Contemporary Aboriginal Issues Week Two Racism and ‘race’ relations Aboriginal Activism Steps to...

Contemporary Aboriginal Issues

Week Two

Racism and ‘race’ relations

Aboriginal Activism

Steps to Native Title


Week Two


“SaySorry Day”Reconciliation

“SaySorry Day”Reconciliation

Appeals through

The courtsMabo

Appeals through

The courtsMabo

PoliticalLobbyingPetitions

67referendum

PoliticalLobbyingPetitions

67referendum

Freedom Rides-Use ofMedia

Freedom Rides-Use ofMedia

FormationOf

Politicalorganizations

FormationOf

Politicalorganizations

PublicDemonstration

Day ofMourning

PublicDemonstration

Day ofMourning

Letters&

Petitions

Letters&

Petitions

GrowthOf

Aboriginalactivism

GrowthOf

Aboriginalactivism


Week Two

Racism and ‘race’ relationsAll land was

initially owned by the Crown. Minerals are owned by the

Crown


Week Two

Racism and ‘race’ relations• A distinctive feature of our history was that the dispossession of the native

peoples was achieved without treaties between the government and the Aborigines. The absence of treaties was used to explain why Aborigines were denied the land rights accorded by law to native peoples in the US, Canada, and New Zealand.

• There have been three major judicial milestones in rectifying this injustice.• The first was the 1992 Mabo decision, where the High Court declared that

Australian common law recognises a form of native title to land. Native title exists where the indigenous people have maintained their connection to the land and title has not been extinguished by legislation or government action.

• The second milestone was the enactment of the 1993 Native Title Act. The Act complemented the Mabo decision by attempting to make the concept of native title workable. It set up a claims process for native title rights, and regulated future government acts affecting native title land.

• The third crucial event was the High Court's recent decision in The Wik Peoples v Queensland. The court held, by majority, that the grant by Queensland Government of pastoral leases did not extinguish native title


Week Two


Yirkala Bark Petition 1963: The Bark Petition

The Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory, faced with their

traditional lands being taken over by a huge bauxite mine, presented a petition to the

Australian Parliament, in the form of a bark painting, calling for recognition of their land

rights

Other more symbolic milestones include


Week Two


• 1965 FREEDOM RIDES

http://aso.gov.au/titles/

documentaries/freedom-ride-blood-

brothers/clip3/


Week Two


•1966: Wave Hill Walk-Off

Led by the Gurindji people, 200 Aboriginal cattle workers and their

families walked-off Wave Hill Station striking for better( equal ) pay and

better conditions. •The nine-year strike developed into a

successful claim for return of traditional Gurindji lands

•Today Wave Hill is regarded by many as the beginning of the modern

Aboriginal land rights movement.

It was to take

another 9 years before justice

was served


Week Two


• THE 1967 REFERENDUM

• includeAborigines in the census

• Allowing Federal Government to have powers to legislate about Aboriginal welfare

• The referendum was not about receiving the vote


Week Two

Racism and ‘race’ relationsTest Cases; Using the courts

1.The Gove Land Rights Case.1972

The Yirrkala people had challenged the right of the Northern Territory government to allow Nabalco to mine bauxite on traditional Yirrkala land which contained sacred sites. Justice Blackburn claimed that although he recognized their traditional system of law, that this had been replaced by British Law in 1788. Terra Nullius was alive and well!


Week Two

Racism and ‘race’ relations1972: Aboriginal Tent Embassy

Aboriginal people set up a "tent embassy" outside the then Parliament House in Canberra calling for national land rights and an end to discrimination

Prime Minister McMahon, announced that “ land rights would threaten the tenure of every

Australian.” Comment??????

The Embassy symbolized that blacks had been pushed far enough, in education, in health, in police

victimization. The tent symbolized Aboriginal people’s sense of being foreigners in their own land. For six months it stood as an important symbol of

growing Aboriginal political identity.


Week Two

Racism and ‘race’ relationsIn 1972 the Whitlam government was

elected. Spending on Aboriginal programs was greatly increased and Aboriginal and legal services were

funded the National Aboriginal Consultative committee was set up to

represent Aboriginals and recruitment was sought from within their group

In 1972 the government introduced the policy of Self Determination, which

recognized the rights of Aboriginals to live traditional lifestyles

The Whitlam government appointed Justice Woodward to head the Royal

Commission into land rights


Week Two

Racism and ‘race’ relations• “We will legislate to give

Aboriginal Land Rights-because all of us are diminished while the Aborigines are denied their rightful place in this nation.”

• At right1975: Gurindji Hand BackPrime Minister Gough Whitlam hands over title to traditional Gurindji lands


Week Two


Woodward Royal Commission 1973-74The commissions brief was limited to an inquiry into land rights in federal

territories only, because of concerns over creating conflict with states rights.

Its report recommended;

1. That two land councils be established and funded to provide legal support for land claims

2. That crown land should be open to land right claims

3. That Aboriginals should be recognised as owners of their reserves

4. That miners should pay royalties to Aboriginal people for minerals extracted from their land

5. That Aboriginals had the right to deal directly with mining companies in any discussions


Week Two


• IMPACT

• The Whitlam Government introduced legislation based substantially on Woodward’s recommendations. The Bill was before parliament when the Government was dismissed in the Constitutional crisis of November 1975

• Despite election promises from the Liberal-Country Party that the Bill would be passed without amendment, Malcolm Fraser buckled to pressure from mining and pastoral industry. A new bill was drafted with many important provisions absent.


Week Two


Piecemeal State Legislation • In 1976 the Fraser government passed

the Aboriginal Land Rights Act under which they were allowed to claim Crown Land that was not being used by other people

• An Aboriginal Lands council was set up to control this land

• In 1985 Aboriginal people were given ownership of Ayers rock now known by its traditional name of Uluru

• Other state governments passed acts giving limited recognition to traditional owners


Week Two


Rights and PrioritiesIn 1978, the Queensland premier Joh Bjelke

Peterson, placed Aboriginal reserves at Arakun and Mornington Islands under the control of the

Minister for Local Government. His intention was to prevent land rights claims which would threaten commercial and mining interests.

In 1980 Amex asked for rights to search for oil in Noonkanbah in Western Australia. The

government ignored the rights of the traditional owners and their concerns about sacred sites. The Western Australian government brought in police so that protesters would not prevent Amex’s work

“The white miner’s interests are short term but his mines are eternal.”

Galarrwuy Yunupingu


Week Two


Eddie Koiki Mabo

1936-1992

Life of an Island Man


Week Two

Racism and ‘race’ relations• "...we were having lunch one day in

Reynold's office when Koiki was just speaking about his land back on Mer, or Murray Island. Henry and I realized that in his mind he thought he owned that land, so we sort of glanced at each other, and then had the difficult responsibility of telling him that he didn't own that land, and that it was Crown land. Koiki was surprised, shocked and even...he said and I remember him saying 'No way, it's not theirs, it's ours'..." —Professor Noel Loos, James Cook University

Henry Reynolds-Author of Why Werent we told


Week Two


The claim by the people of Mer was that they owned the island because their families had lived their for time

immemorial.After losing in the Supreme Court on a technical decision concerning Mabo’s adoption , they appealed to the

High Court of Australia


Week Two


Hearings before Justice Moynihan of the Supreme Court of Queensland, Mer, 1989


Week Two


• The appeal was heard in the High Court of Canberra as it involved interpretation of the Constitution.


Week Two

Racism and ‘race’ relationsA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT CAN PROMPT

PARLIAMENT TO MAKE LAWSHaving considered a case brought by members of the Meriam people, Eddie Mabo, James Rice and David Passi, on 3 June 1992 six justices of the High Court of Australia declared that the Meriam people were the

owners of the Murray Islands in the Torres Strait. In doing so, the judges recognised that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had legal rights to the land prior to the arrival of Europeans, and those rights

(native title) could continue to the present provided that the people had maintained their connection to the land, and that title had not been

extinguished.The implications of the Mabo decision caused disparate and emotive reactions throughout the Australian community. The Prime Minister,

Paul Keating, declared that his government would make Mabo an historic turning point: ‘the basis of a new relationship between

indigenous and non-Aboriginal Australians’. Aboriginal groups hoped for protection for native title, and compensation for its loss. Mining and

pastoral interests sought reassurance that their titles and leases would not be threatened. All saw the need for Commonwealth legislation to

remove uncertainties arising from Mabo.


Week Two



Week Two

Racism and ‘race’ relationsHIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

The judges in the case declared that: ... the Meriam people are entitled as against the

whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands of the Murray

Islands. It was the first time that the High Court had considered the position of Indigenous people

in Australian property law and their judgment was not restricted to the Murray

Islands. Justice Brennan said: ... there may be other areas of Australia

where an Aboriginal people, maintaining their identity and their customs, are entitled to

enjoy their native title. Justice Brennan


Week Two


The Mabo case led to the

1993 Native Title Act.

This Act accepted the notion of native title, however it did not clarify native title on land that the government had

leased to farmers and pastoralists


Week Two


Native Title is defined as a form of guarantee of rights and

interests in land and water, rivers lakes and oceans

Native title is only available to indigenous people where they are able to prove a continuous

link with the land and have ceremonies and customs associated with the land

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe6eHppCcA8&feature=related


Week Two


The Redfern Speech 1992“It begins, I think, with the act of recognition. Recognition

that it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the

murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practiced discrimination and exclusion.

It was our ignorance and our prejudice. And our failure to imagine these things being done to us. With some noble

exceptions, we failed to make the most basic human response and enter into their hearts and minds. We failed

to ask - how would I feel if this were done to me? As a consequence, we failed to see that what we were doing

degraded all of us.”


Week Two


From Mabo to Wik

The passing of the Wik Bill, July 1998After 106 hours of debate, the Wik Bill was passed by the Senate by 35 to 33 on the

morning of 9 July, 1998. Prime Minister John Howard said that this was a ‘wonderful outcome for all Australians’

•The first case to come before the High court under the new Native Title Act was brought by the Wik people of north Queensland. They claimed Native Title rights

to land that was under pastoral lease.

•In December 1996 the High court ruled that a pastoral lease did not by necessity extinguish native title.

•Pastoral and mining groups put pressure on the government to extinguish native title.

•Howard drafted a 10 point plan, considered to be a compromise and later legislated under the Wik Bill


Week Two

Racism and ‘race’ relations• HOWARD'S TEN-POINT PLAN – a compromise???

• 1. Validation of all uncertain leases granted by Government's between the passage of the Native Title Act and the Wik case.

• 2. Confirmation of extinguishment of native title on title such as freehold, residential and commercial. Pastoralists would have more limited exclusive possession of agricultural leasehold land.

• 3. Aborigines would lose the right to negotiate over third-party acquisition of land in towns and cities and would be unable to impede the provision of municipal services.

• 4. As provided by the Wik decision, pastoral rights would prevail over native title rights. Farmers would be allowed to pursue activities that constitute primary production, including farm stay tourism.

• 5. Once Aborigines have passed a registration test they would be able to have access

to a pastoral lease prior to the determination of their native title claim, if they can prove a current physical connection.

• 6. Drastic reduction of Aboriginal right to negotiate about mining activities.

• 7. Aborigines would have no right to negotiate over compulsory acquisition by the Government of vacant Crown land in towns and cities. Outside urban areas, there would be a higher registration test before a right to negotiate a native title claim would be granted.

• 8. The Government's power over water management would be put beyond doubt.

• 9. An overhaul of the native title claims process and the inclusion of a sunset clause.

• 10. The establishment of a framework to allow voluntary but binding agreements between Aborigines and other parties.


Week Two


• ONE STEP FORWARD

• TWO STEPS BACK


Week Two


Sydney Morning HeraldAustralia faces UN race inquiry over Wik laws

August 18th, 1999

By LAUREN MARTINAustralia's race record could come before the United Nations General Assembly by the end of the year, after a Geneva committee yesterday rejected the Government's defense

of its Wik native title laws.The UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) vowed to continue its "early warning" watch on Australia's treatment of indigenous peoples,

despite the Government's testimony that the Wik laws were not discriminatory.The Wik changes "risked creating an acute impairment" of indigenous land rights, the

committee said.After Australia was made the first Western nation to be called before the committee to

explain its race policies - joining nations such as Algeria, Bosnia, Burundi, Russia, Rwanda and Yugoslavia - the Government said it was not getting an adequate hearing


Week Two


Sydney Morning Herald

“Australia faces UN race inquiry over Wik laws”


Week Two



Week Two


Us Marines raising the flag in Iwo Jima

WHY DO YOU THINK THE LAND COUNCIL HAS CHOSEN THIS IMAGE?


Week Two


With reference to sources, discuss the significant milestones in the achievement of Land Rights for

Aboriginal people.

250 words

Contemporary Aboriginal Issues Week Two Racism and ‘race’ relations Aboriginal Activism Steps to...

Documents

Transcript of Contemporary Aboriginal Issues Week Two Racism and ‘race’ relations Aboriginal Activism Steps to...