The year 2014 began promisingly with the announcement by Prime Minister Tony Abbott in January of a planned amendment to the Constitution to recognize Australia's indigenous population as the original inhabitants of Australia. Abbott subsequently pledged in December to hold a constitutional referendum on the issue in 2017. The amendment is seen by rights activists as an important milestone in reversing the historic marginalization suffered by the Aboriginal community. Nevertheless, considerable hurdles remain before the amendment, which was first proposed in 2010, is likely to be passed.

In addition, the positive effects of the amendment may be limited without broader efforts to address the deep-rooted discrimination that Australia's indigenous population continues to face on a daily basis. One issue that sparked national debate during the year was their disproportionate rates of incarceration, described by the Law Council of Australia as a 'national emergency'. Though they make up only around 2.5 per cent of the overall population, indigenous Australians comprise 27 per cent of the country's prison population. This is even higher in some regions, with Aboriginal youth making up 98 per cent of detained juveniles in the Northern Territory. The UN Committee against Torture, in its 2014 review of Australia, noted its concern about the high numbers of indigenous prisoners, as well as cuts in legal assistance and the use of mandatory sentencing laws in some jurisdictions – issues which particularly affect the indigenous community.

The issue of Aboriginal deaths in custody also received renewed attention in 2014 following the death in August of a 22-year-old Aboriginal woman while incarcerated in a Western Australia jail. The women was twice taken by police to a local hospital, but on both occasions was declared well enough to be sent back to prison, despite reportedly not being seen by a doctor. The woman had been placed in South Headland police custody due to unpaid parking fines, a controversial approach that has been blamed for perpetuating the high incarceration rates among the indigenous population and other marginalized groups.

Serious inequalities persist in other areas, too, such as education, employment and health: for example, life expectancy for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations is still a decade less than that enjoyed by non-indigenous Australians. Progress to reduce these disparities has been slow, with Abbott admitting in February 2015 that the country's continued failure to meet most targets on improving outcomes for indigenous communities in areas such as education, employment and community safety was 'profoundly disappointing'. Yet the introduction of the government's controversial Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) in July, consolidating 150 different programmes into five broad thematic areas and involving cuts of more than AU$500 million over the next five years, has generated considerable resentment among indigenous communities. In addition to reduced overall funding, significant portions of the new budget have gone to state departments, sporting clubs and other non-indigenous organizations, while some local indigenous organizations found that their funding had been halted.

One challenge in terms of service access and development is the geographical seclusion of many rural indigenous communities. While the country as a whole is highly urbanized, with almost 90 per cent of Australians now living in urban areas, the proportion is significantly lower among the indigenous population; over 20 per cent are still based in areas classified as remote or very remote, compared to less than 2 per cent of the non-indigenous population. Many of these isolated communities, particularly in the Northern Territory, struggle with higher levels of child mortality, poor living standards and lack of access to essential services such as health care. These issues are compounded by a lack of culturally appropriate programmes and limited opportunities for bilingual education, with a large proportion of indigenous children in more remote areas of the country barely able to read or write.

Though some remote indigenous communities face significant challenges, the announcement in November 2014 by the Western Australia state government that as many as 150 of its 274 Aboriginal communities would be shut down sparked widespread outrage among Aboriginal Australians and rights activists. The announcement was made following the decision of the Australian federal government to stop funding power, water and other services to these communities beyond the next two years, with Western Australia accepting an AU$90 million one-off payment from the federal government to take responsibility for the services. The Western Australia State Premier, Colin Barnett, claimed that without federal funding the state government could not afford to continue to service the communities, despite being the richest state in Australia. He also justified the closure of the communities in terms of safety and well-being, citing 'high rates of suicide, poor education, poor health [and] no jobs'.

The decision was strongly condemned by the deputy indigenous adviser to the Abbott government, Dr Ngiare Brown, who argued that 'governments have the responsibility to understand the historical and contemporary contexts of those communities and the failure of systems which placed them at risk, and then negotiate the best possible options' for them. Amnesty International has noted that the plan to evict traditional owners from their homes would cause considerable trauma to the communities and that for them migration to larger urban centres would present an even higher risk of substance abuse, crime and other issues. Nor, when the decision was made, was there a plan in place to support community members in transitioning to their new context elsewhere.

The potential effects of uprooting communities in this way were demonstrated in 2011 when the small indigenous settlement of Oombulgurri was forcibly closed by the state government after evidence emerged of high levels of violence, suicide and sexual assault in the area. Those who refused to leave were evicted from the town and public services closed down. In 2014, despite protests from rights groups, the town was demolished. The transition for residents was reportedly traumatic, with inadequate support services and housing in place for displaced residents who were forced to relocate to a larger urban area nearby. Some community members were reportedly still homeless at the end of 2014, several years later.

Notably, similar agreements to transfer responsibility for remote communities have been reached between the federal government and the States of Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania, with responsibility for the provision of power, water and other services now falling to the state authorities. The State of South Australia initially rejected a payout, but in April 2015 reached an agreement with the federal government to share the management of the state's indigenous settlements, which otherwise would have faced closure. The implications of these changes for other rural indigenous communities remain to be seen.

Nevertheless, with the exception of certain areas such as the Northern Territory where three-quarters of the population are rural, the majority of Australia's indigenous populations are now urban. The relocation of indigenous communities to urban areas is rooted in part in Australia's troubled colonial history, beginning with their displacement and forcible resettlement in missions and reserves. Limited opportunities and the takeover of much of their former homelands subsequently pushed increasing numbers of indigenous people, particularly in the second half of the twentieth century, to migrate in search of opportunities. Nevertheless, various improvements in rural areas from the 1960s onwards, such as recognition of land rights and more government funding, reduced the pull of migration to urban areas. In the past few decades, demographic increases have resulted primarily from natural growth over multiple generations, as well as higher levels of self-identification among the indigenous urban population in censuses and population surveys.

The effects of urbanization for indigenous Australians has been mixed. Despite the difficulties of adjusting to unfamiliar urban settings, life in Australia's cities has brought many positive developments. In particular, the interaction of many previously separated communities in urban areas led to the emergence of a shared indigenous consciousness and the beginning of indigenous political activism. While aspects of traditional indigenous culture have undoubtedly been eroded – for example, just 1 per cent of indigenous people in urban areas speak an indigenous language, compared to 56 per cent in rural areas – cities have in some ways helped reinforce indigenous identity and enabled the reinvention of indigenous heritage in new and distinctly urban forms of expression. Urban indicators in a range of sectors, from employment to education, also outperform those in rural areas by a significant margin.

Nevertheless, indigenous residents continue to experience serious inequalities in cities compared to the non-indigenous population, particularly as shifts in urban labour markets have reduced employment opportunities for workers with limited job skills or education. Indicators such as educational attainment, income and health are also poorer among urban indigenous communities than the non-indigenous urban population. In addition, evidence suggests that indigenous residents are disproportionately situated in poorer and marginalized city districts. Discrimination and exclusion have therefore persisted and have even led to new forms of disadvantage. Some studies have suggested, for instance, that well-being and self-reported levels of happiness among indigenous Australians in rural areas is higher, despite lower levels of development. The overall picture of indigenous urbanization in Australia is therefore mixed, with cities bringing considerable benefits while also maintaining many inequalities.

Though Australia has a vibrant and diverse population, especially in urban areas, there have been ongoing reports of ethnic minorities being subjected to increasing racism. A 2014 survey reported that experience of discrimination remains close to the highest level recorded; 18 per cent of those surveyed reported that they had experienced racial, ethnic or religious discrimination compared with 19 per cent in 2013 – the highest level recorded since this particular survey began in 2007. There have also been repeated reports of minorities and foreigners being subjected to hate speech on public transport in major cities, including two widely reported incidents in Sydney and Perth in which Asian women were verbally abused by other passengers. There were also concerns, following a religiously motivated attack on a Sydney coffee shop in December 2014 which led to the deaths of two hostages, that attacks against Australia's Muslim population would escalate in the aftermath. However, Sydney citizens and activists launched a campaign online with the hashtag #IllRideWithYou, with users offering to accompany Muslims in religious attire on public transport as a gesture of solidarity.

Increasing racism and xenophobia in Australia, particularly towards Muslims, may also contribute to widespread popular support for the country's punitive policies towards asylum seekers. The majority of asylum seekers, originating mostly from Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, are ethnically distinct from the white Australian majority and are often presumed by members of the general public to be Muslim. All asylum seekers entering Australian territory by boat continue to face mandatory, indefinite and non-reviewable detention at centres on Nauru or Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, in conditions described by UNHCR as unsafe and in violation of international standards. Violence and neglect in these centres remain serious issues: an Iranian man was beaten to death in May in a riot at the Manus Island centre, while in September another asylum seeker was left brain dead after an infected cut was not adequately treated, resulting in septicaemia.

The government has nevertheless continued to militarize migration control and forcibly returned boats carrying asylum seekers to their country of origin. In 2014, Australia attempted to return a boat carrying 153 asylum seekers and refugees to Sri Lanka. The Australian High Court blocked the attempt temporarily after it found that another boatload of 41 people had already been returned to Sri Lanka, where they faced persecution. The 153 asylum seekers on the boat were held aboard the Customs vessel as the government sought to arrange their return to India, and were subsequently sent to Nauru. In January 2015 the High Court held that the government had not acted illegally when it detained them at sea for almost a month. These policies were further institutionalized in December 2014 when parliament passed the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment, strengthening the power of maritime controls to take asylum seekers found at sea to other destinations and also reducing other safeguards for asylum seekers. The Act has been criticized by a wide coalition of stakeholders for further eroding human rights standards relating to asylum seekers.

This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.