Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

About the Australian Human Rights Commission navigation

Social Justice and Wellbeing

AIATSIS Seminar Series 2010: Indigenous Wellbeing, Canberra


Mick Gooda
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner


28 June 2010

Introduction

I begin today by paying my respects to the Ngunnawal peoples and their elders, whose land we meet on today. I acknowledge their graciousness in sharing their lands and their culture with all those who live and visit here.

I also thank AIATSIS for asking me to speak today as part of their 2010 seminar series on Indigenous wellbeing. The series has been running for three months now, over the course of which there has been a range of perspectives and ideas shared on different aspects of wellbeing and the efforts on attaining it for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. To this already rich collective discussion, I would like to add today, a few reflections on how I see a human rights framework can contribute to improving the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Central to my discussion on a human rights approach to Indigenous wellbeing will be understanding how the right to self-determination, as recognised in the UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and other human rights agreements, is essential to addressing the inequities and disadvantages Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples face in areas such as economic development, health and education. I will also consider how human rights can provide a useful framework for considering practical approaches to addressing Indigenous wellbeing in a holistic manner that incorporates the physical, mental, social, economic, political and cultural elements of wellbeing.

What is Indigenous wellbeing?

As several of the commentators to date have already contemplated during this seminar series, wellbeing can be a relatively nebulous concept that at the end of the day can mean all things to everyone. One of the simpler definitions that I came across was that wellbeing was a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous. But the debate on wellbeing has taken this notion deeper to look into what does it take to achieve this state of wellbeing and how can the progress towards achieving it be best measured.

The World Health Organisation has grounded the idea of wellbeing within its broad concept of health, which it defines as:

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.[1]

For some wellbeing can be equated to the idea of ‘quality of life’ – which is distinguished from the idea of a standard of living. The latter is based primarily on income and economic dimensions. Whereas quality of life, which also includes wealth, employment, extends to cover other dimensions such as the built environment, physical and mental health, education, recreation and leisure time and social belonging.

While internationally and in Australia, there is growing agreement that the concept of wellbeing is necessarily multi-dimensional, covering such dimensions of our lives as the social, emotional, health, livelihood, cultural and spiritual, as the seminar series has explored to date there is still an evolving debate on whether there is a distinct concept of Indigenous wellbeing?

The tension that arises in the debate is between whether there is a universal standard of wellbeing for all people, or if there are differing values that inform what our sense of wellbeing is.

While many of us may share common factors of wellbeing, for each of us, our wellbeing is also informed by our cultural and social values and our specific experiences and histories.

For instance the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health (CRCAH) have noted:

Aboriginal social life has provided a framework for social, psychological and economic security, in which wellbeing was socially determined through the organisation of relationships with the land and with people within frameworks of law and ceremony, family organisation and systems of belief known as ‘the dreaming’.

[However] colonisation brought about forced disruption of social and cultural systems of family life and welfare through policies of assimilation and child removal.[2]

Thus Aboriginal wellbeing has been deeply harmed by the dispossession and colonisation of Aboriginal peoples, and the subsequent loss of lands, loss of language and loss of culture.

Consequently, there have been some constructive efforts to develop definitions of wellbeing that are informed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, their worldview and their histories. Some examples of this include:

Enjoying a high level of social and emotional wellbeing can be described as living in a community where everyone feels good about the way they live and the way they feel. Key factors in achieving this include connectedness to family and community, control over one’s environment and exercising power of choice.[3]

Achieving optimal conditions for health and wellbeing requires a holistic and whole-of-life view of health that encompasses the social, emotional and cultural wellbeing of the whole community.[4]

An Aboriginal concept of health is holistic, encompassing mental health and physical, cultural and spiritual health. Social and emotional wellbeing is a concept that attempts to encompass this holistic view of health. It also seeks to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ particular experiences of grief and trauma through colonisation, separation from families, and loss of land and culture.[5]

There is no word in Aboriginal languages for Health. The closest words mean "well being" and well being in the language of Nurwugen people of the Northern Territory means 'strong, happy, knowledgeable, socially responsible, to take care, beautiful, clean' both in the sense of being within the Law and in the sense of being cared for and that suggests to me that country and people and land and health and Law cannot be separated. They are all One and it's how we work with and respect each other and how we work with and respect the country on which we live that will enable us to continue to live across generations.[6]

Several commentators have noted that applying a definition of wellbeing that isn’t informed by the worldview of Indigenous peoples, upon Indigenous peoples, can lead to a failure to focus on the elements necessary for Indigenous wellbeing.

For example, while employment might be an important indicator for wellbeing for many Australians, if it is at the expense of connection with country, family and community, it may not result in the actual improvement of wellbeing for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person.

Measures of wellbeing

While the perception of wellbeing may differ between people, the need to measure wellbeing has been a driving force in developing indicators of wellbeing that are universally applicable and therefore comparable, to assess the level of wellbeing that is being achieved by one group or another. Much of the literature on wellbeing therefore has focused closely on the indicators for measuring wellbeing.

Several frameworks for wellbeing indicators have been developed both overseas and within Australia. A common indictor framework used at the international level is the UN Human Development Index.[7] Within Australia indicators frameworks that have focused on Indigenous people include the NATSIS Survey[8] and the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Report,[9] produced annually by the Productivity Commission.

But such frameworks have been criticised for not being adequately informed by Indigenous notions of wellbeing, and therefore for containing inappropriate indicators and data collection methods. CAEPR researchers such as Kirrily Jordan have noted that such generic frameworks do not capture the aspirations and livelihoods of Indigenous peoples, with the result that their implementation can disadvantage Indigenous peoples.[10]

One of the impacts of relying on mainstream wellbeing measurement frameworks has been that when comparing the measures between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups, the focus is on the disparity between the two groups and the comparative level of disadvantage faced by Indigenous peoples. As a result of this the focus can become limited to achieving statistical equality - that doesn’t allow for Indigenous difference.[11]

An example of this is the current Government’s Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage Policy.[12] Some commentators have argued that this approach has limited value because it focuses on providing Indigenous peoples the same standards of wellbeing that non-Indigenous peoples have. Rather than recognising the broader requirements of the more holistic nature of Indigenous wellbeing. Further, focusing on the disparity can result in a misplaced characterisation of Indigenous peoples as being ‘dysfunctional’.[13] Commentators have argued that in such an approach there is limited scope for recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ strengths, resources and capabilities, which equally contribute to our wellbeing.[14]

If the nature of wellbeing was understood from an Indigenous perspective in the first instance, there is greater scope for incorporating the strengths as well as the disparities faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. There is also greater scope for addressing the disparity in ways that build on the strengths of the community, and are inclusive of other elements of our world view, including our cultural aspects, the connection to land, family and community.

Close the Gap Campaign

I would like to take a moment here to demonstrate how this difference in approach is borne out in the Close the Gap campaign, as distinct from the COAG policy on Closing the Gap on Indigenous disadvantage.

In 2005 my predecessor Tom Calma in his Social Justice Report called on Australian governments to commit to achieving health and life expectation equality between our people and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation. This was based on our right to health and right to enjoy the same opportunities to be as healthy as other Australians.[15]

That Report characterised Indigenous health inequality as a major human rights issue, and called for a human rights based approach to the Indigenous health gap.

And as a rights issue, Indigenous health inequality was largely framed as an opportunity gap – that Indigenous peoples in Australia did not enjoy the same opportunities to be as healthy as other Australians. That is, to see doctors when they needed them, eat fresh food, live in healthy housing and so on. And this is where human rights play such an important role in providing a sound intellectual and legal foundation for an approach to Indigenous health.

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognises ‘the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health’.

The right to health is essentially the right to opportunities to be healthy: it includes the enjoyment of a variety of facilities, goods, services and conditions necessary for the realisation of the highest attainable standard of health. It is not to be understood as a right to be healthy (which is something that cannot be guaranteed solely by governments).

We have a human right to the same opportunities to be healthy as other Australians.

This focus on ensuring equality of opportunity is reflected in the way the right to health is understood, largely as set out in General Comment 14 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[16]

Thus the right to health contains the following interrelated and essential elements:

And I’m sure as I’ve set out these elements of the right to health in relation to health services, you can see immediately how the right itself is of enormous assistance to Indigenous Australians; recognising the importance of culturally tailored services, for example, in ensuring that we are able to access health services.

Thus Governments have immediate obligations in relation to the right to health. In particular, the obligation to take deliberate, concrete and targeted steps towards the full realisation of the right to health - known as the progressive realisation principle.[17]

In 2007 the Rudd Government, the federal opposition, the main Indigenous and non-Indigenous peak health bodies and the Social Justice Commissioner all signed the ‘Close the Gap Statement of Intent’ which committed all parties to achieving health equality by 2030, supported by a partnership between Australian governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and representatives.

The Close the Gap Campaign does not promote the simple integration of Indigenous people into the mainstream as the way to achieve equality but rather promotes Indigenous agency for achieving equality. Implicit in this is Indigenous cultures are a strength and positive capability for improve our right to health. The Close the Gap Campaign Statement of Intent notes:

We recognise that specific measures are needed to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ access to health services. Crucial to ensuring equal access to health services is ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are actively involved in the design, delivery, and control of these services.

We are committed... To ensuring the full participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their representative bodies in all aspects of addressing their health needs.[18]

Developing measures for Indigenous wellbeing

In recent years, at the international level there has been a concerted process to define indicators specifically for indigenous peoples’ wellbeing and sustainable development.

The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues, which I was fortunate to attended this year for the first time, considered this issue in a series of regional and thematic workshops during 2006 -2007, and reported our findings in the seventh session of the Forum in 2008. The Forum examined a range of wellbeing indicators across the UN system, such as the Millennium Development Goals, the International Labour Organization’s poverty reduction strategy papers, and the Convention on Biological Diversity and found that there was a significant lack of data that highlighted the status of wellbeing of Indigenous peoples. The feeling was that one of the reasons for this was the lack of specific indicators in existing wellbeing frameworks that reflected the issues central to Indigenous wellbeing. Thus through the series of regional workshops, Indigenous peoples were brought together to identify what they saw as the key themes were for Indigenous wellbeing and what were the kinds of indicators that could be used to measure this. They identified 12 global core themes and issues relevant to Indigenous peoples which included:


Efforts to develop indicators for Indigenous wellbeing have highlighted that the biggest challenge faced by indigenous peoples and communities is to ensure territorial security, legal recognition of ownership and control over customary land and resources, and the sustainable utilization of lands and other renewable resources for the cultural, economic and physical health and wellbeing of indigenous peoples.[20]

Identifying these themes and related indictors is a critical opportunity for Indigenous worldviews to inform the concept of wellbeing and how it should be measured.

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

In a similar way the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration),[21] which was also informed by the world view of Indigenous peoples, builds on the universal human rights values and standards that have been recognised for al peoples, and specifies how they manifest for Indigenous peoples around the world.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration) was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 September 2007. It was adopted with 143 countries voting in favour, 11 abstaining and 4 voting against. Australia was one of the four countries who voted against the Declaration.
On 3 April 2009, the Australian Government changed its position and formally supported the Declaration.

Today, Australia joins the international community to affirm the aspirations of all Indigenous peoples. We do this in the spirit of re-setting the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and building trust.[22]

The Declaration is an international human rights instrument that recognises the rights of Indigenous peoples. The Declaration does not create new rights but elaborates upon existing international human rights norms and principles as they apply to indigenous peoples. These include the rights to:

The Declaration is among the first international human rights instruments to explicitly provide for the protection of women and children against all forms of violence.
The Declaration provides a set of internationally endorsed objective standards to guide the government’s relationship with Indigenous peoples, and to promote actions that respect and protect Indigenous cultures.

Any reading of the text of the Declaration makes it clear that it offers a programmatic approach to dealing with indigenous disadvantage.[23] The Declaration should be seen as a remedial instrument, designed to rectify a history of failings when it comes to protecting indigenous peoples human rights.

Article 43 is a key provision in the Declaration and it states:

The rights recognized herein constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and wellbeing of the indigenous peoples of the world.

It is easy to miss the significance of this statement. However, when it is remembered that the Declaration was overwhelmingly adopted in the General Assembly of the United Nations, its importance becomes clear. The General Assembly is the home of Nation-States and their governments, not of academics nor human rights experts. So it was the governments of the world who stood up together in adopting this Declaration and said the rights in the Declaration are a road map not only for more equitable outcomes for indigenous peoples but for their very ‘survival, dignity and wellbeing’.

In following this road map, it is crucial to grasp another central tenant of the Declaration, namely the importance of re-setting relationships between indigenous peoples and the broader community but more particularly governments. In other words better engagement. The Declaration in affirming indigenous peoples collective rights to self-determination and decision-making powers through the principle of free, prior and informed consent, is not an instrument of division, rather an instrument to create the institutional structures, arrangements and process needed for indigenous peoples to be able to effectively engage in a relationship with Governments based on mutual respect. Any doubt to this is made clear in the preamble which states the General Assembly is:

Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in this Declaration will enhance the harmonious and cooperative relations between the State and indigenous peoples.[24]
Following Australia’s endorsement of the Declaration, we are now in the process of examining how the Declaration can be implemented within Australia. Consequently it is useful to look at how the Declaration and the rights and principles it recognises can also inform this discussion of wellbeing. The central tenet of the Declaration that I would like to focus on to do this is the right to self determination.

What is the right to self-determination?

The right to self-determination is a right for all peoples, and is recognised in common Article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The same right of self-determination is contained in Article 3 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Professor Erica-Irene Daes, a Former Chair of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations spoke of what the right to self-determination means for Indigenous peoples and she said:

[s]elf-determination means the freedom for indigenous peoples to live well, to live according to their own values and beliefs, and to be respected by their non-indigenous neighbours...

[Indigenous peoples'] goal has been achieving the freedom to live well and humanly - and to determine what it means to live humanly. In my view, no government has grounds for fearing that.[25]

Professor James Anaya, who is the current UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples identified five elements which constitute the right to self-determination in the context of indigenous peoples:

The Social Justice Report 2002 identified several factors essential to the realisation of the right to self-determination for indigenous peoples. Some of these included:

2. Respect for distinct cultural values and diversity is fundamental to the notion of self-determination.

3. The protection of self-determination unquestionably involves some kind of collective political identity for indigenous nations and peoples, i.e. it requires official recognition of their representatives and institutions.

4. Respect for Indigenous peoples' relationship to land and resources is an integral component of self-determination, from an economic, social, political and cultural dimension.

6. Essential to the exercise of self-determination is choice, participation and control. The essential requirement for self-determination is that the outcome corresponds to the free and voluntary choice of the people concerned.

9. A notion of popular participation is inherent to self-determination.

11. The existence in democratic societies of structural and procedural barriers which inhibit the full participation of indigenous peoples must be recognised. The nature of participation and representativeness required by self-determination necessitates going beyond such sameness of treatment and to strive for institutional innovation.[27]

What these definitions highlight is that the right to self-determination for indigenous peoples is about guaranteeing full, free and effective participation in all aspects of public life, particularly government decision-making.[28]

Accordingly, the essential requirement for self-determination is that it corresponds to the choice, participation and control of the people concerned[29] and what has been recognised in the Declaration as the principle of free, prior and informed consent.

Article 19

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

Article 23 Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples have the right to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and social programmes affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programmes through their own institutions.

Article 32

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.

2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

How does the right to self-determination inform Indigenous wellbeing?

But having explained this concept of self-determination let me speak more directly on how the right to self-determination can inform this discussion of wellbeing. To do that let me step back first to see the benefit of a human rights framework in this discussion on wellbeing.

The human rights framework identifies the fundamental values and standards necessary for people to achieve our full wellbeing, in relation to health, education, housing, participation, and culture. Comparative analysis across OECD countries has shown that there is a strong correlation between countries that have a high level of recognition of human rights also have a high level of positive wellbeing.[30]

The right to self-determination, enables the debate on Indigenous wellbeing to be taken beyond the discussion of just jobs and employment, to understanding a holistic sense of wellbeing that also includes the non-economic areas of wellbeing such as social and political participation and culture.

Aboriginal wellbeing is ensured through the protection of rights to tangible and intangible cultural practices and is seen to be culturally based, existing through an intergenerational continuation of cultural knowledges and practices.[31]

As Kerry Arabena has commented, the challenge of 'being Indigenous' is a crucial issue for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people today. Who we are, and how we live, is framed by artificial, state-created identities that resist and minimise the recognition that is provided to our cultures, our history, our capacities to contribute and our on-going connection to the land and sea.

The recognition of the right to self-determination at a practical level could generate greater participation in decision-making processes, and create a space for dialogue between government and community.

Where people have participated in the process they are often more supportive and dedicated to the outcomes, thus generating greater respect for representative democratic institutions and processes and greater social solidarity overall.[32]

Self-determination is not just about consultation, it is about empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to take control of our own affairs in all aspects of our lives. Such as:

For Indigenous peoples particularly, given the history of lack of consultation, lack of participation and lack of engagement in government policy making and program development to date, the recognition of the right to self-determination provides an important foundation for promoting Indigenous peoples’ democratic inclusion and improved accountability.[33]

For Indigenous wellbeing, this means participation in the development of definitions wellbeing, that are informed by Indigenous world views, participation in the development of the measuring frameworks that assess the progress of achieving wellbeing, and participation in the design and implementation of the policies and programs that are put in place to achieve Indigenous wellbeing.

The formation of the new National Congress for Australia’s First Peoples will have an important role to play in advancing this level of participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples being involved in assessing what policies and programs are most needed for achieving Indigenous wellbeing.

Thus the right to self-determination, as others have also argued[34] becomes the pre-requisite element for Indigenous wellbeing. Similarly, for indigenous peoples, the right to self-determination is a pre-requisite for the exercise of our social, cultural, economic and political rights.
At this year’s Permanent Forum Session, there was an active debate on addressing the development of Indigenous peoples that is embedded in the right to self-determination. The theme was ‘development with culture and identity’.

‘Development with culture and identity’ is a process that includes the strengthening of indigenous peoples, harmony and sustained interaction with their environment, sound management of natural resources and territories, the creation and exercise of authority, and respect for the rights and values of indigenous peoples, including cultural, economic, social and institutional rights, in accordance with their own worldview and governance.[35]

The challenge for the strategy lies in supporting and promoting development initiatives and organizational systems unique to indigenous peoples in order to improve their living conditions through their own leadership and in a manner consistent with each community’s specific socio-cultural situation and vision. This means greater access, with gender equality, to socioeconomic development opportunities that strengthen identity, culture, territoriality, natural resources and social organization, and reduce material poverty and marginalisation.[36]

This approach for addressing wellbeing was also supported by the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, Mr James Anaya. In his report on Australia he noted the need to develop new social and economic initiatives and to reform existing ones to allow respect for cultural integrity and self-determination. He recommended indigenous participation in the design, delivery, and monitoring of programmes, and promoting culturally-appropriate programmes that incorporate or build on indigenous people’s own initiatives.[37]

He noted that governmental programmes such as Closing the Gap must secure not just social and economical wellbeing for indigenous peoples, but also advance Indigenous peoples' rights to self-determination and their rights to maintain their distinct cultural identities, languages and connections, with their traditional lands.[38]

Conclusion

Having formally supported the Declaration, the Australian Government now needs to shift its attention to the implementation of the provisions of the Declaration. Key to its implementation in Australia will be government support for Indigenous peoples to realise their own development through initiatives that develop their right to self-determination. To this end the government can play a positive role by reviewing its policies, programs and mechanisms for service delivery, in line with the rights recognised under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous peoples have the right to define and decide on their own development priorities. This means they have the right to participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development that may affect them. This principle is re-affirmed as one of the objectives of the Second International Decade on the World’s Indigenous People. The principle requires that UN programmes and projects also take measures to involve indigenous peoples in all stages of the development process.[39]

A central tenet of Indigenous peoples’ rights is our right to effective participation in policies that affect us. The ‘human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right’.[40]

To conclude, I have today tried to share my journey of understanding of how a human rights approach, embedded in right to self-determination, as recognised in the Declaration, can inform the future development of Indigenous wellbeing.

The advantages of rights based approach is that it enables a holistic approach to wellbeing to be adopted. One that recognises the full set of political, social, economic and cultural rights. It also, as the Close the Gap Campaign has shown, enables a rights based approach to development to be adopted, one that sets concrete targets against which the progressive realisation of the right can be measures, and one that enables Indigenous people’s agency to be paramount. Most importantly, a rights based approach incorporates the right of Indigenous peoples to participate in the definition of Indigenous wellbeing, participate in the development of Indigenous wellbeing indicators and measurement frameworks and participate in the development design and implementation of policies and programs for their own wellbeing. Thus valuing and recognising the strengths that Indigenous peoples bring to this discussion.

Thank you.


[1] Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19-22 June, 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948. At http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html (viewed 25 June 2010).
[2] Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health, Listening to Aboriginal voices: Valuing Aboriginal solutions to Aboriginal health - Social and emotional well being program statement (2006), p 3. At http://www.crcah.org.au/research/socialandemotionalwellbeing.html (viewed 25 June 2010).
[3] South Australian Aboriginal Health Partnership. Aboriginal Health – Everybody’s Business; Social and Emotional Wellbeing. A South Australian Strategy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People 2005-2010, p 6. At http://www.health.sa.gov.au/Default.aspx?tabid=58. Cited in Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health, Listening to Aboriginal voices: Valuing Aboriginal solutions to Aboriginal health - Social and emotional well being program statement (2006), p 2. At http://www.crcah.org.au/research/socialandemotionalwellbeing.html (viewed 25 June 2010).
[4] Social Health Reference Group, National Strategic Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Mental Health and Social and Emotional Well Being 2004-2009 (2004), p 9.
[5] Swan & Raphael, Ways forward (1995) cited in Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health, Social and Emotional Wellbeing Framework (2004-2009) (2004), p 7.
[6] J Atkinson, Healing Relationships between People and Country (speech given at the Wollumbin Dreaming Festival, 2002).
[7] UN Development Programme, Human Rights Development Reports. At http://hdr.undp.org/en/ (viewed 25 June 2010).
[8] Australian Bureau of Statistics, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (2009). At http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0d21d0868273a2c3ca25697b00207e97/9ad558b6d0aed752ca256c7600018788!OpenDocument (viewed 25 June 2010).
[9] Productivity Commission, Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage Report: Key Indicators 2009 (2009). At http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/reports/indigenous/keyindicators2009 (viewed 25 June 2010).
[10] K Jordan, G Buchanan, H Bulloch, K May Wellbeing and Indigenous Australians, CAEPR Seminar, 28 February 2010 (podcast). At http://caepr.anu.edu.au/Seminars/09/Seminar-Topics%E2%80%94Series-1/10_6_Seminar.php (heard 25 June 2010).
[11] K Jordan, G Buchanan, H Bulloch, K May Wellbeing and Indigenous Australians, CAEPR Seminar, 28 February 2010 (podcast). At http://caepr.anu.edu.au/Seminars/09/Seminar-Topics%E2%80%94Series-1/10_6_Seminar.php (heard 25 June 2010).

[12] In 2007, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) committed to closing the gap in life outcomes and opportunities between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous Australians. In November 2008, COAG endorsed the National Indigenous Reform Agreement (NIRA) for implanting this policy.
[13] K Pholi, D Black, C Richards, ‘Is ‘Close the Gap’ a useful approach to improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians?’ (2009) Vol 9, No 2, Australia Review of Public Affairs, p10.
[14] J Taylor, ‘Indigenous Peoples and Indicators of Well-being: Australian Perspectives on United Nations Global Frameworks’ (2008) Issue 87 Social Indicators Resource 111-126, p123.
[15] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Social Justice Report 2005 (2005) ch 2.
[16] Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 14: The right to the highest possible attainable standard of health (art 12), UN Doc: E/C.12/2000/4 (2000). At http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/40d009901358b0e2c1256915005090be?Opendocument (viewed 25 June 2010).
[17] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976) art 2(1); Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 3: The nature of States parties obligations (Art. 2, par.1) UN Doc: HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 14 (1990). At http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/CESCR+General+comment+3.En?OpenDocument (viewed 25 June 2010).
[18] Close the gap Indigenous Health Equality Summit, Statement of Intent, 20 March 2008. At http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/health/statement_intent.html (viewed 25 June 2010).
[19] UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Indigenous Peoples´ Indicators of Well-being, Poverty and Sustainability (2008), p 10. At http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/session_seventh.html (viewed 25 June 2010).
[20] UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc ST/ESA/328 (2009), p 42. At http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/sowip.html (viewed 25 June 2010).
[21] UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Resolution 61/295, UN Doc: A/61/L.67 (2007). At http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp (viewed 25 June 2010).
[22] Hon Jenny Macklin MP, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Statement on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Parliament House, Canberra (3 April 2009). At http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/statements/Pages/un_declaration_03apr09.aspx (viewed 25 June 2010).
[23] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Resolution 61/295, UN Doc: A/61/L.67 (2007), preambular paras 2 and 3. See also J Anaya, International Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples (2009).
[24] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, GA Resolution 61/295, UN Doc: A/61/L.67 (2007), preambular para 18.
[25] E Daes 'Striving for self-determination for Indigenous peoples' in Y Kly and D Kly (eds), In pursuit of the right to self-determination (2000), p 58.
[26] J Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (2004).
[27] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Social Justice Report 2002, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2002), p 28-30.
[28] J Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (2004).
[29] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Social Justice Report 2002, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (2002), p 20.
[30] M Salvaris, ‘Economic and Social Rights: the Victorian Charter’s Unfinished Business’, Just Policy, (2007) 43, 30-49.
[31] Grieves (2006:18-19) cited in K Arabena, Indigenous Epistemology and Wellbeing: Universe referent citizenship, AIATSIS Research Discussion Paper Number 22 ((2008), p 5.
[32] M Castan and D Yarrow, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Memorandum to R Inglis, Victorian Aboriginal Legal Services, 1 February 2006.
[33] M Castan and D Yarrow, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Memorandum to R Inglis, Victorian Aboriginal Legal Services, 1 February 2006.
[34] F Panzironi, Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and development policy (2006).
[35] Inter-American Development Bank, Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples and Strategy for Indigenous Development (2006), p 5.
[36] Inter-American Development Bank, Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples and Strategy for Indigenous Development (2006), p 20.
[37] Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Addendum: The Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Australia UN Doc, A/HRC/15 (2010) para 72, 91.
[38] Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Addendum: The Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Australia UN Doc, A/HRC/15 (2010) p 2.
[39] United Nations Development Group, Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples' Issues (2008) p 14. At http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/docs/guidelines.pdf (viewed 25 June 2010).
[40] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Social Justice Report 2007 (2007), p 241. At http://humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/sj_report/sjreport07/chap3.html#fnB66 (viewed 25 June 2010).