Native Tongue Title: compensation for the loss of Aboriginal languages
Ghil’ad Zuckermann The University of Adelaide
Shiori Shakuto-Neoh Australian National University
Giovanni Matteo Quer Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Abstract: This paper proposes the enactment of an ex gratia compensation scheme for loss of Indigenous languages in Australia. Although some Australian states have enacted ex gratia compensation schemes for the victims of the Stolen Generation policies, the victims of ‘linguicide’ (language killing) are largely overlooked by the Australian Government. Existing grant schemes to support Aboriginal languages are inadequate, and they should be complemented with compensation schemes, which are based on a claim of right. The proposed compensation scheme for the loss of Aboriginal languages should support the effort to reclaim and revive the lost languages. We first outline the history of linguicide during colonisation in Australia. We then put a case for reviving lost Aboriginal languages by high lighting the benefits of language revival. After evaluating the limits of existing Australian law in supporting the language revival efforts, this paper proposes a statute-based ex gratia compensation scheme, which can be colloquially called ‘Native Tongue Title’. Background 2012) have made Australia an unlucky place. Language is an archaeological vehicle, full of These twin forces have been in operation in the remnants of dead and living pasts, lost Australia since the early colonial period, when and buried civilizations and technologies. efforts were made to prevent Aboriginal people The language we speak is a whole palimpsest from continuing to speak their languages in order of human effort and history. (Russell Hoban, to ‘civilize’ them. Anthony Forster, a nineteenth- children’s writer, 1925–2011, in Haffenden century financier and politician, gave voice to 1985:138) a colonial linguicide ideology, which was typi- Linguicide (language killing) and glottophagy cal of much of the attitude towards Australian (language eating; see Zuckermann and Monaghan languages (report on a public meeting of the
Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 55 Native Tongue Title Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer
South Australian Missionary Society in aid of field of enquiry studying comparatively and system the German Mission to the Aborigines, Southern atically the universal constraints and global mech- Australian, 8 September 1843, p.2, in Scrimgeour anisms on the one hand (see Zuckermann 2009), 2007:116): and particularistic peculiarities and cultural relativist idiosyncrasies on the other, apparent The natives would be sooner civilized if their in linguistic revitalisation attempts across vari- language was extinct. The children taught ous sociological backgrounds, all over the globe would afterwards mix only with whites, (Zuckermann and Walsh 2011). Revivalistics where their own language would be of no use combines scientific studies of native language — the use of their language would preserve acquisition and foreign language learning: their prejudices and debasement, and their language was not sufficient to express the language reclamation is the most extreme case of ideas of civilized life. foreign language learning. This paper explores the legal dimensions of Even Governor of South Australia George Grey, Revivalistics in Australia. It reiterates the bene- who was relatively pro-Aboriginal, appeared to fits of language revival for Australia and for the share this opinion and remarked in his journal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, that ‘the ruder languages disappear successively, and proposes an enactment of new legislation to and the tongue of England alone is heard around’ compensate for the lost Aboriginal languages. (Grey 1841:200–01). What was seen as a civilis- The proposed legislation can be colloquially ing process was actually the traumatic death of called Native Tongue Title, modelled upon the various fascinating and multifaceted Aboriginal established concept of Native Title. languages. We acknowledge that Native Title is not a It is not surprising, therefore, that of approx- compensatory mechanism. Native Title is the imately 330 known Aboriginal languages, today legal recognition by Australian law that some only 13 (4 per cent) are spoken natively by chil- Indigenous people have existing and continuing dren. Blatant statements of linguistic imperialism, rights to, and interests in, their land that come such as the ones made by Forster and Grey, now from their traditional laws and customs. After seem to be less frequent, but the processes they the recognition of Native Title, the government describe are nonetheless still active. cannot extinguish their rights to land with- Approximately 7000 languages are current out compensation. Compensation in relation ly spoken worldwide. The majority of these are to Native Title generally arises when groups spoken by small populations. Approximately have successfully claimed Native Title and then 96 per cent of the world’s population speaks negotiate positive economic terms with mining around 4 per cent of the world’s languages, companies and others who want to take over leaving the vast majority of tongues vulnerable these lands. We believe that we can draw a paral- to extinction and disempowering their speakers. lel with concepts explored in Native Title. We Linguistic diversity reflects many things beyond accidental historical splits. Languages are essen- argue that the Australian Government ought to tial building blocks of community identity and compensate Indigenous people not only for the authority. However, with globalisation of domi- loss of tangible land, but also for the loss of nant cultures, cultures at the periphery will be intangible langue (language). The legislation to marginalised, and this will possibly lead to compensate for the linguicide will recognise the language loss. Language reclamation will become Indigenous peoples’ rights to revive or maintain increasingly relevant as people seek to recover their languages. The compensation money could their cultural autonomy, empower their spiritu- be used to support reclamation and linguistic al and intellectual sovereignty, and improve their empowerment efforts. We hope that the enact- wellbeing. ment of new legislation would help reinstate Revivalistics — including Revival Linguistics Indigenous peoples’ authority and ownership of and Revivalomics — is a new trans-disciplinary their cultural heritage.
56 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer Native Tongue Title
Why should we invest time and money in Thaayorre, a language spoken in Pormpuraaw reviving languages? on the west coast of Cape York, do not use ‘left’ Ethical reasons or ‘right’, but always use cardinal directions (i.e. north, south, east, west). They claim that Kuuk Australia’s languages have not just been dying Thaayorre speakers are constantly aware of where of their own accord; many were destroyed by they are situated and that this use of directions settlers of this land. We owe it to the Aboriginal also affects their awareness of time (Boroditsky and Torres Strait Islander people to support the and Gaby 2010). Language supports different maintenance and revival of their cultural herit- ways of ‘being in the world’. age, in this instance through language revival. To Such cases are abundant around the world. quote Nelson Mandela, ‘if you talk to a man in a Here are some more examples: language he understands, that goes to his head. • Mamihlapinatapai is a word in the Yaghan If you talk to him in his language, that goes to language of Tierra del Fuego in Chile and his heart.’ According to the international law of Argentina. It refers to ‘a look shared by two human rights, persons belonging to ethnic, reli- people, each wishing that the other will offer gious or linguistic minorities have the right to something that they both desire but have been use their own language (Article (art.) 27 of the unwilling to suggest or offer themselves’. This International Covenant on Civil and Political word can be broken down into smaller parts, Rights). Thus every person has the right to express or morphemes, thus ma- is a reflexive/passive themselves in the language of their ancestors, not prefix (realised as the allomorph mam- before just in the language of convenience that English a vowel); ihlapi ‘to be at a loss as what to do has become. next’; -n, stative suffix;ata , achievement suffix; Through supporting language revival, we and -apai, a dual suffix, which has a reciprocal can appreciate the significance of Indigenous sense with ma- (circumfix). languages and recognise their importance to • Ancient Persian nakhur is a ‘camel that will not Indigenous people and to Australia. We can then give milk until her nostrils have been tickled’. right some small part of the wrong against the Clearly, camels are very important in this soci- original inhabitants of this country and support ety and survival may have historically depended the wishes of their ancestors with the help of on camel milk. linguistic knowledge. • Tingo, in Rapa Nui (Pasquan) of Easter Island (Eastern Polynesian language), is ‘to take all the Aesthetic reasons objects one desires from the house of a friend, The linguist Ken Hale, who worked with many one at a time, by asking to borrow them, until endangered languages and saw the effect of loss of there is nothing left’ (De Boinod 2005). language, compared losing language to bombing the Louvre: ‘When you lose a language, you lose Such fascinating words should not be lost. They a culture, intellectual wealth, a work of art. It’s are important to the cultures they are from and like dropping a bomb on a museum, the Louvre’ make the outsiders reflexive of their own cultures. (Economist 2001). A museum is a repository of Through language maintenance and reclamation human artistic culture. Languages are at least we can keep important cultural practices and equally important since they store the cultural concepts alive. practices and beliefs of an entire people. Different languages have different ways of expressing ideas Utilitarian benefits and this can indicate which concepts are impor- Language revival benefits the speakers involved tant to a certain culture. through improvement of wellbeing, cognitive For example, in Australia information relat- abilities and mental health (see Zuckermann ing to food sources, surviving in nature and and Walsh 2014). Hallett et al. (2007) report Dreaming/history is being lost along with the loss that in British Columbia, Canada, there is a of Aboriginal languages. A study by Boroditsky clear correlation between youth suicide and and Gaby (2010) found that speakers of Kuuk lack of conversational knowledge in the native
Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 57 Native Tongue Title Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer language. Language revival reduces delinquency 2012: 7879): the bilingual’s ‘enhanced experience and increases cultural tourism. Language revival with sound results in an auditory system that is has a positive effect on the mental and physical highly efficient, flexible and focused in its auto- wellbeing of people involved in such projects. matic sound processing, especially in challenging Participants develop a better appreciation of and or novel listening conditions’. sense of connection with their cultural heritage. As another cognitive advantage of language Learning the language of their ancestors can be revival, a recent study found that decision-making an emotional experience and can provide people biases are reduced when using a second language with a strong sense of pride and identity. As the (Keysar et al. 2012:661): Aboriginal politician Aden Ridgeway (2009) Four experiments show that the ‘framing said, ‘language is power; let us have ours!’ Small effect’ disappears when choices are presented changes can impact people in big ways. A partici- in a foreign tongue. Whereas people were risk pant at a Barngarla Aboriginal language reclama- averse for gains and risk seeking for losses tion workshop in May 2012 (the language of Eyre when choices were presented in their native Peninsula, South Australia) wrote that she found tongue, they were not influenced by this learning the language ‘liberating’, that it gave her framing manipulation in a foreign language. a ‘sense of identity’ and that ‘it’s almost like it Two additional experiments show that using gives you a purpose in life’. Another participant a foreign language reduces loss aversion, said, ‘our ancestors are happy’. increasing the acceptance of both hypo There are also cognitive advantages to multi- thetical and real bets with positive expected lingualism. Several studies have found that bilin- value. We propose that these effects arise gual children have better non-linguistic cognitive because a foreign language provides greater abilities compared with monolingual children cognitive and emotional distance than a (Kovács and Mehler 2009) and improved atten- native tongue does. tion and auditory processing (Krizman et al. Therefore, language revival is not only empow- ering culturally, but also cognitively. Evidence also shows that being bilingual or multilingual can slow dementia, improving quality of life for many and reducing money spent on medical care. There are severe problems with mental health among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. According to the National Survey of Mental Wellbeing (see ABS 2010), 40 per cent of Australians (not necessarily Indigenous) suffer from a mental disorder at some stage of their life. Furthermore, 20 per cent of participants experienced some kind of mental disorder in the past 12 months. In comparison, 31 per cent of respondents aged 15-plus participating in the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (ABS 2010) had experienced high or very high levels of psychological distress in the four weeks leading up to the interview alone Figure 1: Port Lincoln, South Australia, 18–20 April (ABS 2010). This is 2.5 times the rate of non- 2012: Ghil‘ad Zuckermann (middle back row) with Indigenous Australians. Aboriginal participants in one of the first Barngarla Language reclamation increases feelings of Aboriginal language reclamation workshops. wellbeing and pride among Indigenous people. Howard Richards, the man with the jacket, is a Stolen Many of them are disempowered because they Generation Barngarla Elder. (The Barngarla people ‘fall between the cracks’, feeling that they are have given their permission to use this photograph.)
58 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer Native Tongue Title neither whitefellas nor in command of their Case for compensation for the loss of own Aboriginal heritage. As Fishman (2006:90) language puts it: We have so far outlined the benefits of language The real question of modern life and for RLS revival in Australia. In this paper we propose a [reversing language shift] is…how one… legal mechanism to support the revival of lost can build a home that one can still call one’s Aboriginal languages. own and, by cultivating it, find community, ‘Hard law’ involves the introduction of norms comfort, companionship and meaning in a by which states have to abide. ‘Soft law’ puts world whose mainstreams are increasingly forward goals and models from which states can unable to provide these basic ingredients for draw inspiration. The rapidly evolving patterns their own members. of societies and of the international community It has been shown that people involved in Indigenous make it difficult to design general and rigid tools language reclamation see an improvement in non- of minority protection that may be applied in language subjects, linked to educational empow- different contexts. Therefore, soft law is consid- erment and improved self-confidence. Educational ered by some to be an efficacious means of deal- success directly translates to improved employa- ing with certain areas of the law designed to bility and decreased delinquency. Approximately recommend, and not oblige, states to behave in a $50,000 per language per year was provided in certain way. One might argue that international 2010–11 by Indigenous Languages Support to 78 law cannot establish the degree or instrument of projects involving 200 languages (Office for the protection that is more effective for a minority in Arts 2013). The cost of incarceration is $100,000 a certain space and time, but can address specific per person per year and the cost of adolescent issues and design general models of protection mental health $1395 per patient per day. to be implemented by states according to their Finally, cultural tourism already repre- specific capabilities, necessities and goals. sents an important part of Australia’s econ- That said, international law recognises omy, with many tourists wishing to learn about the right to self-determination of indigenous Indigenous cultures. A growth in cultural tour- peoples, intended as the right to maintain and ism has been recorded in some rural centres where develop their cultures and traditions. As part of language revival projects have been implemented self-determination, specifically redressing past (Clark and Kostanski 2005). Aboriginal and discrimination and assimilation, international law Torres Strait Islander cultures represent part of also recognises the right to revitalise languages Australia’s image overseas and greatly contribute and customs that ceased to be practised due to to tourism. We need to help preserve and revive cultural oppression. However, international legal these languages and protect cultural knowl- instruments on indigenous peoples do not spell edge in order to maintain this point of attrac- out specific legal instruments to be adopted, leav- tion. This tourism not only benefits the economy, ing states free to address the issues according but can also provide work and opportunities for to their capabilities and realities. Australia has Indigenous people. already developed several instruments dealing Establishing Revivalistics in Australia has the with Indigenous rights, which can be adapted to potential of turning some Indigenous Australians the right to revitalise Indigenous languages. into experts of language revival, making language We believe that this is best done through award- revival part of their cultural identity. They will ing compensation to Aboriginal groups who have then be able to assist others in language revival. lost their languages as a result of forcible removal Language revival has the potential to become an of their children or as a result of punitive language important part of Indigenous initiatives, bringing measures at schools and elsewhere. An Aboriginal many benefits to the wider community. Language group can hold the compensation money on trust revival can aid in ‘closing the gap’ and encour- for the revival of Aboriginal languages. The ages cultural tourism while enriching Australia’s Aboriginal community can then use the compen- multicultural society. sation for initiatives to revive its language. In this
Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 59 Native Tongue Title Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer respect, Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 Rudd’s unreserved apology in 2008 (Australian CLR 1 (the Mabo decision) limits the time scope Government 2008), but he nonetheless refused for compensation after the Racial Discrimination to pay compensation to the victims (Grattan Act 1975 (Cth) and recognises that Native Titles and Wright 2008). An attempt to pass the Stolen are subject to extinguishment. The Mabo deci- Generation Compensation Bill 2008 (Cth), sion, however, deals with property rights, which which proposed ex gratia compensation for the bear considerable concerns with respect to the use victims of the Stolen Generations policies, failed. of land and resources, with significant economic Compensation for the Stolen Generations, and the implications. The Native Tongue Title, on the associated loss of language, is thus long overdue. contrary, regards the compensation of past assim- We are aware of existing Commonwealth and ilationist and discriminatory policies that led to state government grant schemes to revive, develop the death of Aboriginal languages. Although the and promote Aboriginal languages. For example, connection to the land and Indigenous customs the Australian Government launched its National are central to the recognition of the native prop- Indigenous Language Policy in 2009 to show erty title, the Native Tongue Title regards the its commitment to ‘addressing the serious prob- recognition of a communal identity that, even lem of language loss’ in Indigenous communities though lost, may be revitalised without economic (Ministry for the Arts n.d.). The policy provides consequences on the country in terms of land and for the Maintenance of Indigenous Languages resources and in a pure compensatory perspective. and Records program (MILR), originally admin- In other words, while the native property title has istered by the Office for the Arts (OFTA). consequences for the general citizenry of a coun- MILR (now ILS, i.e. Indigenous Languages try in that it may change individual and collective Support) offers grants to support community- use of land and resources, whereby its recognition based language projects, including the operation is limited in scope and time, the Native Tongue of language centres, production of language mate- Title regards the Indigenous collective exclusively, rials and resources, and recording of languages in that it aims to revitalise identity practices (Australian Government 2010–11). In the 2010– (Indigenous languages) that have been engulfed 11 funding round, $7.9 million was allocated to by assimilation. support 63 projects. Similarly, at a state level, A case for demanding compensation for the the New South Wales Minister for Aboriginal loss of language is not a novel idea. In 1997 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Affairs granted approximately $1.2 million Commission released the Bringing them home in 2011 to the New South Wales Aboriginal report, acknowledging that the ‘children who Education Consultative Group to develop the were removed have typically lost the use of their Centre for Aboriginal Languages Coordination languages’ and that the ‘loss of language is inti- and Development (CALCD). CALCD aims to mately connected with the loss of identity for facilitate the development of community-based those forcibly removed and their descendants’ Aboriginal language projects. (HREOC 1997:Recommendations 11–12). The Grant schemes and compensation schemes may report emphasises the ‘healing power’ of apol- serve identical purposes in terms of the provision ogy and compensation, and makes a recommen- of money to Indigenous peoples to revive their dation to compensate the affected victims of languages. It is not our intention to denigrate the Stolen Generations who have suffered the loss effectiveness of existing grant schemes. These of cultural rights. With regards to the loss of Commonwealth and state grant schemes are prov- language, it recommends that the Commonwealth ing to be effective. For example, the Ngarrindjeri Government ‘expands the funding of Indigenous language of South Australia was spoken only by a language, culture and history’ (Recommendation handful of Elders in 2004. According to the census, 12a). Then Prime Minister John Howard accepted speakers of the language increased to 270 in 2011 the findings of the report, but refused to make (see Ministery for the Arts 2012) — perhaps in an official apology. The subsequent change of part due to Indigenous languages support funding government led to the new Prime Minister Kevin from the Commonwealth Government.
60 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer Native Tongue Title
However, despite the perceived effectiveness of ful (MILR 2010–11). Under a compensation grant schemes, there are two reasons we still advo- scheme, all who have lost their languages have a cate the enactment of compensation schemes to right to revive them, subject to the monetary limit replace or supplement the existing grant schemes. of the compensation scheme. First, government policies are not legally Ultimately, it is a question of control and enforceable, are known to be capricious and can power. Whom are we trying to empower by the be abandoned at any time. A change of govern- language measures? Putting money in the hands ment would threaten continued support for the of Aboriginal groups directly will empower them revival of Aboriginal languages. Even within to make their own choices about how it is spent, the same government, policies can change with whereas allocating money centrally brings with shifting priorities. The abandonment of bilin- it the inevitable denial of autonomy and also gual education in the Northern Territory is a case often paternalistic treatment. Indigenous people in point (Simpson et al. 2009). The Northern have no direct control over government policies Territory Minister for Employment, Education (Simpson et al. 2009:15). Explicit legal protection and Training, Marion Scrymgour, announced in is needed to restore power to Indigenous people so October 2008 that there would be a greater focus that they can determine their own futures. on teaching English in remote Aboriginal commu- Linguistic human rights nities. Indigenous languages were perceived to hinder the acquisition of English. Simpson et al. Now, what are potential legal sources for the (2009:15) articulate the problem with govern- proposed compensatory scheme? Linguistic ment policies: human rights are traditionally considered part of minority rights, which are human rights collec- The difficulty in being dependent on govern - tively enjoyable by a specific group and are aimed ment policy is that, while Australia is a pluri- at preserving its cultural and linguistic diversity. cultural country, the majority group is by and Indeed, preservation and management of diver- large monolingual…This group dominates sity is a distinctive feature of liberal democra- the design of education curricula. These cies, which do not rule out differential claims by curricula often disadvantage children who do fostering social processes of inclusion. On the not speak the dominant language, because of contrary, liberal democracies have progressively the curriculum-framers’ lack of knowledge adopted policies and instruments that favour- about bilingualism, language acquisition and ably look upon diversity as a positive feature of the acquisition of literacy. This has the unfor- tunate result that Australia has yet to develop inclusive societies by implementing mechanism ‘an ethos which balances and respects the use of diverse cultural preservation according to what of different languages in daily life’… Kymlicka (2007:587) defines as ‘citizenization’. With respect to indigenous peoples, the positive A quick change in government policy can damage approach of states towards diversity manage- the revival of Indigenous languages that has taken ment should not just aim at preserving diversity, years to develop. Given the limitation of govern- but also at compensating past discrimination ment policies, compensation schemes backed up stemming from assimilationist and discrimina- by legislation will better protect the linguistic tory policies, which brought about linguistic and rights of Indigenous people. traditional loss. Second, while compensation is given as a In this respect, international law on indige- matter of right, grants are competitive. Under a nous rights has also developed from a preserva- grants scheme, Indigenous groups need to submit tion principle towards a revitalisation principle: themselves to the critical assessment of govern- indigenous rights law first mainly focused on ment evaluators and taxpayers in order to revive land rights and rights to access ancestral territo- their languages. It also requires technical exper- ries, but it has now adopted an approach focusing tise in writing successful grant applications. Out much more on culture, customs and traditions. of the 130 applications for the MILR funding in The 1989 International Labour Organization the 2010–11 funding round, only 63 were success- Convention No. 169 (Indigenous and Tribal
Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 61 Native Tongue Title Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer
Peoples Convention) recognises the right of indig- With respect to linguistic rights, the Inter enous and tribal peoples to live according to national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights their customs. In particular, articles 28 and 30 (ICCPR) recognises both the right not to be deal with linguistic rights, including the right discriminated against for one’s linguistic iden- to preserve, communicate and use the indige- tity (art. 26) and the right to use one’s language nous language in public domains. However, the as a distinctive feature of collective identity of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of a minority group (art. 27). Furthermore, art. Indigenous Peoples (adopted on 20 September 27 of the ICCPR specifically states that minor- 2007) specifically deals with the duty to redress ity rights have collective dimensions, since minor for past discriminatory policies that led to assim- ity members ‘shall not be denied the right, in ilation (art. 8.2.d). In this frame, the declara- community with the other members of their tion first recognises the right to ‘practise and group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs’ practise their own religion, or to use their own (art. 11.1) and also calls upon states to ‘provide language’. Therefore, in order to protect indig- redress through effective mechanisms, which may enous rights and particularly linguistic rights, include restitution, developed in conjunction with there needs to be a positive approach by states to indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, actively design and implement tools of cultural intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken preservation and revitalisation and not a mere without their free, prior and informed consent or guarantee of non-discrimination. in violation of their laws, traditions and customs’ In this respect, the Human Rights Committee, (art. 11.2). Although Australia did not initially the ICCPR monitoring body, in its General support this declaration, the objections mainly Recommendation No. 23 (adopted on 26 April referred to land rights and the autonomy of indig- 1994), has clearly stated that indigenous peoples enous communities. Together with Canada, New fall within the ICCPR regime (par. 3.2), and that Zealand and the United States, Australia objected states need to positively adopt measures that to the approach of the declaration in that it is ensure collective enjoyment of rights (pars. 6.1 likely to develop potentially unlimited property and 7), whereas they are ‘necessary to protect rights on ancestral lands. Furthermore, Australia the identity of a minority and the rights of its objected to the construction of self-determination members to enjoy and develop their culture and entailed in the declaration, in that it would lead to language’ (par. 6.2). the recognition of the right of indigenous commu- The ‘positive approach’ stressed by ICCPR nities to be consulted on any law regarding indig- is also confirmed by General Recommendation enous communal matters: Australia proposed No. 23 on ‘Indigenous peoples’ adopted by that indigenous people should be involved in the the Committee on the Elimination of Racial common democratic process in order to pursue Discrimination on 18 August 1997. This recom- their interests. No objection was raised regarding mendation not only stresses the importance of linguistic rights, which are not likely to impact states adopting measures to ensure collective on national integrity but rather focus on internal rights, but also calls upon states to ‘ensure that interests of indigenous communities. indigenous communities can exercise their rights Therefore, the right to revitalise a language that to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions ceased to be practised because of past discrimi- and customs and to preserve and to practise their nation is an inherent indigenous right, and repre- languages’ (par. 4.e). sents the future step in redress policies towards Significantly, the right to ‘revitalize’ a language indigenous peoples for past discrimination. In is further specified in the Declaration on the this respect, indigenous rights differ from minor- Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as articulated by ity rights in terms of political and historical goals, art. 13(1), which reads, ‘Indigenous peoples have while they share significant aspects in terms of the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit legal approach. Indeed, linguistic rights as defined to future generations their histories, languages, by international law can be applicable to indige- oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems nous peoples as well. and literatures, and to designate and retain their
62 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer Native Tongue Title own names for communities, places and persons’ or recommending bodies. Furthermore, Australia (emphasis added). ratified the ICCPR in 1980, but has not incor- As argued before, indigenous rights have porated the provisions into domestic law. The evolved from ‘preservation’ of customs to ‘restora- ICCPR is attached to a piece of domestic legisla- tion’ of languages and traditions that have ceased tion, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity to exist. Indeed, the term ‘revitalise’ encompasses Commission Act 1986 (Cth), which empowers the need not only to preserve the language, but the Australian Human Rights Commission to also to recover one. In other words, language investigate violations of rights covered by the revival is the first step towards truly respecting ICCPR. It is a ‘toothless tiger’, nonetheless, as the linguistic rights of indigenous peoples. This the Commission’s findings are not binding. restorative approach is further confirmed by the There has been no precedent in common call upon states to redress past discriminatory and law that considered the claim of compensation assimilationist policies, as spelled out in art. 8.1 for the loss of aboriginal languages. Neither has and 8.2.d of the Declaration on the Rights of there been an equivalent claim to legal compen- Indigenous Peoples. However, international law sation for loss of cultural rights. However, soft instruments do not list mechanisms to be adopted, law is increasingly developing in areas such as but leave states free to choose the tools deemed minority rights and indigenous rights, since it most effective. provides general goals, recognises certain rights, With respect to Australia, both the federal and defines approaches and trends, while leaving government and federated states have developed states free to spell out policies, tools and mecha- instruments for preserving Indigenous culture, nisms that suit specific situations and effectively but no step has yet been taken towards the resto- accommodate collective claims. ration of ceased cultural practices and languages. Regarding Australia, the loss of linguistic In this respect, we argue that language revitali- and cultural heritage can be dealt with within sation does not operate in a legal vacuum: the private and constitutional law. With respect Australian legal system recognises Native Title, to private law, Australian courts have consid- which focuses on Indigenous rights on the land by ered awarding compensation for the victims of virtue of traditional laws. Building upon this legal Stolen Generations. Trevorrow v State of South institution, we argue in favour of the recognition Australia (No. 5) [2007] SASC 285 provides a of Native Tongue Title, which not only furthers precedent on the issue of compensation for the the positive approach towards Indigenous culture Stolen Generations. The case concerns Bruce preservation, but also introduces the restora- Trevorrow, who was removed from his parents tion of Indigenous culture in line with inter by the Aborigines Protection Board without their national law that calls upon states to redress past consent after being admitted to hospital in 1957. discriminatory policies. Arguably, Native Tongue He was 13 months old. In his adulthood, he sued Title is a concrete redress measure to ensure that the South Australian Government for compensa- language can be revitalised. Therefore, compensa- tion. Justice Gray of the Supreme Court of South tion for forced linguistic assimilation in Australia Australia held that it was reasonably foreseeable is well supported by the international human that separating a child from its parents would rights law. By recognising the Native Tongue give rise to a risk of harm to the child, and cons Title, Australia will adopt a restorative approach, equently the State had breached its duty of care which is enshrined in recent development of indig- to Mr Trevorrow by removing him from the enous international law. Furthermore, the Native care of his parents. Justice Gray awarded compen- Tongue Title is an effective tool, first, for redress- sation of $777,000 to Mr Trevorrow. ing past discrimination and, second, for recog The South Australian Government appealed nising the right to revitalise languages that ceased the decision. In 2010 the Full Court of the to be practices in virtue of forced assimilation. Supreme Court of South Australia upheld Justice That said, international minority rights and Gray’s decision on the point of negligence that the indigenous law is soft law, which means that there Aborigines Protection Board owed Mr Trevorrow is no enforcing body, but only monitoring systems a duty of care to avoid causing injury by removing
Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 63 Native Tongue Title Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer him from the care of his parents. The precedent this will exclude many who lost their languages of Trevorrow v State of South Australia may through other means. A claim of the latter nature help to clarify the issue of compensation for loss has no legal precedent. Therefore, if the claim for of language based on the tort of negligence. The the compensation for the language loss was made Aborigines Protection Board could also have under the tort law, it is unlikely to be successful. reasonably foreseen that the removal of children Moreover, the general approach to minority would damage them by taking away their oppor- protection and protection of indigenous peoples tunities for cultural fulfilment. is more likely to be formulated at a policy level However, this avenue to claim compensation for rather than at a judicial level. First of all, minority language loss under tort law is likely to be unsus- protection and protection of indigenous peoples tainable. While the main finding of the Full Court involve needs assessment, policy formulation and in State of South Australia v Lampard-Trevorrow negotiation between the state and the group claim- [2010] SASC 56 was that the Aborigines Protection ing protection, an approach highly unlikely to Board lacked the power to remove the child from resort to court. Second, the legal basis of minority his mother, the decision also considered the failure protection and indigenous peoples’ rights encom- of the Aborigines Protection Board to balance the passes soft law, not hard law, whereby it is not risk of harm through leaving Mr Trevorrow with directly enforceable by any authority. Soft law in his mother against the risk of psychiatric harm to itself includes a series of legal instruments that Mr Trevorrow as a result of removing him from states can use and adapt in the formulation of his mother. Compared to the threat of psychiat- certain policies, taking into account their specific ric harm that was being balanced in the case, the legal systems, political issues and communal inter- threat of language loss would arguably be given ests of the groups to be protected. Finally, even if less weight. Similarly, in Cubillo and Gunner v the resort to court was successful in demonstrat- The Commonwealth (includes summary) [2001] ing that an assimilation policy was implemented, FCA 1213, involving two Indigenous plain- the positive result of this eventual judicial recog- tiffs seeking compensation for forced assimila- nition would be upon single individuals suing the tion and loss of culture, the court dismissed the state, without any other consequence concerning case because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate eventual compensations of communal cultural that they were forcibly removed from their fami- losses. Therefore, a policy approach envisaging the lies and that there was a general policy consent- adaptation of soft law instruments to the specific ing to the removal of Aboriginal children in order legal, political and social conditions of Indigenous to assimilate them. These two cases pose several groups in Australia is deemed to be more success- questions about the judiciability of assimilation. ful in terms of preservation of cultural heritage Indeed, even if it was successfully proved in court and revitalisation of indigenous languages. that a clear state policy of assimilation was the Nevertheless, it is important to note recent direct cause for the systematic forced removal of developments in the constitutional law of Aboriginal children from their families, it is still Australia. Currently, the Australian Constitution unclear how the damages could be defined. does not recognise the linguistic rights of Most importantly, the duty of care assumed Indigenous peoples in Australia. However, there is by government in relation to removals arose a move for a referendum to recognise Aboriginal from the government assuming responsibility for and Torres Strait Islanders in the Constitution. children after having removed them from their An Expert Panel on constitutional recognition primary care givers. The claims for compensation of Indigenous Australians recommended that the for removal were based on the effect of specific proposed referendum should include acknowledg- government policy on individual Indigenous ment of the need to ‘secure the advancement’ of victims. In contrast, the case for compensation Indigenous people, and that Aboriginal and Torres for language loss is a much broader claim related Strait Islander languages should be recognised as to the loss of culture, as a result of the general the country’s first official languages, along with impact of colonialism. If compensation for loss of English as the national language (for detailed language is linked to Stolen Generations policy, discussion of this proposal, see Reilly 2013).
64 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer Native Tongue Title
Similarly, the South Australian Constitution To fill the legal gap between Australia’s signing recognised Indigenous languages in March 2013. of the ICCPR and domestic legislation to imple- The South Australian Constitution was amended ment the international standards, we recommend to read, ‘the Parliament, on behalf of the people of the passing of a legislative enactment that allows South Australia…recognises Aboriginal peoples for the payment of compensation. We suggest that as traditional owners and occupants of land and this ex gratia scheme be called Native Tongue waters in South Australia and that…they maintain Title. The constitutional amendment and the pass- their cultural and heritage beliefs, languages and ing of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander laws which are of ongoing importance’ (s. 2(2) Peoples Recognition Act are evidence of emerg- (b)(ii), emphasis added). Victoria, New South ing acknowledgment of Indigenous languages Wales and Queensland also recognise Indigenous in the national legal framework. An enactment peoples in their respective constitutions. of a compensation scheme for lost Indigenous The likely outcome of a federal constitu- languages falls within this emerging trend, and tional referendum, if put to the vote, is uncer- thus should attract widespread support. tain. Constitutional change requires the majority support of people in a majority of states, and Ex gratia schemes: Native Tongue Title thus very few referendums have been successful Ex gratia compensation is a payment made in Australian history. Nevertheless, in February at the discretion of the government. The 2013 the Commonwealth Government passed Commonwealth Government can pass legis- the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples lation to enable payment of compensation for Recognition Act 2013 (Cth). Section 3(3) reads, language loss. Commonwealth power to pass this ‘The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Aus legislation is likely to fall under its race power tralia, acknowledges and respects the continuing (Australian Constitution, s. 51(xxvi)), and/or cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal external affairs power (Australian Constitution, and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ (emphasis s. 51(xxix)). In this respect, the Native Tongue added). The purposes of the Act, as spelled out in Title should function as a specific development of its preamble, are to (1) place before the Australian the ex gratia scheme to be applied to Indigenous people at a referendum a proposal for constitu- groups deprived of their languages because of tional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait assimilationist policies. Islander peoples, (2) to acknowledge the impor- The race power of the Constitution (s. 51) reads, tance of the Expert Panel’s recommendations, ‘The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, (3) to refine a proposal for a referendum in consul- have power to make laws for the peace, order, and tation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander good government of the Commonwealth with peoples and other Australians, and (4) to build respect to: …the people of any race…for whom the support and national consensus necessary for it is deemed necessary to make special laws’. This successful constitutional change. In other words, power enables the Australian Parliament to pass the Act is an important step towards achieving laws for the protection of Aboriginal peoples. It constitutional amendment. was under this power that the Native Title Act If this Act is successful in achieving its purpose, 1993 (Cth) was enacted. Likewise, the proposed and if the constitutional amendment is indeed ex gratia Native Tongue Title legislation would passed, Indigenous languages may well be recog- likely fall under the race power of the Australian nised as the first languages of Australia. There is Parliament. yet little debate on what this recognition entails, In addition to the race power, Native Tongue legally speaking, and we do not intend to enter Title legislation can be founded in pursuance into this debate here. Recognition of Indigenous with the external affairs power. To illustrate this peoples and languages in the Constitution point, an analogy with the foundation of Native may not strictly form a legal basis for claiming Title is useful. In Mabo v Queensland [No.2], compensation for the loss of language; however, Queensland legislation that sought to extin- it provides a justification for the statutory scheme guish Native Title without compensation was that we propose. struck down under the Racial Discrimination Act
Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 65 Native Tongue Title Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer
1975 (Cth). In turn, the Racial Discrimination Similarly, a statutory Native Tongue Title Act was enacted pursuant to the external affairs compensation scheme should establish a Native power under the Constitution to give effect to Tongue Title Fund to which a fixed amount is paid the International Convention on the Elimination from the state’s Consolidated Fund. Aboriginal of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (Bartlett language groups who have lost their languages 2000). Similarly, ex gratia Native Tongue Title could then apply for compensation from the fund. legislation can be enacted under the external Hence, the first challenge — the definition affairs power to give effect to the ICCPR. of ‘Aboriginal language group’. The practical The ex gratia compensation schemes for aspects of determining members of a group can be Aboriginal language loss can be modelled based on existing legal processes for Native Title after existing compensation schemes for Stolen claims and land trust legislation. For instance, Generations children. Some Australian state under s. 61 of the Native Title Act, a person or governments have already passed legislation and persons authorised by the ‘Native Title claim enacted schemes allowing for ex gratia compensa- group’ can make an application for Native Title tion for the victims of the Stolen Generations. For to the Federal Court. ‘A Native Title claim group’ instance, Tasmania passed the Stolen Generations is ‘all the persons…who, according to their tradi- of Aboriginal Children Act 2006, which provides tional laws and customs, hold the common or for ex gratia payments to be made to the victims of group rights and interests comprising the particu- Stolen Generations. Queensland has the Redress lar Native Title claimed’ (s. 61(1)). Similarly, Scheme, which provides ex gratia payments rang- application for compensation for lost language ing from $7000 to $40,000 to people who experi- could be made by a person or persons authorised enced abuse and neglect as children in Queensland by a Native Tongue Title claim group. A Native institutions (Government of Queensland 2012). Tongue Title claim group could include all the Western Australia also has a similar scheme. The persons who, according to their traditional laws latter two redress schemes are not exclusive for and customs, belong to a particular Aboriginal Indigenous peoples, but are for all children who kin group that shared a common language which experienced sexual abuse while in state care. is no longer spoken. We suggest that the proposed ex gratia Native After applications are made by Aboriginal Tongue Title legislation scheme be modelled after language groups, applications could be assessed the states’ Stolen Generations compensations by an independent body of assessors, which should schemes, especially that of Tasmania. include Indigenous people. If the body of assessors The Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Children authorises the payment of compensation, payment Act in Tasmania established a Stolen Generations could be made to the language group that has Fund, from which compensation was made to the made the application. The language group would victims of the Stolen Generation (s. 10). An amount then hold the compensation money on trust for the of $5 million was paid from the Consolidated revival of Aboriginal languages. Again, manage- Fund into the Stolen Generations Fund (s. 10). ment of the trust can be based on existing legal Applications for compensation were assessed by processes applying to Native Title and land trust the Stolen Generations Assessor (s. 9). Out of legislation. The group could decide to use the 151 claims received, 106 claims were found to be compensation to support, for instance, commu- eligible under the Act. Of the personal claimants, nity language projects, language curricular devel- 84 successful personal claimants received about opment, language teacher training, and radio and $58,333 each. Twenty-two eligible children of television production in its own language. These deceased members of Stolen Generations received activities help create the environment where one either $4,000 or $5,000 each, depending on how can immerse oneself in the language. Only immer- many people were within the particular family sion can create fluent speakers, and only fluent group (Tasmania Department of Premier and speakers can revive a language (Cultural Survival Cabinet 2008). The Stolen Generations Assessor 2012). Within the parameters of language revival, then authorised the Secretary of the Department the use of compensation money should remain to make the ex gratia payment (s. 9). flexible. Different Indigenous communities should
66 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer Native Tongue Title take into account their communities’ particular young Aboriginal boy who suffered permanent goals and resources to develop unique paths to physical deformity after a car accident. Justice revive their languages. O’Leary acknowledged that the plaintiff’s physi- The proposed Native Tongue Title compensa- cal disability would prevent him from perform- tion scheme may receive cautious responses from ing initiation rites, and he would forever be the government on the basis that it is difficult to denied full status within his Aboriginal commu- quantify the loss of Aboriginal languages. For nity. Accordingly, Justice O’Leary awarded him instance, the Commonwealth has submitted to $20,000 for ‘loss of cultural fulfilment’ (at 34). the inquiry for the Bringing them home report As the precedents from the state Supreme that ex gratia payments should not be awarded Courts show, it is possible to quantify damages for to the victims of the Stolen Generations poli- the ‘loss of traditional advancement in Aboriginal cies because of the difficulties in estimating the societies’. Those who are deprived of the oppor- amount of ‘loss’ in monetary terms (HREOC tunity to be fluent in their Aboriginal language 1997). However, it is possible to mathematically are also denied opportunities to participate fully calculate the compensation amount for language- in the rites and ceremonies that are conducted in related issues (see, for example, Van Parjis 2007). Aboriginal languages. They also suffer from loss Australian judges have always awarded damages of position in the Aboriginal community. Their for losses that are difficult to quantify. For losses can, and should, be quantified and compen- instance, Justice Gray in Trevorrow v State of sated by the Australian Government. Of course, South Australia (at 1235–6) stated: ex gratia schemes are not designed to compensate for entire loss, but to provide partial compensa- [W]here it is clear that a plaintiff has suffered tion for the loss. This is evident by contrasting loss the court should do its best to place a the large sum of compensation awarded to dollar value on that loss notwithstanding the Mr Trevorrow ($777,000) with the mere $58,333 paucity or absence of evidence. The court is each claimant received in Tasmania under the not permitted to abandon the task through Stolen Generations of Aboriginal Children Act. want of evidence, but a discretionary judg- Nevertheless, an ex gratia scheme for the loss ment should be formed…There is always of languages is an important and solid step an inherent difficulty in equating personal injury with a dollar sum. The best that one towards language revival. can do is to adopt an holistic approach. Further steps towards language revival Justice Gray then went on to award compensation Native Tongue Title is by no means an exhaus- to Mr Trevorrow. Other Australian judges have tive legal option for Indigenous people who wish quantified damages for the ‘loss of traditional to revive their languages. Drawing on experiences advancement in Aboriginal societies’ (Collett of other nations that have successfully revived 1982). For instance, in the South Australian and preserved their minority languages, we now Supreme Court decision of Napaluma v Baker outline linguistic measures that can be enacted (1982) 29 SASR 192, Justice Zelling considered simultaneously with Native Tongue Title. Among the case of an Aboriginal plaintiff who suffered these, New Zealand, South Africa, Norway and brain damage as a result of a road accident. Peru are significant examples of language preser- The judge recognised that after the accident, the vation and restoration. plaintiff was ‘left out of some ceremonies, and Language revival would be greatly enhanced he play[ed] a merely minor passive role in others by creating linguistic landscapes around and he [was] therefore less than a full member Australia. For instance, Aboriginal and Torres of the Aboriginal community’ (at 194). Justice Strait Islander vernaculars may be defined as offi- Zelling awarded $10,000 to the plaintiff for the cial languages of their region, territory or land. ‘loss of position in the Aboriginal community’ (at Some countries with minority indigenous popula- 194). The decision was followed by the Northern tions have adapted an Indigenous language as one Territory Supreme Court decision in Dixon v of their official languages. New Zealand presents Davies (1982) 17 NTR 31, which concerned a te reo Maori- as its official language, along with
Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 67 Native Tongue Title Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer
English and New Zealand Sign Language (Maori- Zealand’s laws, and in government policies and Language Act 1987). People can speak Maori- practices. in legal proceedings with interpreters, and Tribunal findings include: establishment of Maori- is taught in most schools (Human Rights new partnership bodies in education, conserva- Commission 2008–14). There are two particu- tion, and culture and heritage; a new commission larly important claims by Maori- relating to te reo to protect Ma-ori cultural works against deroga- Maori.- These are the Wai 11 and Wai 262 claims tory or offensive uses and unauthorised commer- to the Waitangi Tribunal (set up in 1975 to hear cial uses; a new funding agent for matauranga- claims relating to Crown violations of the Treaty Ma-ori in science; expanded roles for some exist- of Waitangi). It is worth reproducing these defin- ing bodies including Te Taura Whiri (the Ma-ori ing extracts here. Language Commission), the newly established national rongoā body Te Paepae Matua mo- te Wai 11 claim to the Waitangi Tribunal (1985) Rongoā and Maori- advisory bodies relating to Claimants: Huirangi Waikerepuru and Nga patents and environmental protection. Kaiwhakapumau i te Reo. Findings relating to the language: the Crown’s Claim: that the Crown had failed to protect support for revival of the language should include the language (a taonga/treasure) as required by (1) effective policies, appropriate resourcing, and article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. (Article 2 - steps towards the provision of public services guarantees to Maori the right to keep their lands, in te reo as well as English; (2) the provision of forests, fisheries and all their treasures (taonga). - - programmes — including Maori-medium educa- It was noted that: Ka ngaro te reo, ka ngaro taua, tion — that are highly focused and effective, and pērā i te ngaro o te moa (If the language be lost, appropriately resourced; (3) an expanded role man will be lost, as dead as the moa.) and powers for Te Taura Whiri (Ma-ori Language The tribunal found in favour of the claimants: Commission), including powers to require public When the question for decision is whether te reo sector agencies to produce Ma-ori language plans Maori- is a ‘taonga’ which the Crown is obliged to (in consultation with iwi), and to approve those recognise we conclude that there can be only one plans, and powers to set targets for training answer. It is plain that the language is an essen- of te reo teachers, approve education curricula for tial part of the culture and must be regarded as te reo, and otherwise hold public sector agencies ‘a valued possession’. accountable for their responsibilities towards the Recommendations in summary: legislation enabl i ng use of te reo Maori- in the courts by anyone language (Waitangi Tribunal 2011a, 2011b). who wishes to do so; establishment of a body to In South Africa the post-apartheid Constitution supervise and foster the use of te reo Maori;- ensure dedicates section 6 of chapter 1 to language pres - all children who wish to learn Maori- can do so ervation and language rights. After the linguis- with financial support from the State; develop tic losses caused by apartheid policies during the broadcasting policy that acts on the Crown’s obli- decades of the white supremacist regime, South gation to recognize and protect the language; Africa recognises nine indigenous languages as bilingualism as a prerequisite for any positions of official languages of the state, alongside English employment with the State services Commission and Afrikaans, calling upon the state to adopt (Waitangi Tribunal 1993). ‘practical and positive measures’ to promote indigenous languages, the status of which was Wai 262 claim to the Waitangi Tribunal (1991) ‘historically diminished’. Specifically, s. 6 calls Claimants: Haana Murray (Ng ati- Kur-ı), Hema upon local authorities to promote the use of indig- Nui a Tawhaki Witana (Te Rarawa), Te Witi enous languages even in public bodies. Finally, the McMath (Ngati- Wai), Tama Poata (Ngati- Porou), South Africa Constitution mandates the estab- Kataraina Rimene (Ngati- Kahungunu), and John lishment of a Pan South African Language Board, Hippolite (Ngati- Koata) — on behalf of them- which has recently started a project of revitalisa- selves and their iwi tion of the N/uu language of the San people. Claim: relates to the place of M aori- culture, In Norway the protection and promotion of the identity and traditional knowledge in New indigenous language, Sami, are extensively safe-
68 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer Native Tongue Title guarded by the Sami Language Act 1990. Like the compensation scheme will recognise the rights Australian Indigenous population and Ma-oris, the of Indigenous people to own, use and revive Sami people were in a colonial relationship with their languages. the Norwegian state (Magga 1994:220). The The purpose of this paper is to highlight the Sami were forced to assimilate into the dominant important social issues surrounding language Norwegian culture and were not allowed to buy rights in Australia, and to put forward a sugges- land unless they spoke Norwegian in their homes tion to restore justice and to enhance linguistic (Magga 1994:221). However, attitudes towards diversity. The paper does not intend to be restric - the Sami have changed gradually since the Second tive. For instance, we suggest that the proposed World War. Civil rights activism by Sami organ- compensatory scheme be based on the existing isations influenced the government to recognise Stolen Generations compensation scheme. But the official status of Sami and their language. it need not be. If the interests of the Indigenous The Sami Language Act, which was passed by the language groups are best served by drawing Norwegian Parliament in 1990, guarantees Sami legislation in alternative ways, we welcome such rights to communicate in Sami. The obligation to suggestions. There are many other issues that respond in Sami extends to public bodies, courts, need to be continually debated if we are to seri- police, hospitals and churches. Furthermore, in ously revive Aboriginal languages in Australia. the Sami administrative area, children have the It is the authors’ wish to promote and facilitate right to receive education through the medium discussions around these important issues. of Sami. Finally, Peru provides a powerful example REFERENCES of a nation’s gradual recognition of indigenous language. Peru enacted Decree No. 21 recognis- ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2010 4704.0: the ing Quechua as an official language, along with health and welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, October 2010, ABS, Spanish, in 1975 (de Varennes 2012:16). Decree Canberra,
Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 69 Native Tongue Title Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer
Collett, Andrew 1982 ‘Napaluma v Baker’, Aboriginal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children Law Bulletin 28. from Their Families, Commonwealth Government, Cultural Survival 2011 ‘Peru officially recog- Canberra,
70 Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 Zuckermann, Shakuto-Neoh and Quer Native Tongue Title
Simpson, Jane, Jo Caffery and Patrick McConvell 2009 Journal of Linguistics 31:111–27,
Australian Aboriginal Studies 2014/1 71