Indigenous Australia In 20th Century: Land Rights And Colonialism

The Impact of Colonialism on Indigenous Australians

Discuss about the Indigenous Australia In 20th Century.

Indigenous Australians are at the verge of the settlement of the constitution. The text of the Constitution of Australia is bleak. The indigenous have been mentioned only once bluntly in section 51 (xxvi) which permits the Commonwealth to constitutionalise for the “people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any state, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws” (Breyley, 2007). In the referendum of 1967, the phrase, ‘other than the aboriginal race in any state’ was removed.

During colonisation, approximately 260 language groups existed along with 500 dialects among the indigenous Australians. They resided in small family groups and were semi-nomadic where each group lived in a specified territory and their movements were systematic during the seasonal changes. Since they were semi-nomadic, they were non-materialistic. More stress was laid on spiritual, social and religious activities. The believed that the environment is controlled by spiritual means instead of physical ways and the country was deeply tied by religion (Prádanos & Figueroa Helland, 2015).

Land is the basic necessity of indigenous people. The concepts of land ownership according to the indigenous community are different from the European legal systems. They fixed their boundaries by the Dreaming Creation Stories. The individuals belonged to the territory and the connections with the country were spiritual and obligatory. Therefore, they belonged to the land instead of owning it.

Origins and features of Torres Strait

The Torres Strait is the seaway present between Papua New Guinea and the northernmost east coast of Australia, between the Arafura Sea and the Coral Sea. The Torres Strait consists of around 100 islands. A land bridge named the Sahul Shelf connected Papua New Guinea with the Australian mainland around some 80 thousand to 90 thousand years back. The existence of the Torres Strait is a result of this (Hay & Carriage, 2012).

The residents of Torres Strait live in 18 communities in 17 of the 100 islands along with several locations in Australia. In 1879, the annexure of the Torres Strait took place and it became the crown land as part of Queensland.

History

Since the mid-19^th century, the islanders went through crucial changes due to their increased contact with the Europeans. The residents of Torres Strait adapted to the new lifestyle which was being introduced by the government administration, religion and maritime industries.

The European settlement transferred to the Botany Bay outwards since the settlers started demanding land to use for economic gains. Livestock were being taken by several Aboriginal groups from the European flocks. This resulted in full-fledged wars since this was viewed as stealing by the Europeans. Aboriginals followed guerilla tactics which led to the destruction of livestock. The colonisation aimed to make the lands free from aboriginals in order to use it for development (Davidson, 2010).

Indigenous Australians and Land Rights

As the lands of the aboriginals were increasingly occupied, they shifted to the European settlements since the food supplies got disrupted. The aboriginal people decided to exchange labour for goods which was their kinship system. Nonetheless, this was perceived by the settlers as different since labour was not viewed as gifts but individual exchange. As a result, the traditional life of the aboriginals started to get disrupted which made them come to the white society where their perceptions were like hopeless remnants in the dominant society. Nevertheless, the aboriginals were finally subjected to policies by the government which put efforts in displacing, protecting, dispersing, converting and gradually assimilating them (Balme, 2013).

The 1967 commonwealth referendum symbolizes to grant the aboriginals full citizenship rights. However, problems were still prevalent even after this. Racism as well as disadvantages posed increasingly difficulties for them. The period noted a change in the emphasis laid on civil rights to the understanding that certain rights were being possessed by the aboriginals which were not applicable to other Australians (Hergenhan, 1967). Three stages have been used to capture these changes which are prohibiting racial discrimination, land rights and facilitation of self-determination.

As suggested by McGregor, (2008) during this time, major events such as the walk off by the Gurindji people from wave hill cattle station in 1966 signaled the fight for land rights. National attention was gained by the indigenous activities by leading political agitation, rallies and public protests. Significant achievements have been seen in the 1960s and the 1970s since they are the historical moments for aboriginal rights. These include the establishment of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra, the creation of the Aboriginal flag by Harold Thomas in 1971, and the beginning of civil rights and land rights legislation (Prest, 1967).

Yirrkala

Yirrkala is a settlement in the Northern territory in Arnhem Land. The pastoral as well as mining developers had an eye on Arnhem Land since the 1950s since it was a location which was seen as lucrative enough. The Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve was the occupier of this area who proved to be a hindrance nonetheless, but not an insurmountable one. In 1963, it was announced by Prime Minister Robert Menzies that mining was approved in the vicinity of the Yirrkala Methodist Mission (“Collaborating at the trowel’s edge: teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology”, 2009).

It was argued by the then minister of territories that this development would serve to be fruitful to the aboriginal people in Yirrkala. Contrary to this, Kim Beazley, who was the Member for Fremantle, argued in the creation of Aboriginal land title which was the first time that such a concept came into being. He stated, “Systematically, when anything of any value is discovered in them, areas become excised from the Aboriginal reserves” (Breyley, 2007).  

The 1967 Commonwealth Referendum

In 1963, Kim Beazley and Gordon Bryant went to Yirrkala to visit the residents. It was suggested by Kim Beazley that the aboriginals should submit a petition to the government since it was their right. They reported after their mission, that the aboriginals did not have any services and rights enjoyed by the other states in Australia. Furthermore, it was also reported by them that only land was regarded as their own by these people and they could easily figure out their traditional boundaries. The Commonwealth government was highly criticized by them since it was utterly insensitive to the economics as well as the social structure of the community (Payne, 2010).

The form of petition should be made in such a manner that expressed the culture of the people. The people liked this notion suggested by Kim Beazley and started to work on this with the support of Edgar Wells and his wife along with Doug Tuffin who was another Yirrkala missionary. The petitions were submitted to the House of Representatives which were pasted in a bark and beautiful traditional designs were crafted in it and those petitions expressed the distress of the people who were not being consulted (Seow, 2015).

A Select Committee was set up the Parliament on Grievances of Yirrkala Aborigines. The members of the committee travelled to the Arnhem Land in order to collect evidence the residents, a mining representative and the missionaries. A number of recommendations were being made in the Committee Report. One of them was, ‘compensation for loss of traditional occupancy be made by way of a land grant’ (Deveson, 2011). Yirrkala served as the motivation for struggle for land in other parts of the country such as Lake Tyers in Aboriginal Station in south-western Victoria. Leaders and spokesmen from particular religious firms played major roles in the development and dissemination of arguments for the right of land for aboriginals.

A legal challenge was launched in 1968 by the tribes of Yirrkala against the bauxite alumina project. The Northern Territory Supreme Court commenced on hearing the case in the next year which was brought in by Mungurraway Mathaman and others who represent the clans against the Commonwealth and Nabalco. Damages, declarations and injunctions were sought by them which were associated with the use as well as occupation of the specific areas of the Arnhem Land Reserve. In order to accumulate money for the fight, a public appeal was raised (Levi, 2003).

Case study – Yirrkala

Mr. Justice Blackburn ruled out against the claimants of the Yirrkala clan on 27^th April 1971 and stated that whatever rights were being held by the aboriginals were invalidated after it was colonised as crown city. The mining company was given rights to proceed without paying any heeds to the complaints of the Yirrkala tribes.

However, under the act of Aboriginal Land Rights of 1976, the Yirrkala tribes received the land title but the objections to the mining leases had been excluded particularly from this act (Nurruwutthun, 1980).

Wave Hill walk-off

The aboriginal pastoral workers in August 1966 walked off their jobs at Wave Hill in the Northern territory. Initially, they expressed their unhappiness with working conditions which were not up to the mark and the treatment received by them was utterly disrespectful. The following year they travelled to Wattie Creek which was a significant location for the Gurindji tribe. The disaffection of the Gurindji people was deeper than their distress regarding the wages and poor working conditions since they did not have rights to their lands (Seow, 2015).  

In April 1967, the families of the workers moved to Daguragu in Wattie Creek but according to the Australian law, they inhabited illegally in the part of 6158 square miles which had been leased to Vesteys. They selected Daguragu since it was considered to be a sacred site and also consisted of a permanent source of water.

It was learnt by Frank Hardy that according to the section 112 of the Crown Land Ordinance, the governor general could grant a lease to the aboriginals in connection with their traditional lands. A lease of 500 miles was requested by them which were supposed to be run as a mining lease as well as cattle station (Prádanos & Figueroa Helland, 2015).

In August 1967, it was written by the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (FCAATSI) that they supported the petition by the Gurindji people for returning their tribal lands. The Whitlam government came into power in 1972 which promised to legislate the rights and the Gurindji people were hopeful once again (Prest, 1967).

The original lease of the Wave Hill was surrendered and two new leases were issued in exchange for that: one to the Murramulla Gurindji Company and the other to the Vesteys. The lease for the Gurindji included sacred sites which were significant to them.                

It is agreed that the identity of the aboriginals is established on the descent as well as the country of origin. Descent does not just refer to belonging to people and place. This includes kinship i.e. obligations and relationships to other people and places or country. The idea of a country is basic to the identity of aboriginals. This idea became increasingly imperative because of the advent of Native Title and Land Rights.

References

Balme, J. (2013). The maritime factor in the colonisation of Australia. Quaternary International, 285, p.195.

Breyley, G. (2007). Diasporic Transpositions: Indigenous and Jewish Performances of Mourning in 20th-Century Australia. Ethnomusicology Forum, 16(1), pp.95-126.

Collaborating at the trowel’s edge: teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology. (2009). Choice Reviews Online, 47(03), pp.47-1499-47-1499.

Davidson, I. (2010). The Colonisation of Australia and Its Adjacent Islands and the Evolution of Modern Cognition. Current Anthropology, 51(S1), pp.S177-S189.

Deveson, P. (2011). The agency of the subject: Yolngu involvement in the Yirrkala Film Project.Journal of Australian Studies, 35(2), pp.153-164.

Hergenhan, L. (1967). Australia. The Journal of Commonwealth Literature, 2(1-3), pp.26-38.

Herle, A. (2006). Woven histories, dancing lives: Torres Strait Islander identity, culture and history – Davis, Richard. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 12(1), pp.226-228.

Levi, M. (2003). Thirty Years of Yolngu in Yirrkala. Visual Anthropology, 16(1), pp.93-95.

McGregor, R. (2008). An absent negative. History Australia, 5(2), pp.44.1-44.9.

Nurruwutthun, D. (1980). Yirrkala : Aboriginal Studies. Aborig. Child Sch., 8(01), pp.29-30.

Payne, C. (2010). Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology. By Stephen W. Silliman, ed. Museum Anthropology, 33(1), pp.90-91.

Prádanos, L. and Figueroa Helland, L. (2015). How to Listen to Pachamama’s Testimonio: Lessons from Indigenous Voices. Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature, 39(2).

Prest, W. (1967). Federalism in Australia: The role of the commonwealth grants commission. Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies, 5(1), pp.3-18.

Seow, F. (2015). Indigenous Communities and Indigenous Children. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 23(4), pp.844-866.