Eddie Mabo’s heritage and culture were major influencers in his rise to prominence. Born in 1936, he grew up in the village of Las on the north bend of Mer Island. He would later describe his time on the island as ‘the best time of my life’1. There, he was brought up by a society where Indigenous traditions and colonial influence were carefully connected in both their economy and religion. It was through this interaction and the accommodation of cultures, that Mabo’s identity was established.
Indigenous issues on an international level became more acutely visible to Mabo following his move to Townsville in 1959. During this time, Indigenous Australians were beginning to be motivated by a more aggressive sense of aboriginal patriotism. Indigenous
…show more content…
The first is Paul Keating’s Redfern speech of December 1992, during the Mabo case. Keating spoke about the injustices committed against Indigenous people since European settlement of Australia and the need to acknowledge and remedy these. The conflicting source is an interview of John Howard on the 7.30 report in 1997, 4 years after the Mabo decision. Howard deals with the perceived implications of the Mabo and subsequent land title decisions for land ownership across Australia. The two sources conflict as they are taken from opposing parts of the mainstream Australian political spectrum. They reflect the so-called History Wars, a debate regarding the unresolved cultural struggle over the nature of the Indigenous dispossession and the place it should assume in Australian self-understanding. The Redfern Speech sets out the views of the left wing, progressive spectrum of Australian political views. John Howard’s interview sets out the arguments against the political and economic effects of the Mabo decision and subsequent land title decisions and largely reflects right-wing political views. The sources differ not only in their political views but also the time that they were given. Keating sets out his moral perspective regarding the need to rectify the past wrongs and improve the future prospects for Australian indigenous people. It was delivered before the final Mabo high court decision, and so cannot deal with the social, economic and political implications of said decision. Contrastingly, John Howards interview was 4 years after the Mabo decision, during which several subsequent land title decisions had been made. Consequently, his interview focused on his views of the implications of those subsequent events for Australia’s political, social and economic
Summary of Text: ‘The Redfern Address’ is a speech that was given to a crowd made up of mainly indigenous Australians at the official opening of the United Nations International Year of the World’s Indigenous Peoples in Redfern Park, New South Wales. This text deals with many of the challenges that have been faced by Indigenous Australians over time, while prompting the audience to ask themselves, ‘How would I feel?’ Throughout the text, Keating challenges the views of history over time, outlines some of the outrageous crimes committed against the Indigenous community, and praises the indigenous people on their contribution to our nation, despite the way they have been treated.
Eddie Koiki Mabo was a successful land rights activist born on Mer (Murray) Island in the Torres Strait in 1936. When he was sixteen, he was exiled from the island and lived in Queensland and the Torres Strait before moving to Townsville with his young family in 1962. In 1982 Mabo and four other islanders took legal action to the High court, claiming ownership of their lands on Murray Island. The case went for over ten years until the lands were ruled as being not ‘terra nullius’ and the Meriam people then gained the rights to own their land.
This essay is about the land rights of of Australia and how Eddie Marbo was not happy about his land been taken away from him. In May 1982 Eddie Marbo and four other people of the Murray Islands began to take action in the high court of Australia and confirming their land rights. Eddie Marbo was a torres islander who thought that the Australian laws were wrong and who went to fight and try and change them. He was born in 1936 on Mer which is known as Murray Island. The British Crown in the form of the colony of Queensland became of the sovereign of the islands when they were annexed in1978. They claimed continued enjoyment of there land rights and that had not been validly extinguished by the sovereign. (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012)
Since European invasion in 1788, Indigenous Australians have struggled to maintain their rights and freedoms and to have governments recognise them. Over time, state and Commonwealth governments have implemented policies that have discriminated against Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, denying them equality, opportunity and control of their own lives and those of their children (Jacaranda, 2012). Indigenous Australians have been politically active in demanding their rights. Charles Perkins was an Aboriginal Activist who fought in the struggle for recognition, justice and legal acknowledgments for Indigenous people. To a large extent Charles Perkins has impacted the civil rights of Indigenous Australians; significantly advancing human rights and paving the way for reconciliation.
Of the 8 successful, the 1967 referendum which proposed the removal of the words in section 51 (xxvi) ‘… other than the aboriginal people in any State’ (National Archives of Australia ND), and the deletion of section 127, both, which were discriminative in their nature toward the Aboriginal race, recorded a 90.77% nationwide vote in favour of change (National Archives of Australia, 2014). As a result, the Constitution was altered; highlighting what was believed to be significant positive political change within Indigenous affairs at the time (National Archives of Australia, 2014). Approaching 50 years on, discussion has resurfa...
The decision upheld the claims of five plaintiffs from Murray Island that Australia was occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who had their own laws and customs, and whose 'native title' to land survived the Crown's invasion. Therefore, the court recognised the presence of native title as part of Australian common law.
Key events in Aboriginal Australian history stem from the time Australia was first discovered in 1788. For instance, when Federation came into existence in 1901, there was a prevailing belief held by non Aboriginal Australians that the Aborigines were a dying race (Nichol, 2005:259) which resulted in the Indigenous people being excluded from the constitution except for two mentions – Section 127 excluded Aborigines from the census and Section 51, part 26, which gave power over Aborigines to the States rather than to the Federal Government. Aboriginal people were officially excluded from the vote, public service, the Armed Forces and pensions. The White Australia mentality/policy Australia as “White” and unfortunately this policy was not abolished until 1972. REFERENCE
Struggles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people for recognition of their rights and interests have been long and arduous (Choo & Hollobach: 2003:5). The ‘watershed’ decision made by the High Court of Australia in 1992 (Mabo v Queensland) paved the way for Indigenous Australians to obtain what was ‘stolen’ from them in 1788 when the British ‘invaded’ (ATSIC:1988). The focus o...
The case, simply coined ‘Mabo vs State of Queensland,’ was a hard fought battle between the two entities on the notion that although Aboriginal people had been living on Australian land for thousands of years, it was deemed ‘terra nullius’ - nobody’s land - by British settlers. With great determination and unwavering opinion Mabo managed to single mindedly challenge two centuries of legal status quo, and win on 3 June, 1992, with a ruling of six to one in his favour by the High Court of Australia, reached shortly after his
It said that aboriginal people should be treated equally with land rights, as indigenous Australians were the first on our land that we are on today. This challenged many different previous Australian legal statements to do with Aboriginals including one of the main ones being that Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island communities or people owned no land before the arrival of the British in 1788. This statement was called Terra Nullius, which means land belonging to no one. This Native Title Act of 1993 recognized native title and recognizing and that the aboriginal’s community owns the land, as they are the original owners. The Mabo decision was one of Australia’s firsts steps in recovering all the injustices towards the Indigenous people that were happening in the past and giving them back the land they hold so dearly that they own. The Mabo decision contributed to the collective Identity of Indigenous people as is gave back there cultural land and bringing the most major part back to the aboriginal culture which is the land and the connection between them and the land. This Native Title Act of 1993 allowed the aboriginals to enhance there collective identity due to the fact that it was the first time they were positively recognized and the first time they got something back that was once taken from them all making there beliefs, rituals stronger and overall enhancing there collective identity of being aboriginal. Since the Mabo decision there has been many other cases and different changes and different things added to the native title. The Mabo Decision first did the recognition and giving back of the aboriginal land and it was one of the first to recognize that the land title was wrong and that it did belong to the
Before the Indigenous Australians gained Land Rights in Australia, in 1788 the East Coast of Australia was claimed by the English Monarch and was called Crown Land. The reason behind the English Monarch's claim for Crown Land was that they believed that that land was “terra nullius”, meaning land belonging to no one”. In 1976 the Northern Territory was the first state government to allow Indigenous Australians to claim Crown Land and reserves in the Northern Territory that no one had the use for. Commission and increased funding was also granted to Indigenous Australians through the 1975 Racial Discrimination act made by the Whitlam Government. These acts and decisions were then overruled against in 1985 by the High Court. Article 8 “everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution of law” and Article 16 “the family (...) is entitled to protection by society and the State” of the UDHR are evidence of the discrimination Indigenous Australians faced by the government as they were once again stripped away of their human rights and land titles. Indigenous Australians only began to grant land from the English Monarch after the case between Mabo and others versus the State of Queensland took place that decided in favour of
Beresford, Q., & Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. (2006). Rob Riley: an aboriginal leader's quest for justice. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.
“Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human History. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history. The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians” (apology by Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, 16th November 2009, Parliament House, Canberra.)
“We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.” (Rudd, 2008). There has been a general contentment about the stolen generations after the government publically apologized. However, besides words, no solid compensation has been given to affected children and their families. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to show that although sincere words and a public apology are a huge improvement to the stolen generations, Indigenous families deserve actual compensation. This paper will firstly discuss how stolen generations have been acknowledged,
In this essay I will propose that colonialism and the ‘Immigration Restriction Act aka White Australia policy’, are not dead, not just yet anyway. I will briefly outline some of the tensions in the community which led to the implementation of this policy in 1901. I will also investigate how the media of the day helped this policy along. I will then go on to explain how this policy, which was enacted to stop non Europeans entering Australia, effected the Indigenous population throughout the life of said policy. I will then go on to see if some points from this policy are being revived in today’s political environment, or is it just coincidence that these new legislations seem to align themselves with the 'White Australia' policy of yesteryear. Also I will briefly examine if these new policies breach the ‘Human Rights Act’. One in particular, Operation Sovereign Borders, designed to stop refugees entering the country illegally. By the end if this essay I should be able to answer the question posed above.