QUESTION
This essay is an analysis on Indigenous Australian Land Rights. It identifies key issues of Indigenous Land rights from the perspective of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. It comprises the significance of Land to the Aboriginals, a brief History, The land Rights for the First Australians and Aboriginal Land Right Act of 1970, The Native Title Act 1993 and the present scenario of Aboriginal rights.
An Explanation on the reasons for my interest In Australian Aboriginal Land Rights
I am of Aboriginal descent and I am of the firm belief that the land rights of Indigenous people of Australia should be recognized definitely. Aboriginal culture is complex and diverse and is the oldest culture in the world. I say with pride that our culture has survived so long due to our affinity with the surroundings and our ability to adapt and change over time.
The Significance of Land to Aboriginals
When an aboriginal is taken away from his/her land, that person is actually taken away from the spirit that is giving life and that spirit cannot be regenerated in some other place. This quote sums up the importance of land rights to the Aboriginals of Australia Geoffrey V. Davis.
The wellbeing of Aboriginal people depends on their land. For them Land consists not just soil, rocks or minerals but encompasses the whole environment which sustains them and is sustained by them and their culture. It is core of all spirituality is central to all their issues. [1]
The Aboriginals originally were of many clans living in their own territory, the boundaries of which were defined by geographic boundaries such as rivers, lakes and mountains. They cared and adapted to their environment. They cultivated their lands to live with it and to preserve unlike the British who cultivated their land to live off and to destroy. The Indigenous people’s tracking skills is exemplary and they have the ability to track animals, locate and identify edible plants, to locate sources of fish and water. The concept of ownership of land is a complex system of communal property and reciprocal behaviour. They have no privileged classes based on wealth or birth. They have a crop rotation existence moving from one place to another within their boundaries.[2]
The land for the Aboriginals is the foundation for relationships among families, clans, tribes and the creation itself. Each land has a life and meaning and provides identity and spirituality to the Indigenous people. Land is the economic basis of their lifestyle and therefore worthy of care. They are sacred and therefore to be worshipped. They believe that their sacred site of land maintain the delicate spiritual and environmental balance and ensures survival. The sacred knowledge of their land and culture has been passed on from generation to generation-through oral traditions, artworks and ceremonies.[3]
A Brief History
When Captain Cook discovered Australia at the end of the eighteenth century he ordered the possession of the land with the consent of the natives. But instead for the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and Australia was declared ‘terra nullius’ which means the land belongs to nobody. Finally the High Court of Australia revised this legal fiction called ‘terra nullius’ doctrine in June 1992. The study of pollen and charcoal from Lake George suggests that the Aboriginals have been living on the continent since 120,000 years previous to 1788 when the first colony was founded in Port Jackson. Of 700,000 of First Australians population at the time of European arrival, poisoned waterholes, dispossession, introduced diseases, massacres etc dwindled their population by the end of 19th century. At the turn of the century there were only 65,000 of them from three streams. The first stream is a depleted tribal and semi tribal group of ancestors still living in their lands whose land was not touched by European settlers. The second stream is the Church missions and Government reserves communities and settlements, forcible removed from their sites for administrative convenience. The third stream is the fringe-dwellers living in settlements, refugees in their own land.[4]
For the Aboriginal people of Australia certain places in the physical landscape of Australia are of religious and ritualistic significance. Hence, to an Aboriginal, dispossession of their land amounts to vandalizing their spirituality and not just the loss of territory. In 1950’s and 1960’s, the First Australian communities were threatened by national and transnational mining communities.[5]
The reserves declared as Aboriginal by the Government previously were invaded, their lands stolen and were forcibly removed by the same Governments and Mission Churches. Many of their sites considered sacred were destroyed irrevocably. This era of dispossession led to the Land Right Movement develop on a national level.[6]
The non-indigenous Australians had largely ignored the Aboriginal’s claim over their land until 1990. Nevertheless, in 1993 the Australian Federal Government formally recognized the rights of Aboriginals to own their land with cultural and religious significance through Native Title Act. Since then on the Aboriginal Australians have won certain land claims. However, the process of reconciliation with the Indigenous people is still continuing and this is possible through recognizing and respecting their spiritual values (Bouma et al 2010). By the 1990’s, 1.5% i.e. 250,000 of Australia’s population have identified themselves as Aborigines and Torre Strait Islanders. The Barrunga Statement of 1988 demanding land rights and other cultural, social and political issues was endorsed by Aborigines and the Islanders.[7]
The Land Rights for the First Australians
British introduced their concept of land management of private ownership and exploitation of land for minerals. British thought this idea to be legitimate and brought such laws and enforced them. According to the First Australians, the land owns them and not vice versa. The British never understood the religious relationship, communal ownership and their obligation to preserve and care for mother earth.[8]
The fight by the Aboriginal people of Australia for their land rights in the modern times started off with the Bark petition by Yirrkala people in 1963 and Gurundji walk off in 1966 from Vesty Wavw Hill cattle station. In 1968, Yirrkala Aborigines taking Bauxite mining company Nabalco and the Commonwealth of Australia to court confirmed the ‘terra nullius’ status to Aborigines by the court.[9]
This unfavorable decision by the court did much to unify the Aboriginals and their Land Rights movement on a national scale. Aboriginal people realized that this was a clear sign of them not being represented by the Government and being treated like strangers in their own country. They established the Tent Embassy in 1972 in front of the Parliament house in Canberra and an Aboriginal flag was designed. The Australian Government faced a lot of criticism and embarrassment over the use of police force to pull down their tents.[10]
Aboriginal Land Right Act of 1970
This Act is keystone of Australia’s land rights legislation giving land rights to Australian Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. The Government gave title deed, the first one for communities holding their title, to residents of Lake Tyers and Framlingham Aboriginal Reserves.[11]
There are many disappointing omissions and shortcomings in Aboriginal Land Right Act. There is no possibility of claiming the land out of need by the Aboriginals. There is a lack of protection of Aboriginal sacred sites, which are located out of Aboriginal land. It does not guarantee access to pastoral properties by Aborigines. Sacred sites, hunting and fishing rights are not sufficiently protected by the Act.[12]
The Native Title Act 1993
It is a legislation by the Government, which supports the recognition of Native Title by the courts. This recognizes that Indigenous people can hold rights to their land and waters as it comes from their traditional customs and laws. This is a significant shift as it created a shifting of balance of power with respect to the policies of land.[13]
The abolishing of ATSIC by the Federal Government of Australia in 2005 citing corruption and misuse of funds was a setback to Australian Aboriginals. Aboriginals find it difficult to organize and represent their collective views to defend their common rights due to the Federal system of 6 states different in their interests in one single territory. The land claim procedures by the Aboriginals are long drawn, often difficult and expose them to other forms of exploitation.[14]
They are in conflict with the Government over reducing the already available lower financial support to Aboriginal organizations. This has taken much of the energy and resources of the Aboriginal and Islanders movement.[15]
They are in conflict with the Government over reducing the already available lower financial support to Aboriginal organizations. This has taken much of the energy and resources of the Aboriginal and Islanders movement. At the same time the current situation allows the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders the recognition and involvement in the management of water and land in Australia through mediation. The courts will continue to play a major role in the future on the rights of Indigenous people in their land and water. So far the decisions and legislations have changed the face and direction of the history of Australia. Now the responsibility rests on the ability of the Indigenous people of Australia to be assertive of their rights, interests and connection with their land, sea and the country.[16]
Bibliography
Australia.gov.au (2012) ‘Australian Indigenous Cultural Heritage’Viewed on 25 February 2012 <http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-indigenous-cultural-heritage>
Barron, J , History of Invasion of Aboriginal Nations Study Guide, Topic 6. p.99.
Bouma, G D et al (2010), Religious Diversity in Southeast Asia and the Pacific: National Case Studies, Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg, London, p.11.
Davis, G V (1997) Ar̲atjara: aboriginal culture and literature in Australia, Rodopi, B V Amsterdam , Atlanta P.1-97.
Johnston, E etal, (2008) Indigenous Australians and the law, Cavendish Publishing Ltd, Canada p.1-250
Unpo.org, (2008) ‘Aboriginals of Australia’Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization Heritage’Viewed on 25 February 2012 <http://www.unpo.org/members/7855>
[1] Davis, G V (1997) Ar̲atjara: aboriginal culture and literature in Australia, Rodopi, B V Amsterdam, Atlanta P.1-97.
[2] Land rights and relationships, p.99. Topic 6 Study Guide
[3] Johnston, E etal, (2008) Indigenous Australians and the law, Cavendish Publishing Ltd, Canada p.1-250
[4] Davis, G V (1997) Ar̲atjara: aboriginal culture and literature in Australia, Rodopi, B V Amsterdam , Atlanta P.1-97.
[5] Davis, G V (1997) Ar̲atjara: aboriginal culture and literature in Australia, Rodopi, B V Amsterdam, Atlanta P.1-97.
[6] Davis, G V (1997) Ar̲atjara: aboriginal culture and literature in Australia, Rodopi, B V Amsterdam, Atlanta P.1-97.
[7] Davis, G V (1997) Ar̲atjara: aboriginal culture and literature in Australia, Rodopi, B V Amsterdam, Atlanta P.1-97.
[8] Bouma, G D et al (2010), Religious Diversity in Southeast Asia and the Pacific: National Case Studies, Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg, London, p.11.
[9] Australia.gov.au (2012) ‘Australian Indigenous Cultural Heritage’Viewed on 25 February 2012 <http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-indigenous-cultural-heritage>
[10] Johnston, E etal, (2008) Indigenous Australians and the law, Cavendish Publishing Ltd, Canada p.1-250
[11] Johnston, E etal, (2008) Indigenous Australians and the law, Cavendish Publishing Ltd, Canada p.1-250
[12] Bouma, G D et al (2010), Religious Diversity in Southeast Asia and the Pacific: National Case Studies, Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg, London, p.11.
[13] Australia.gov.au (2012) ‘Australian Indigenous Cultural Heritage’Viewed on 25 February 2012 <http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-indigenous-cultural-heritage>
[14] Johnston, E etal, (2008) Indigenous Australians and the law, Cavendish Publishing Ltd, Canada p.1-250
[15] Bouma, G D et al (2010), Religious Diversity in Southeast Asia and the Pacific: National Case Studies, Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg, London, p.11.
[16] Unpo.org (2008) ‘Aboriginals of Australia’ Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization Heritage Viewed on 25 February 2012 http://www.unpo.org/members/7855>
SOLUTION
Homeland and Outstation Movement
Land plays a vital role in the wellbeing of the Aboriginals and land is the whole environment encompassed around them which not just sustains them but is also sustained by them and their culture (Davis, 1997). The Aboriginals have always stayed in clans and territories demarcated by natural geographic boundaries like rivers, mountains, and lakes etc.
We need to understand in detail the relationship which exists between Indigenous people and their land. For this we need to study the vital concepts like Social relationships, The Dreaming, ceremonies and rites. The Law which can be used interchangeably with The dreaming govern the believes of Indigenous about relationship and rights regarding land (Meggitt in Edwards, 1987:197).
The Homelands Movement is the traditional term which clearly explains the returning to their traditional lands or just the homelands where the indigenous people belong. Outstations are the smaller communities which comprise of indigenous people mainly with closely knit ties descending from kinship and they stay together on the lands which are of too much importance to them.
Brief Overview
In the early 1970’s small groups comprising of Aboriginal from large settlements started shifting to other paces to establish outstation communities like moving away from Alice Springs to the bushes. The Outstation or Homeland Movement is basically a reflection of the innate yearning of the Aboriginal people to reinstate and reiterate their past links with their culture and land.
At the outstations we can still find people hunting and gathering in groups and staying in bush-shelters which are different from the pre-contact ones. Along with all this they follow their old rituals too. However we cannot say that these Homeland and Outstation Movements are return to the ancient times or the pre-contact phase or simple denial to accept the new goods or technologies introduced in the society. We can find people of Aboriginal community adopting and adapting at the same time the European Technology along with the modern foods as per their choice and requirements (ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIA ART & CULTURE CENTRE – ALICE SPRINGS: 100% Aboriginal owned & operated, n.d.).
A group of elder descendants belonging to the Penangke along with the Central land Council in the year 1990 did a negotiation with the Orange Creek Station proprietors to leasehold and a small portion of around 1500 hectares was given to their community for re-establishment. In 1993 the Community living area was granted to these Aboriginals. Now 7 houses have been constructed with power generators in this community. In 1997 a work program was being commenced by the community which had 8 trainees form the Aboriginals enrolled in a small business and tourism courses in Alice Springs (ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIA ART & CULTURE CENTRE – ALICE SPRINGS: 100% Aboriginal owned & operated, n.d.).
History of Homeland and Outstation Movement
The most talked about and famous ‘return home’ happened at Wattie Creek and was accomplished by the Gurindji people. In 1930’s the Aboriginal communities were forcibly moved from their homelands into the towns and missions. The assimilation policy came into being during this period and was implemented till 1960s.In 1968 the amendment brought by The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission caused decline in the employment of Aboriginals in the pastoral industry and that is why they started moving to the centralised areas (Johnston, 1998).
In1972 the Whitlam government made significant changes and dispersed the assimilation policy implemented for Indigenous affairs and self-determination or self-management policy came into being. This led to famous commencement of the Homelands Movement.
Next year in 1973 grants were provided to the homelands movement in order to show their support. In 1976 the Aboriginals land Rights (Northern Territory (NT)) Act 1976 came into being. And according to this act the land which was called the ‘Aboriginal Land’ has to be owned by land trust for an estate along with a small amount of fee otherwise the land might get subjected to a deed of grant which will be held legally for future by a Land Council (Aboriginal Land Rights Northern territory Act 1976, n.d.).
In 1978the Northern Territory achieved the status of self-government and in 1990’s The National Homeland Policy: ASTIC’s Policy which was made for outstations, as well as the homelands and new and emerging communities was developed. In 2005 the overarching agreement was signed between the Northern Territory of Australia and Commonwealth of Australia on Indigenous Affairs (OverarchingAgreement on Idnegenious Affairs between the Commonwelath of Australia and Noethern Territory of Australia 2005-2010, 2005).
In the year 2007 the MoU on Indigenous Housing, Accommodation and Related Services was being signed on September 2007 (Memorandum of Understanding between teh Australain Givernment and The Northern territory of AUstralia, Indegenious Housing, Accomodation and realted Services, 2007).
In the year 2008 when the Council for Australian Government agreed for The National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery according to which 26 selected special sites in Australia were expected to get service delivery on priority basis, amongst which 156 sites were of Northern Territory (COAG, National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery, 2008). Finally in 2009 the Northern Territory Government released the Community Engagement Reports: Our Home, Our Homeland along with the new headlines policies which had statements related to homelands/ outstations- Working Future: fresh ideas/ real results.
Advantages of the Movement
Some of the outstations have their communities tagged as alcohol-free zones and there have been positive rules being designed for them. These positive rules for the community help in promoting traditionally oriented lifestyle and help these indigenous communities future generations learn about their customary rituals and ceremonies. These outstations are declared as restricted areas, where non-indigenous people cannot enter without permission. The reason being these Outstation communities do not want the influence of non-indigenous society and want to avoid any kind of dependence on the non-indigenous society.
It has been found that the homeland communities might suffer due to lack of access to health care facilities, but research has shown that positive health care and results have been depicted by people how live in homelands (Ganesharaja, 2009). The mortality rate was lower because of outstation living standards and the attendant benefits attached with the physical activity along with restricted access to alcohol and diet. The social factors like connectivity to culture, opportunities for self-determination and family and land also played positive role.
The above research has been supported by another research which also indicated lower mortality rates, hypertension, diabetes, injury and hospitalisation happening to the Aboriginal people who were staying at the homelands than the ones staying at centralised settlements (McDermott et al., 1998).
The major elements associated with the health benefits are the emotional and social wellbeing which most of the homeland community members have and possess because they stay or live on country in smaller communities. This helps and saves them form stressors like alcohol, violence as well as the community conflicts too (Burgess et al., 2005).
It has been found that some of the indigenous homeland communities are taking part in conservation projects along with land management in their traditional homelands and this has given results like helping in mitigation of the effects of the climatic changes through the fire abatement projects (Unsupported source type (Report) for source Wes07.)
There have been evidences collected by the Central Land Council which clearly indicate high level of interest in land as well as sea management. It also helps in areas like resource development, fisheries protection, management of introduced plant species, and management of feral animals in the remotest regions of Australia. Such kinds of activities are helpful in generating employment options and the actions help in working towards protection of the biodiversity of the flora and fauna of Australia.
Participations in the art industry have also helped in the economic development of most of the homeland communities as it helps the indigenous communities to not juts practice but to revitalise the Indigenous customs and traditions related to their culture (Altman, 2009). Homeland communities of Mapuru have been promoting cultural tourism projects which are beneficial for their own economic development.
Disadvantages of the Movement
The government has not done any cost-benefit analysis till date in relation to homelands because the government has to bear significant expenses in order to make available the required infrastructure like housing, water, electricity, sanitation and roads etc to indigenous communities at homeland The expenses might prove to be very high for the government, however the economic benefits might over weigh.
On the other hand some commentators have declared homelands to be something unviable as they are situated very remote form the mainstream markets, thus the employment opportunities along with education is something inaccessible to them. This is why Amanda Vanstone, The Indigenous Affairs minister arguably said that all the indigenous or small communities seem to possess a restricted future as they have restricted amount of resources and she named these small communities as just merely ‘ cultural museums’ (Vanstone, 2005).Thus the fact cannot be argued that in reality the small indigenous communities are located far away from the resources and the markets as found in larger cities, but then too some of the smaller communities are trying hard to develop projects which are economically viable.
Impact of the Current Northern Territory Government Policy “Territory Growth Towns” on the Movement
There is clear cut evidence which has been obtained form a study done on the Utopia Homelands for ten years in the NT found that the mortality rates were very much lesser at the Utopian community than the mortality rates for the whole indigenous people in the Northern Territory (Rowley, 2008).
The initiative of Aboriginal communities in the form of homeland movement has been supported by the government policies and programs. However since 2007 several programs align with federal and the NT Government Policies are getting implemented which might cause damaging or harmful impact on the substantial growth along with the continuity of the homeland communities. Some of them are listed below:
- Starting from 1st July 2008 the responsibilities of federal government to deliver the municipal and essential services to the homeland communities has been transferred to the NT government
- The NT Emergency Response has been developed to handle the sexual abuse and any incident of family violence in indigenous communities in NT.
- Under the Local Government Act 2008 the Indigenous community councils are replaced by shire councils, which will reduce the level of involvement of community engagement and also the inputs form the community councils at the same time.
- The slow but gradual withdrawal of CDEP which has been phased out by 2011 from the remote areas will result in decrease financial support to the community work done for homelands, because the CDEP wages will be converted to simple welfare payments (Submission to the Office of Indigenous Policy Northern Territory Department of Chief Minister – Outstations Policy Discussion Paper, 2008).
The ‘Territory Growth Towns’ policy adopted by the Northern Territory Government works on hub and spoke model according to which the large regional tows will act as the service hubs and the homelands which are the smaller outlying communities will act as spokes (Northern Territory Government, Working Future: Territory Growth Towns, n.d.). The personnel form regional hubs will service the spokes the small communities with all the services like educational services, infrastructure maintenance and health care. Some of the impacts which have been analysed are:
- This model of ‘Territory growth Towns’ is good for some service deliveries like infrastructure and roads but it is not competent enough to provide quality or good level of education in the small areas.
- The homelands or the outstations basically get under-resourced education services which can be imagined from the scenario that almost 1000 school-aged children in the Arnhem region have completely no access to school education (Emerging Themes – National Inquiry into Rural and Remote Education, 2000).
- The need is to abandon this model because of lack of education provisions and the government should do negotiations with the homeland stakeholders for the better quality service delivery related to education just like the perfect and flawless education model adopted at the Garrthalala situated in Arnhem Land.
- This model also does not allow coping up with the contingencies or any local differences which might arise in homeland communities.
- It has been found that wherever the service delivery is being given priority to the hubs and that too in case of on-site expenses service delivery at the outstation or homeland communities this results in undermining the progress of the indigenous communities. Thus the homeland communities members will have to travel very long distance or some of them have to temporarily relocate to the hub towns to get access to the service delivery. Similarly the lack of resources for the newly developing homelands will have negative impact on the Aboriginal population which is increasing in the Northern Territory.
Thus from this report it is evident that the government should allow the participation of homeland residents and leaders while farming the policies for the Indigenous communities so that their future seems brighter.
Bibliography
Unsupported source type (Report) for source Wes07.
ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIA ART & CULTURE CENTRE – ALICE SPRINGS: 100% Aboriginal owned & operated, [Online], Available: http://aboriginalart.com.au/culture/community.html [5 April 2012].
Aboriginal Land Rights Northern territory Act 1976, [Online], Available: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/alrta1976444/s3.html#aboriginal [5 April 2012].
Altman, J. (2009) ‘Managing creative industries in a changing environment – has the Intervention impacted on Indigenous creativity in the Northern Territory’, Speech delivered at Key Forum for Garma 2009, Gulkula.
Burgess, C.P., Johnston, F.H., Bowman, D.M. and Whitehead, P.J. (2005) ‘Healthy Country: Healthy People? Exploring the health benefits of Indigenous Natural Resource Management’’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 117-122.
COAG, National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery (2008), [Online], Available: http://www.coag.gov.au/intergov_agreements/federal_financial_relations/docs/national_partnership/national_partnership_on_remote_service_delivery_with_amended_schedule.rtf [5 April 2012].
Davis, G.V. (1997) Aratjara: aboriginal culture and literature in Australia, Atlanta: Rodopi, B V Amsterdam.
‘Emerging Themes – National Inquiry into Rural and Remote Education’, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, pp. 12-13.
Ganesharaja, C. (2009) ‘Indigenous health and wellbeing:The importance of country’, Native Title Research Report No 1/2009.
Johnston, E. (1998) ‘Land Needs: Outstations and the exit option’, Royal Commisssion into Aboriginals Death in Custody, National report, vol. Volume 2, no. Chapter19, Available: Volume 2.
McDermott, R., O’Dea, K., Rowley, K., Knight, S. and Burgess, P. (1998) ‘Beneficial impact of the homelands movement on health outcomes in central Australian aborigines’’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 653-8.
Memorandum of Understanding between teh Australain Givernment and The Northern territory of AUstralia, Indegenious Housing, Accomodation and realted Services (2007), September, [Online], Available: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/indig_ctte/submissions/sub28_attachment_8.pdf [5 April 2012].
Northern Territory Government, Working Future: Territory Growth Towns, [Online], Available: http://www.workingfuture.nt.gov.au/growth_towns.html [5 April 2012].
‘OverarchingAgreement on Idnegenious Affairs between the Commonwelath of Australia and Noethern Territory of Australia 2005-2010’ (2005), Department of Cheif Minister>
Rowley, K.K.O.e.a. (2008) ‘Lower than expected morbidity and mortality for an Australian Aboriginal population: 10-year follow-up in a decentralised community’, Medical Journal of Australia.
‘Submission to the Office of Indigenous Policy Northern Territory Department of Chief Minister – Outstations Policy Discussion Paper’ (2008), Australian Human Rights Commission.
Vanstone, A. (2005) ‘Indigenous communities becoming ‘cultural museums’, ‘, ABC Radio, AM Program.
JC53
But you can order it from our service and receive complete high-quality custom paper. Our service offers “Politics” essay sample that was written by professional writer. If you like one, you have an opportunity to buy a similar paper. Any of the academic papers will be written from scratch, according to all customers’ specifications, expectations and highest standards.”
