory government to imbibe techniques of
aboriginal relations. Their gullibility—to use a polite term—will cost them
dearly if they take office and their actions lead to an immediate world
perception of a return to the white Australia policy.

Specifically, the NT government hopes to take over the federal aboriginal
rights law and gain statehood by a package of measures that appear to give
favourable consideration to aboriginal rights. The reality of course is
that the white authorities want the same sort of regional control on their
own terms that Canada rejected when white-run Northwest Territories and
Yukon governments tried a similar move in the 1970s and 1980s.

Australia's "other" indigenous people, the Torres Strait Islanders, feel
much like Inuit—too often forgotten and relegated to second place. They
know, however, that Inuit and Scandinavia' s Sami are also concerned with
and taking action on similar marine issues and seeking more regional power.

In early 1993 a visit to Central Australia by Inuit national and
international head, Rosemarie Kuptana, left local politicians quoting her
admiringly and eager to follow up some of her insights from Canada's
northern and national indigenous experience. But until recently Australia
lacked the habit of international co-operation and comparative study in
indigenous policy and politics. Now its national ombudsman for indigenous
peoples, Mick Dodson, may be changing that. In two reports published in
early 1995 he outlined a philosophy, an approach, and some start-up
subjects for work that notably included issues that have occupied northern
Canada peoples and governments for the past 30 years(1).

For example, he highlighted, as have the authors of other official advisory
body reports, the approaches of Yukon, NWT, and northern Quebec indigenous
peoples in their landclaims settlements—now increasingly well-known in
Australia as regional agreements. He recommended that Inuit, Sea Sami, and
coastal British Columbians be invited to a workshop with Torres Strait
Islanders and coastal aborigines to share the problems and experience of
marine rights and management. He proposed also that they consider the
usefulness of continuing a network for co-operation and exchange visits.

In a special section of his report he examined aspects—good and bad—of
Canada's national indigenous constitutional work, a subject Australia is
only now embarking on.

However, the growing spirit of indigenous-government bilateral and
multilateral co-operation in circumpolar regions has no equivalent in
Australasia. This is a tragedy, and may mean that, denied such a workable
and rewarding outlet for the sharing of ideas, New Zealand and Australia
will find themselves playing catch-up politics. Both countries have shown
that they are capable of remarkable surges of progress, but, as Canada's
Inuit, Indian First Nations, and Metis know too well, sustaining government
reform in such policy areas is a big problem.

All three countries would benefit from co-operation networks. New Zealand
and Australia have much useful experience and many valuable precedents for
Canadians. Perhaps the most amazing result of international co-operation,
however, is the hope it provides. It breaks down indigenous peoples'
feelings of isolation and powerlessness, as much in scattered hinterlands
as in white cities. It reminds them that others have won similar struggles
for recognition, rights, and territory.

It also breaks down the isolation of governments who then cannot hide
behind terse upbeat press releases in international forums, masking their
indigenous failures with effusions of of ficial good intentions. Instead,
their problems are revealed, and national governments are brought to where
Inuit and other peoples have brought the Canadian government—to the stage
of mutual problem-solving. When governments and indigenous peoples
co-operate, they can achieve great things.

In Australasia, as in Canada, it is time for indigenous leaders and
governments to move beyond recriminations and denial to the real problems
to be solved. Their problems cannot be solved either by anyone working
alone or by governments that do not give an equal political role to
indigenous peoples. In Australia, especially, old habits of government
dominance die hard; too often in the Australian north, centre, and west
they have not died at all.

In northern Canada, and to some extent nationally, we learned that
intelligent discussion and a genuine wish to solve problems could help
overcome deep-rooted racism and ethnocentric policies. Today, as New
Zealand debates the meaning of two ethnic nations within a single territory
and Australia deals with a well-developed "states' rights" movement, the
most hopeful sign is that both countries are optimistic and
forward-looking. One hopes that in the ugly area of race relations a
positive spirit will triumph over racial anxiety.

Likewise, Canada has much to learn from the realities that Australia and
New Zealand face daily. In the real new world order—where European peoples
can no longer call the shots or define the realities and where prickly
ethnicities and new nationalisms resent any comment by Europeans on their
"domestic" affairs—human rights improvements begin at home. I recall a
Clark government ministerial aide noting that Canada supported indigenous
rights in then white-ruled countries of southern Africa that it resisted in
the Northwest Territories. Such inconsistencies are no longer possible when
one has outspoken Malaysian, Singaporean, and other public figures keeping
notes on Australian and New Zealand national debates and outcomes.

Canada has come through the early days of its time of trial on indigenous
issues rather well and sealed its commitment to indigenous internationalism
with the appointment of Inuit leader Mary Simon as circumpolar ambassador
in October 1994.

Yet the two countries most like Canada are not in the circumpolar world,
but in the South Pacific. Shared political traditions, law, ethnicity (for
the national majorities, at least), and socio-cultural values make closer
links on indigenous, constitutional, and hinterland policies and politics
desirable and practical.

The law, politics, and practice of indigenous marine management is one
obvious issue for co-operation. Mining in indigenous territories, the
practicalities of self-government, ethno-regional political settlements
like Torres Strait and Nunavut, and the accommodation (reconciliation, in
Australia) generally of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in society
are others.

The point is to see circumpolar and British Commonwealth connections not as
competing but rather as part of a larger reality—to see that "first world"
indigenous hinterland and urbanization experiences are everywhere the same.
First world governments have the means, public support, and official
ideologies that other countries lack for overcoming such problems. They
have no excuses for not doing so and will have no moral allowances made for
them by the non-European Commonwealth or United Nations for not succeeding.
Nor should they.

Putting their heads together—both governments and indigenous peoples—may be
the best way to make and sustain progress.

1. Dodson, M., 1995, "International Perspectives," Second Report, 1994,
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Social Justice Commissioner, Human
Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, Commonwealth of Australia,
Sydney, pp. 203-218; and "International Connections," Indigenous Social
Justice, Vol. 1, Strategies and Recommendations, Submission to the
Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia on the Social Justice Package,
pp. 41-48.

Peter Jull, a Canadian long associated with Inuit organizations and
Nunavut, is a consultant now based in Brisbane, Australia. [Image]