Land and Connection to Country
The Tent Embassy, Australia 1972
On the 26th of January 1972, four indigenous men set up a beach umbrella on the lawns opposite Parliament House in Canberra and calling it the Aboriginal Embassy. Michael Anderson, Billy Craigie, Bertie Williams, and Tony Coorey set up the Aboriginal Embassy to protest the McMahon government’s approach to Indigenous land rights (National Museum Australia, 2022)
The day before the Aboriginal Embassy was set up, the announcement of the implementation of a new system that rejected granting independent ownership of traditional land to Indigenous peoples. This caused the sit-in protest to begin as Indigenous peoples felt like “aliens in our own land, so like other aliens, we needed
…show more content…
They achieved political advocacy through making in impact through influential networks and opinion leaders such as the government and gaining attention from diplomats from countries including Canada and Russia. Through endless protests marches, growing support from Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians and gaining media attention political advocacy was achieved. The Tent Embassy was further used to advocated for funding for Aboriginal communities, the political representation of Indigenous Australians, self-determination, and Aboriginal sovereignty of Australia, further expressing political advocacy. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in the area of foundational rights, more specifically in article 1 and article 5, The Tent Embassy embodies these key points of having “the right to full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms” (Article 1, UNDRIP, 2007) as the traditional owners of Australia. In Article 5 it explores the “right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions” (Article 5, UNDRIP, 2007) in Australia which is vital in advocating for Indigenous rights in restoring the connection to land and …show more content…
This largely untouched land is now currently now collaboratively owned by the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, the Tasmanian Land Conservancy, the Australian Government and the TAC, the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. This collaborative ownership process began through TAC, the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, which from funding from the government they were able to acquire this land with the assistance of these other organisations. This Gowan Brae holds a vast, diverse, and largely pristine property of land that was returned to the Indigenous community to share stories, connect to country, and make discoveries about their traditional lands (Tasmanian Times,
They had their own traditional laws and customs and held a very strong and deep-rooted connection to their land. The British policy of the land being terra nullius, or “nobody’s land”, infringed the rights and customs of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The concept of terra nullius robbed the Indigenous population of their right to have possession of their traditional and revered land. Mabo firmly believed it was not the white government’s responsibility to deny rights to traditional Indigenous land.
After 10 long years Torres Strait Islander Eddie ‘Koiki’ Mabo has lead indigenous Australians to a victory over the Queensland government. This win this case is a historical moment, as of yesterday, the indigenous Australians have been recognised as the owners of Murray Island. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are known to have resided in Australia, 40,000 to 60,000 years before the British arrived in 1788. When the British took over they decided to take all the land for themselves even though the indigenous Australians were here first. This court case recognises indigenous Australians unique connection to the land and acknowledges that they have the rights to the land.
On June 3 1992, the legal decision of the Mabo case was made by the High Court, the highest court in Australia’s legal system (Webb, 2008). For thousands of years before the arrival of the British in 1788, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have had their strong connection to the Australian Land. When the British arrived in 1788, it was declared that the country was terra nullius (land belonging to nobody), which resulted to the absence of recognition towards the connection between the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and the Australian land. The declaration of terra nullius also resulted to the British taking land without agreement or payment towards the indigenous Australians (Webb, 2008).
Eddie Mabo and the Mabo Decision As campaigns for improved human rights were gathering momentum across all of Australia (and indeed the globe) in the 1980s, five Torres Strait Islanders (Eddie Koiki Mabo, Sam Passi, Reverend Dave Passi, James Rice and Celuia Mapo Salee) began a long campaign for ‘Native Title’, forever changing the country’s views on Indigenous Australians and the impact of settlement. The notion of land rights was often misunderstood by Australian people who believed they would have their suburban lands taken off them. This meant non-Indigenous support for native title was rare. However, Mabo real aim was to receive legal recognition of their traditional lands in the Torres Strait – area that because of terra nullius was
Throughout this analysis we will take a critical look at the aboriginal identity, the suffering these people go through mentally and physically, and their relationship with the government (Anzovino & Boutilier 2015). The
In 1901 the six British colonies of Australia came together to form the Commonwealth of Australia. This federation was the result of intercolonial discussion, referendums and political debate with a range of different issues . However given the country’s history surrounding Asia and Pacific workers and the conflicts due to their presence, it was agreed that the new nation of Australia would be ‘white’ only. Despite Indigenous Australians and Chinese who were already in residence, colonialists aspired to keep the heritage and culture of Australia British and as a result there would be no home for non-European in Australia . After Australia was federated on January 1st 1901 the government passed the Immigration Restriction Bill which became known
One of the most significant events in Aboriginal peoples struggle for rights in Australia was the Mabo decision in 1992. This event took away the myth of terra nullius from Australian law and would recognise rights that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have to the land and waters according to tradition. Thus, creating way for the legal recognition of native land titles (Loos & Mabo, 2013). This essay will explain the impact of the Mabo decision, what events led to this event and what impact this has on Australian people today.
This highlights how the acquisition of rights for Aboriginal people was a fractured process as they still faced discrimination in the wake of changes that were meant to work in their favor. Although the Referendum did not increase the rights of Aboriginal people, it is still important in the Aboriginal Rights movement as it created the possibility for the Federation to create laws that could benefit or support Aboriginal
[9] The authors contend that the Australian Constitution has historically been used to marginalize Indigenous Australians and that any attempts at constitutional change must be cognizant of this history. The authors argue that the current constitutional framework in Australia needs to be revised to address Indigenous issues, particularly concerning the recognition of Indigenous rights and the participation of Indigenous Australians in the political process. They contend that a First Nations Voice to Parliament and a Makarrata Commission are essential components of constitutional change in Australia. They would provide a framework for Indigenous self-determination and recognizing Indigenous
This paper will give an overview of the act and how it impacted the Indigenous community into becoming
The Aboriginal Embassy protest of 1972 has great historical significance. When looking at why it has such significance it is important to understand some of the driving factors leading up to the protest to provide a bit of context. One of these factors was that the Embassy managed to gain a multitude of international headlines, from areas like china all the way to Europe. It also incited change in the way Australian politics and especcially the ALP at the time thought about assimilation as a policy. Another major role that the Embassy played was giving the Aboriginal people from the rural parts of Australia a political movement that that could get behind, in turn giving them a voice that could be heard even internationally.
Native title ’Native title’ refers to the recognition that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (ATSI) have rights to their traditional lands. For many years, native title has been an on-going topic across Australia, with many people disliking the concept. However, due to Australia’s changing social values and new concepts of justice, it has now been recently addressed. It is through the legal mechanisms such as the ALRC, the NSWLRC, the parliament and the courts and the non legal mechanism, the media that has been a catalyst for law reform for native title. Such mechanisms, have helped cases like the Mabo v Queensland [1988]
As the government overlooks the aboriginals and local residents, this documentary is created in order to shed light to the
In Australia, refugees and asylum seekers are treated like the enemy in a war: the target of a highly resourced, military-led “deterrence” strategy complete with arbitrary detainment, detention camps, guards to terrorise them, forced deportations and the violent suppression of those who protest. Australia is failing to meet the standards required when regarding the treatment of asylum seekers. It is fact that asylum seekers make up less than 3% of Australia’s annual immigration yet the idea is being distorted to that of which they will overpopulate a country that prides itself on being a multicultural society. I want to shed light on the misconception that asylum seekers are not ‘legal’ when in actual fact it is a human right to seek freedom.
The more powerless and vulnerable the individual, the more significant their ethical claim. Since each person, paying little respect to one's lawful status or geographic area, has a transcendent dignity that must dependably be regarded, individuals progressing ought to appreciate the full scope of human rights, and others have an obligation to see that they are regarded, secured and satisfied. "Refugees and asylum seekers are humans, and should enjoy the whole range of human rights. Unless there are compelling reasons to believe that refugees or asylum seekers represent a serious danger to the common good, they should not be interned. Furthermore they should have access to work and thus the opportunity to fulfil their duty to contribute to the common good” (Australians Human Rights Commission, 2014).