Indigenous Sovereignty- a brief discussion
Introduction
Australia must understand and face up to its past to have the ability to move into the future confidently. The treatment of the Indigenous people of Australia has been horrific and shameful. It is time to acknowledge the true history of this nation(s), and make reparations for the past. We must not deny the truth, or Australia will be a diminished society of divided peoples.
"The past is never fully gone. It is absorbed into the present and the future. It stays to shape what we are and what we do"
Sir William Deane, (former) Governor General (Inaugural Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture, August 1996.)
For justice to occur, the people of Australia must recognise and bravely face the many injustices suffered by Indigenous people. We must recognise the benefits we have today, as the usurpers of the traditional owners of the land. We must recognise that we have benefited while Indigenous people have suffered genocide, ranging from massacres to the forced removal of children.
"Always was, always will be Aboriginal Land"
Non- Indigenous Australians must be strong and realise the land they walk on was stolen illegally, and colonised, under the false doctrine of terra nulius. Reparations must be for those dispossessed of their ancestral lands.
"Land Rights not mining rights"
Justice cannot occur while mining corporations are allowed to mine uranium and other minerals on various Indigenous nations' ancestral lands. These mining corporations, with the consent of Federal and State/Territory governments, poison animals, the environment and traditional food sources, destroy sacred sites, deplete valued, sacred water sources, and exploit and manipulate Indigenous communities living in poverty.
"We realise you really want to desecrate another sacred site and kill our Lake Eyre"
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder (August 1999)
True justice cannot occur while mining corporations throw measly bribes at Indigenous communities and families, (living in poverty and sickness due to dispossession and racism), in return for billions of dollars worth of mineral resources from the traditional owner's lands.
Despite claims by the Federal government publication, "The Path to Reconciliation", that corporations such as WMC are "incorporating respect for Indigenous people's perspective", WMC operates the largest uranium mine and the fifth largest copper mine in the world, on Arabunna land, against the wishes of the traditional owners.
"We Arabunna people opposed Roxby Downs since the beginning and we oppose it still. Our opposition is yet to be addressed."
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder,(August 2000)
The true grassroots movement for justice needs to put the continued genocide of Indigenous cultures, by powerful corporate and state interests, on the top of the political agenda.
The campaign to stop the Jabiluka uranium mine has been led by the Mirrar people, and they have enormous support from people around Australia and the world. Their native sovereignty has been vital to stall/halt the mine's progress.
"The Mirrar people still say no to Jabiluka mine! All the Mirrar are together, we are united against any more uranium mining on Mirrar country!...We cannot change the law and the law is that we protect our sacred sites!.. Since 1996 the Mirrar have fought against Jabiluka across Australia and overseas. We have won many friends and our supporters are strong and stand with us!...Rio Tinto talks about responsibly building long term values but right now its uranium operations in Kakadu directly threaten the future of Mirrar culture."
Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner (11th April, 2002.)
The idea of a "people's movement" grew, when about a million people walked for reconciliation/justice across Australia, during 2000. This was the biggest public demonstration of Indigenous support ever.
Many walked for reconciliation/justice but few knew that Rio Tinto, the latest owner of Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines in Kakadu, sponsored Melbourne's reconciliation walk, and banned political speeches from the stage. The walkers were there due to their personal recognition of reconciliation. They were also demanding official and political recognition, despite government and corporate public relations.
However, reconciliation is more than just a walk in the park.
The "people's movement" has been dismissed by the likes of Prime Minister John Howard, refusing to say Sorry and labeling the true reconciliation/justice process a "black armband view of history".
It seems to be more of a John Howard whitewash, encouraged by Pauline Hanson's racist and ignorant views on ideas like reconciliation/justice, which won her a million votes in 1998.
Reconciliation/justice cannot occur without history being truthfully acknowledged. This may be the deciding factor on when and what the reconciliation process will eventually achieve.
Treaty
"Our land was taken by massacres and displacement. No treaties were signed. We have never ceded our sovereignty. Our sovereignty cannot be extinguished. Under international law, we still own the land".
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder (August, 2000)
Unlike other Western nations who have signed treaties with their indigenous peoples, (such as the USA, NZ and Canada) Australia has still failed to do so.
When the Australian continent was invaded by the English empire, it was done so under a false doctrine of terra nullius, meaning either "a country without a sovereign� or a “territory where nobody owns any land at all". The idea of terra nullius was rejected in the High Court 'Mabo' decision in 1992.
The terra nullius doctrine has abetted the failure of a treaty to be signed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
"A treaty between indigenous peoples and Australia could have recognised and protected indigenous rights and led to a just constitutional basis for the Australian Federation".
ATSIC National Treaty Support Group (May 2001)
A treaty needs a balanced informed debate beforehand, with all voices being heard. These debates must include the voices of all indigenous people, not only the ATSIC board. Issues of how, why and what a treaty is about need to be fully discussed. There are many differing opinions on a treaty and whom the treaty/treaties will be between.
A treaty is also tied up in the issues of reconciliation, self-determination, land rights and reparations for the past. A treaty needs to be part of the solution to these other issues, an agreement between two or more parties on the best way forward, and to settle, as much as possible the mistakes of the past, fairly and honestly.
Who the treaty will be between also needs to be understood. Will it be with each traditional Indigenous nation, larger regional groupings of nations, separate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander treaties or a treaty encompassing all Indigenous peoples of Australia? Will the treaty be with current landowners, pastoralists, local councils, state or federal governments. Will the treaty grant self-determination?
Why has an apology to the stolen generation been so controversial?
The Bringing Them Home report about the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their parents over generations shocked the sensibilities of many Australians. The report came as a result of the Royal Commission on Deaths in Custody, which uncovered that many Aboriginals who died in custody were members of the stolen generation(s). The extent of Aboriginal child removal had not been properly acknowledged previously.
"As the Bringing Them Home report states, not one Indigenous family has escaped the effects of the removal policies"
Audrey Ngingali Kinnear and John Brown, National Sorry Day Committee Co-Chairs (May 2001)
Yet the Howard government mocked the very concept of stolen generations of children and slammed the Bringing Them Home report as distorted, downplaying and ignoring the report’s recommendations. While people were shocked and distressed by the report’s finding, the Howard government showed great insensitivity to such a sensitive issue as forcefully removing children from their families.
The Howard government refused to officially say sorry, but the refusal cut deeper into Australian history's most controversial issue- the treatment of the nation's Indigenous people. Seen in this light, it is not just an apology to the stolen generation, that is a so-called ˜controversy", because if the stolen generation is apologised too, then perhaps the entire invasion and colonisation of Australia's Indigenous people should be apologised for.
When looking at images of Aboriginal chain gangs, learning of massacres and slavery, or hearing the testimonies of the stolen generations, an apology does not seem so controversial. The forced removal of indigenous children from their families, communities and their very identities was a shameful and bigoted part of Australia’s history and must be acknowledged.
One of the main reasons that many Australian find an apology to the stolen generation a controversy, is that the policy of forced removal of children was not due to the present government or present society.
To not acknowledge, in the present, that the stolen generation should be apologised to and be given reparations, requires an apology in itself, for a lack of understanding and compassion. Our present society has evolved from what society did in the past, and the present generation should be able to recognise the grave mistakes of the past and attempt to make amends as best as possible. We can't undo the past but we must recognise the past.
It is a double standard when many people (such as Howard) can demand an apology from the Japanese government for atrocities committed in the second world war, yet refuse to apologise to the stolen generations, because it was a policy enacted by past, not present generations.
Society, collectively should make reparations for the past.
Another "controversy" is the financial compensation that may result once an official apology is given. If it is such a widespread concern that this will occur, aren't those concerned recognising that the stolen generation have a good chance of receiving money, due to their legitimate grievance?
Can you put a price on genocide? With genocide being the worst crime humanity can inflict on itself, how can reparations be made? A dollar figure or a dollar motive is created by the cynics, who refuse to face the responsibilities we have of acknowledging the past and giving back what we can in reparations.
A person taken from their family when young loses their connection to their roots, their home and their family. The family is left behind and unaware of their child's wellbeing. Lifetime family relationships are lost. The official policy of Aboriginal child removal was cruel and racist. The official apology is long overdue from the government. By refusing to apologise and downplaying the harm done by the removal policy, the Howard government has negated healing and failed to achieve genuine reconciliation.
With saying Sorry only the beginning, the symbolism of an apology will spur the reconciliation/justice process on to addressing the serious issues facing Indigenous Australians. The unfinished business can be finished and Australia can move into the future with a stronger vision, guided by the ancient spiritual and practical wisdom of the nation's indigenous peoples.
"We can guide you in creating a culture based on peace making, caring and sharing, and healing the land and the people. There is too much at stake and we hold the key to survival. Listen to us and respect what you hear. Commit to peace not war"
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder
Wallaby Poors
Author's notes
This essay was written by me for uni in 2002, and was meant to address the issues of reconciliation, the stolen generation and treaty. I have edited it a bit- I got rid of most of the first section on reconciliation, as I have become more informed from Aboriginal people since, and believe that it wasn't totally accurate or written in the understanding I now have.
I have a cut out a few things elsewhere and also changed the word reconciliation to justice in most of the essay or changed it to reconciliation/justice. I would also say that my analysis could go further on the issue of treaty. I like this article because I incorporated quotes from Arabunna elder Kevin Buzzacott and Mirrar elder Yvonne Margarula
It is really interesting to read over old essays to see where your access and understanding of things were at, at that time,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
R.Broome, 1997, ‘The Colonial Experience, The Port Phillip District 1834-1850’, La Trobe University, Brown Prior Anderson.
Council For Aboriginal Reconciliation, 1994, ‘The Red Yellow and Black Book’, Darwin, Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.
Council For Aboriginal Reconciliation, ‘Walking Together’, Number 29, August 2000
Commonwealth Government, ‘Paths to Reconciliation’, 1999
Reconciliation Australia, ‘Tracks to Reconciliation’, March 2002
ATSIC Victoria, ‘Koori Grapevine’, Issue 2, November 29, 2001
ATSIC National Treaty Support Group, ‘Treaty, let’s get it right’, May 2001
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder, ‘Lake Eyre is calling- Ankaku’, August 1999
Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner, ‘Jabiluka Mine, Dead but not Buried’, April 11, 2002
Sue Charles, ‘Keepers of Land, Visions for Camp Kooyoora’, December 2001
Robert Manne, ‘Mabo: A moral crisis festers’, The Age, May 27, 2002.
Introduction
Australia must understand and face up to its past to have the ability to move into the future confidently. The treatment of the Indigenous people of Australia has been horrific and shameful. It is time to acknowledge the true history of this nation, and make reparations for the past. We must not deny the truth, or Australia will be a diminished society of divided peoples.
“The past is never fully gone. It is absorbed into the present and the future. It stays to shape what we are and what we do�
Sir William Deane, (former) Governor General (Inaugural Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture, August 1996.)
For justice to occur, the people of Australia must recognise and bravely face the many injustices suffered by Indigenous people. We must recognise the benefits we have today, as the usurpers of the traditional owners of the land. We must recognise that we have benefited while Indigenous people have suffered genocide, ranging from massacres to the forced removal of children.
“Always was, always will be Aboriginal Land�
Non- Indigenous Australians must be strong and realise the land they walk on was stolen illegally, and colonised, under the false doctrine of terra nulius. Reparations must be for those dispossessed of their ancestral lands.
“Land Rights not mining rights�
Justice cannot occur while mining corporations are allowed to mine uranium and other minerals on various Indigenous nations’ ancestral lands. These mining corporations, with the consent of Federal and State/Territory governments, poison animals, the environment and traditional food sources, destroy sacred sites, deplete valued, sacred water sources, and exploit and manipulate Indigenous communities living in poverty.
“We realise you really want to desecrate another sacred site and kill our Lake Eyre�
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder (August 1999)
True justice cannot occur while mining corporations throw measly bribes at Indigenous communities and families, (living in poverty and sickness due to dispossession and racism), in return for billions of dollars worth of mineral resources from the traditional owner’s lands.
Despite claims by the Federal government publication, “The Path to Reconciliation� that corporations such as WMC are “incorporating respect for Indigenous people’s perspective�, WMC operates the largest uranium mine and the fifth largest copper mine in the world, on Arabunna land, against the wishes of the traditional owners.
“We Arabunna people opposed Roxby Downs since the beginning and we oppose it still. Our opposition is yet to be addressed.�
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder,(August 2000)
The true grassroots movement for justice needs to put the continued genocide of Indigenous cultures, by powerful corporate and state interests, on the top of the political agenda.
The campaign to stop the Jabiluka uranium mine has been led by the Mirrar people, and they have enormous support from people around Australia and the world. Their native sovereignty has been vital to stall/halt the mine’s progress.
“The Mirrar people still say no to Jabiluka mine! All the Mirrar are together, we are united against any more uranium mining on Mirrar country…..We cannot change the law and the law is that we protect our sacred sites….. Since 1996 the Mirrar have fought against Jabiluka across Australia and overseas. We have won many friends and our supporters are strong and stand with us …..Rio Tinto talks about responsibly building long term values but right now its uranium operations in Kakadu directly threaten the future of Mirrar culture.�
Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner (11th April, 2002.)
The idea of a “people’s movement� grew, when about a million people walked for reconciliation/justice across Australia, during 2000. This was the biggest public demonstration of Indigenous support ever.
Many walked for reconciliation/justice but few knew that Rio Tinto, the latest owner of Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines in Kakadu, sponsored Melbourne’s reconciliation walk, and banned political speeches from the stage. The walkers were there due to their personal recognition of reconciliation. They were also demanding official and political recognition, despite government and corporate public relations.
However, reconciliation is more than just a walk in the park.
The “people’s movement� has been dismissed by the likes of Prime Minister John Howard, refusing to say Sorry and labeling the true reconciliation/justice process a “black armband view of history�.
It seems to be more of a John Howard whitewash, encouraged by Pauline Hanson’s racist and ignorant views on ideas like reconciliation/justice, which won her a million votes in 1998.
Reconciliation/justice cannot occur without history being truthfully acknowledged. This may be the deciding factor on when and what the reconciliation process will eventually achieve.
Treaty
“Our land was taken by massacres and displacement. No treaties were signed. We have never ceded our sovereignty. Our sovereignty cannot be extinguished. Under international law, we still own the land�
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder (August, 2000)
Unlike other Western nations who have signed treaties with their indigenous peoples, (such as the USA, NZ and Canada) Australia has still failed to do so.
When the Australian continent was invaded by the English empire, it was done so under a false doctrine of terra nullius, meaning either “a country without a sovereign� or a “territory where nobody owns any land at all�. The idea of terra nullius was rejected in the High Court ‘Mabo’ decision in 1992.
The terra nullius doctrine has abetted the failure of a treaty to be signed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
“A treaty between indigenous peoples and Australia could have recognised and protected indigenous rights and led to a just constitutional basis for the Australian Federation�
ATSIC National Treaty Support Group (May 2001)
A treaty needs a balanced informed debate beforehand, with all voices being heard. These debates must include the voices of all indigenous people, not only the ATSIC board. Issues of how, why and what a treaty is about need to be fully discussed. There are many differing opinions on a treaty and whom the treaty/treaties will be between.
A treaty is also tied up in the issues of reconciliation, self-determination, land rights and reparations for the past. A treaty needs to be part of the solution to these other issues, an agreement between two or more parties on the best way forward, and to settle, as much as possible the mistakes of the past, fairly and honestly.
Who the treaty will be between also needs to be understood. Will it be with each traditional Indigenous nation, larger regional groupings of nations, separate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander treaties or a treaty encompassing all Indigenous peoples of Australia? Will the treaty be with current landowners, pastoralists, local councils, state or federal governments. Will the treaty grant self-determination?
Why has an apology to the stolen generation been so controversial?
The Bringing Them Home report about the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their parents over generations shocked the sensibilities of many Australians. The report came as a result of the Royal Commission on Deaths in Custody, which uncovered that many Aboriginals who died in custody were members of the stolen generation(s). The extent of Aboriginal child removal had not been properly acknowledged previously.
“As the Bringing Them Home report states, not one Indigenous family has escaped the effects of the removal policies�
Audrey Ngingali Kinnear and John Brown, National Sorry Day Committee Co-Chairs (May 2001)
Yet the Howard government mocked the very concept of stolen generations of children and slammed the Bringing Them Home report as distorted, downplaying and ignoring the report’s recommendations. While people were shocked and distressed by the report’s finding, the Howard government showed great insensitivity to such a sensitive issue as forcefully removing children from their families.
The Howard government refused to officially say sorry, but the refusal cut deeper into Australian history’s most controversial issue- the treatment of the nation's Indigenous people. Seen in this light, it is not just an apology to the stolen generation, that is a so-called ‘controversy’, because if the stolen generation is apologised too, then perhaps the entire invasion and colonisation of Australia’s Indigenous people should be apologised for.
When looking at images of Aboriginal chain gangs, learning of massacres and slavery, or hearing the testimonies of the stolen generations, an apology does not seem so controversial. The forced removal of indigenous children from their families, communities and their very identities was a shameful and bigoted part of Australia’s history and must be acknowledged.
One of the main reasons that many Australian find an apology to the stolen generation a controversy, is that the policy of forced removal of children was not due to the present government or present society.
To not acknowledge, in the present, that the stolen generation should be apologised to and be given reparations, requires an apology in itself, for a lack of understanding and compassion. Our present society has evolved from what society did in the past, and the present generation should be able to recognise the grave mistakes of the past and attempt to make amends as best as possible. We can’t undo the past but we must recognise the past.
It is a double standard when many people (such as Howard) can demand an apology from the Japanese government for atrocities committed in the second world war, yet refuse to apologise to the stolen generations, because it was a policy enacted by past, not present generations.
Society, collectively should make reparations for the past.
Another ‘controversy’ is the financial compensation that may result once an official apology is given. If it is such a widespread concern that this will occur, aren’t those concerned recognising that the stolen generation have a good chance of receiving money, due to their legitimate grievance?
Can you put a price on genocide? With genocide being the worst crime humanity can inflict on itself, how can reparations be made? A dollar figure or a dollar motive is created by the cynics, who refuse to face the responsibilities we have of acknowledging the past and giving back what we can in reparations.
A person taken from their family when young loses their connection to their roots, their home and their family. The family is left behind and unaware of their child’s wellbeing. Lifetime family relationships are lost. The official policy of Aboriginal child removal was cruel and racist. The official apology is long overdue from the government. By refusing to apologise and downplaying the harm done by the removal policy, the Howard government has negated healing and failed to achieve genuine reconciliation.
With saying Sorry only the beginning, the symbolism of an apology will spur the reconciliation/justice process on to addressing the serious issues facing Indigenous Australians. The unfinished business can be finished and Australia can move into the future with a stronger vision, guided by the ancient spiritual and practical wisdom of the nation’s indigenous peoples.
“We can guide you in creating a culture based on peace making, caring and sharing, and healing the land and the people. There is too much at stake and we hold the key to survival. Listen to us and respect what you hear. Commit to peace not war�
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder
Wallaby Poors
Author’s notes
This essay was written by me for uni in 2002, and was meant to address the issues of reconciliation, the stolen generation and treaty. I have edited it a bit- I got rid of most of the first section on reconciliation, as I have become more informed from Aboriginal people since, and believe that it wasn’t totally accurate or written in the understanding I now have.
I have a cut out a few things elsewhere and also changed the word reconciliation to justice in most of the essay or changed it to reconciliation/justice. I would also say that my analysis could go further on the issue of treaty. I like this article because I incorporated quotes from Arabunna elder Kevin Buzzacott and Mirrar elder Yvonne Margarula
It is really interesting to read over old essays to see where your access and understanding of things were at, at that time
BIBLIOGRAPHY
R.Broome, 1997, ‘The Colonial Experience, The Port Phillip District 1834-1850’, La Trobe University, Brown Prior Anderson.
Council For Aboriginal Reconciliation, 1994, ‘The Red Yellow and Black Book’, Darwin, Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.
Council For Aboriginal Reconciliation, ‘Walking Together’, Number 29, August 2000
Commonwealth Government, ‘Paths to Reconciliation’, 1999
Reconciliation Australia, ‘Tracks to Reconciliation’, March 2002
ATSIC Victoria, ‘Koori Grapevine’, Issue 2, November 29, 2001
ATSIC National Treaty Support Group, ‘Treaty, let’s get it right’, May 2001
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder, ‘Lake Eyre is calling- Ankaku’, August 1999
Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner, ‘Jabiluka Mine, Dead but not Buried’, April 11, 2002
Sue Charles, ‘Keepers of Land, Visions for Camp Kooyoora’, December 2001
Robert Manne, ‘Mabo: A moral crisis festers’, The Age, May 27, 2002.
Australia must understand and face up to its past to have the ability to move into the future confidently. The treatment of the Indigenous people of Australia has been horrific and shameful. It is time to acknowledge the true history of this nation(s), and make reparations for the past. We must not deny the truth, or Australia will be a diminished society of divided peoples.
"The past is never fully gone. It is absorbed into the present and the future. It stays to shape what we are and what we do"
Sir William Deane, (former) Governor General (Inaugural Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture, August 1996.)
For justice to occur, the people of Australia must recognise and bravely face the many injustices suffered by Indigenous people. We must recognise the benefits we have today, as the usurpers of the traditional owners of the land. We must recognise that we have benefited while Indigenous people have suffered genocide, ranging from massacres to the forced removal of children.
"Always was, always will be Aboriginal Land"
Non- Indigenous Australians must be strong and realise the land they walk on was stolen illegally, and colonised, under the false doctrine of terra nulius. Reparations must be for those dispossessed of their ancestral lands.
"Land Rights not mining rights"
Justice cannot occur while mining corporations are allowed to mine uranium and other minerals on various Indigenous nations' ancestral lands. These mining corporations, with the consent of Federal and State/Territory governments, poison animals, the environment and traditional food sources, destroy sacred sites, deplete valued, sacred water sources, and exploit and manipulate Indigenous communities living in poverty.
"We realise you really want to desecrate another sacred site and kill our Lake Eyre"
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder (August 1999)
True justice cannot occur while mining corporations throw measly bribes at Indigenous communities and families, (living in poverty and sickness due to dispossession and racism), in return for billions of dollars worth of mineral resources from the traditional owner's lands.
Despite claims by the Federal government publication, "The Path to Reconciliation", that corporations such as WMC are "incorporating respect for Indigenous people's perspective", WMC operates the largest uranium mine and the fifth largest copper mine in the world, on Arabunna land, against the wishes of the traditional owners.
"We Arabunna people opposed Roxby Downs since the beginning and we oppose it still. Our opposition is yet to be addressed."
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder,(August 2000)
The true grassroots movement for justice needs to put the continued genocide of Indigenous cultures, by powerful corporate and state interests, on the top of the political agenda.
The campaign to stop the Jabiluka uranium mine has been led by the Mirrar people, and they have enormous support from people around Australia and the world. Their native sovereignty has been vital to stall/halt the mine's progress.
"The Mirrar people still say no to Jabiluka mine! All the Mirrar are together, we are united against any more uranium mining on Mirrar country!...We cannot change the law and the law is that we protect our sacred sites!.. Since 1996 the Mirrar have fought against Jabiluka across Australia and overseas. We have won many friends and our supporters are strong and stand with us!...Rio Tinto talks about responsibly building long term values but right now its uranium operations in Kakadu directly threaten the future of Mirrar culture."
Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner (11th April, 2002.)
The idea of a "people's movement" grew, when about a million people walked for reconciliation/justice across Australia, during 2000. This was the biggest public demonstration of Indigenous support ever.
Many walked for reconciliation/justice but few knew that Rio Tinto, the latest owner of Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines in Kakadu, sponsored Melbourne's reconciliation walk, and banned political speeches from the stage. The walkers were there due to their personal recognition of reconciliation. They were also demanding official and political recognition, despite government and corporate public relations.
However, reconciliation is more than just a walk in the park.
The "people's movement" has been dismissed by the likes of Prime Minister John Howard, refusing to say Sorry and labeling the true reconciliation/justice process a "black armband view of history".
It seems to be more of a John Howard whitewash, encouraged by Pauline Hanson's racist and ignorant views on ideas like reconciliation/justice, which won her a million votes in 1998.
Reconciliation/justice cannot occur without history being truthfully acknowledged. This may be the deciding factor on when and what the reconciliation process will eventually achieve.
Treaty
"Our land was taken by massacres and displacement. No treaties were signed. We have never ceded our sovereignty. Our sovereignty cannot be extinguished. Under international law, we still own the land".
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder (August, 2000)
Unlike other Western nations who have signed treaties with their indigenous peoples, (such as the USA, NZ and Canada) Australia has still failed to do so.
When the Australian continent was invaded by the English empire, it was done so under a false doctrine of terra nullius, meaning either "a country without a sovereign� or a “territory where nobody owns any land at all". The idea of terra nullius was rejected in the High Court 'Mabo' decision in 1992.
The terra nullius doctrine has abetted the failure of a treaty to be signed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
"A treaty between indigenous peoples and Australia could have recognised and protected indigenous rights and led to a just constitutional basis for the Australian Federation".
ATSIC National Treaty Support Group (May 2001)
A treaty needs a balanced informed debate beforehand, with all voices being heard. These debates must include the voices of all indigenous people, not only the ATSIC board. Issues of how, why and what a treaty is about need to be fully discussed. There are many differing opinions on a treaty and whom the treaty/treaties will be between.
A treaty is also tied up in the issues of reconciliation, self-determination, land rights and reparations for the past. A treaty needs to be part of the solution to these other issues, an agreement between two or more parties on the best way forward, and to settle, as much as possible the mistakes of the past, fairly and honestly.
Who the treaty will be between also needs to be understood. Will it be with each traditional Indigenous nation, larger regional groupings of nations, separate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander treaties or a treaty encompassing all Indigenous peoples of Australia? Will the treaty be with current landowners, pastoralists, local councils, state or federal governments. Will the treaty grant self-determination?
Why has an apology to the stolen generation been so controversial?
The Bringing Them Home report about the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their parents over generations shocked the sensibilities of many Australians. The report came as a result of the Royal Commission on Deaths in Custody, which uncovered that many Aboriginals who died in custody were members of the stolen generation(s). The extent of Aboriginal child removal had not been properly acknowledged previously.
"As the Bringing Them Home report states, not one Indigenous family has escaped the effects of the removal policies"
Audrey Ngingali Kinnear and John Brown, National Sorry Day Committee Co-Chairs (May 2001)
Yet the Howard government mocked the very concept of stolen generations of children and slammed the Bringing Them Home report as distorted, downplaying and ignoring the report’s recommendations. While people were shocked and distressed by the report’s finding, the Howard government showed great insensitivity to such a sensitive issue as forcefully removing children from their families.
The Howard government refused to officially say sorry, but the refusal cut deeper into Australian history's most controversial issue- the treatment of the nation's Indigenous people. Seen in this light, it is not just an apology to the stolen generation, that is a so-called ˜controversy", because if the stolen generation is apologised too, then perhaps the entire invasion and colonisation of Australia's Indigenous people should be apologised for.
When looking at images of Aboriginal chain gangs, learning of massacres and slavery, or hearing the testimonies of the stolen generations, an apology does not seem so controversial. The forced removal of indigenous children from their families, communities and their very identities was a shameful and bigoted part of Australia’s history and must be acknowledged.
One of the main reasons that many Australian find an apology to the stolen generation a controversy, is that the policy of forced removal of children was not due to the present government or present society.
To not acknowledge, in the present, that the stolen generation should be apologised to and be given reparations, requires an apology in itself, for a lack of understanding and compassion. Our present society has evolved from what society did in the past, and the present generation should be able to recognise the grave mistakes of the past and attempt to make amends as best as possible. We can't undo the past but we must recognise the past.
It is a double standard when many people (such as Howard) can demand an apology from the Japanese government for atrocities committed in the second world war, yet refuse to apologise to the stolen generations, because it was a policy enacted by past, not present generations.
Society, collectively should make reparations for the past.
Another "controversy" is the financial compensation that may result once an official apology is given. If it is such a widespread concern that this will occur, aren't those concerned recognising that the stolen generation have a good chance of receiving money, due to their legitimate grievance?
Can you put a price on genocide? With genocide being the worst crime humanity can inflict on itself, how can reparations be made? A dollar figure or a dollar motive is created by the cynics, who refuse to face the responsibilities we have of acknowledging the past and giving back what we can in reparations.
A person taken from their family when young loses their connection to their roots, their home and their family. The family is left behind and unaware of their child's wellbeing. Lifetime family relationships are lost. The official policy of Aboriginal child removal was cruel and racist. The official apology is long overdue from the government. By refusing to apologise and downplaying the harm done by the removal policy, the Howard government has negated healing and failed to achieve genuine reconciliation.
With saying Sorry only the beginning, the symbolism of an apology will spur the reconciliation/justice process on to addressing the serious issues facing Indigenous Australians. The unfinished business can be finished and Australia can move into the future with a stronger vision, guided by the ancient spiritual and practical wisdom of the nation's indigenous peoples.
"We can guide you in creating a culture based on peace making, caring and sharing, and healing the land and the people. There is too much at stake and we hold the key to survival. Listen to us and respect what you hear. Commit to peace not war"
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder
Wallaby Poors
Author's notes
This essay was written by me for uni in 2002, and was meant to address the issues of reconciliation, the stolen generation and treaty. I have edited it a bit- I got rid of most of the first section on reconciliation, as I have become more informed from Aboriginal people since, and believe that it wasn't totally accurate or written in the understanding I now have.
I have a cut out a few things elsewhere and also changed the word reconciliation to justice in most of the essay or changed it to reconciliation/justice. I would also say that my analysis could go further on the issue of treaty. I like this article because I incorporated quotes from Arabunna elder Kevin Buzzacott and Mirrar elder Yvonne Margarula
It is really interesting to read over old essays to see where your access and understanding of things were at, at that time,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
R.Broome, 1997, ‘The Colonial Experience, The Port Phillip District 1834-1850’, La Trobe University, Brown Prior Anderson.
Council For Aboriginal Reconciliation, 1994, ‘The Red Yellow and Black Book’, Darwin, Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.
Council For Aboriginal Reconciliation, ‘Walking Together’, Number 29, August 2000
Commonwealth Government, ‘Paths to Reconciliation’, 1999
Reconciliation Australia, ‘Tracks to Reconciliation’, March 2002
ATSIC Victoria, ‘Koori Grapevine’, Issue 2, November 29, 2001
ATSIC National Treaty Support Group, ‘Treaty, let’s get it right’, May 2001
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder, ‘Lake Eyre is calling- Ankaku’, August 1999
Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner, ‘Jabiluka Mine, Dead but not Buried’, April 11, 2002
Sue Charles, ‘Keepers of Land, Visions for Camp Kooyoora’, December 2001
Robert Manne, ‘Mabo: A moral crisis festers’, The Age, May 27, 2002.
Introduction
Australia must understand and face up to its past to have the ability to move into the future confidently. The treatment of the Indigenous people of Australia has been horrific and shameful. It is time to acknowledge the true history of this nation, and make reparations for the past. We must not deny the truth, or Australia will be a diminished society of divided peoples.
“The past is never fully gone. It is absorbed into the present and the future. It stays to shape what we are and what we do�
Sir William Deane, (former) Governor General (Inaugural Vincent Lingiari Memorial Lecture, August 1996.)
For justice to occur, the people of Australia must recognise and bravely face the many injustices suffered by Indigenous people. We must recognise the benefits we have today, as the usurpers of the traditional owners of the land. We must recognise that we have benefited while Indigenous people have suffered genocide, ranging from massacres to the forced removal of children.
“Always was, always will be Aboriginal Land�
Non- Indigenous Australians must be strong and realise the land they walk on was stolen illegally, and colonised, under the false doctrine of terra nulius. Reparations must be for those dispossessed of their ancestral lands.
“Land Rights not mining rights�
Justice cannot occur while mining corporations are allowed to mine uranium and other minerals on various Indigenous nations’ ancestral lands. These mining corporations, with the consent of Federal and State/Territory governments, poison animals, the environment and traditional food sources, destroy sacred sites, deplete valued, sacred water sources, and exploit and manipulate Indigenous communities living in poverty.
“We realise you really want to desecrate another sacred site and kill our Lake Eyre�
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder (August 1999)
True justice cannot occur while mining corporations throw measly bribes at Indigenous communities and families, (living in poverty and sickness due to dispossession and racism), in return for billions of dollars worth of mineral resources from the traditional owner’s lands.
Despite claims by the Federal government publication, “The Path to Reconciliation� that corporations such as WMC are “incorporating respect for Indigenous people’s perspective�, WMC operates the largest uranium mine and the fifth largest copper mine in the world, on Arabunna land, against the wishes of the traditional owners.
“We Arabunna people opposed Roxby Downs since the beginning and we oppose it still. Our opposition is yet to be addressed.�
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder,(August 2000)
The true grassroots movement for justice needs to put the continued genocide of Indigenous cultures, by powerful corporate and state interests, on the top of the political agenda.
The campaign to stop the Jabiluka uranium mine has been led by the Mirrar people, and they have enormous support from people around Australia and the world. Their native sovereignty has been vital to stall/halt the mine’s progress.
“The Mirrar people still say no to Jabiluka mine! All the Mirrar are together, we are united against any more uranium mining on Mirrar country…..We cannot change the law and the law is that we protect our sacred sites….. Since 1996 the Mirrar have fought against Jabiluka across Australia and overseas. We have won many friends and our supporters are strong and stand with us …..Rio Tinto talks about responsibly building long term values but right now its uranium operations in Kakadu directly threaten the future of Mirrar culture.�
Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner (11th April, 2002.)
The idea of a “people’s movement� grew, when about a million people walked for reconciliation/justice across Australia, during 2000. This was the biggest public demonstration of Indigenous support ever.
Many walked for reconciliation/justice but few knew that Rio Tinto, the latest owner of Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines in Kakadu, sponsored Melbourne’s reconciliation walk, and banned political speeches from the stage. The walkers were there due to their personal recognition of reconciliation. They were also demanding official and political recognition, despite government and corporate public relations.
However, reconciliation is more than just a walk in the park.
The “people’s movement� has been dismissed by the likes of Prime Minister John Howard, refusing to say Sorry and labeling the true reconciliation/justice process a “black armband view of history�.
It seems to be more of a John Howard whitewash, encouraged by Pauline Hanson’s racist and ignorant views on ideas like reconciliation/justice, which won her a million votes in 1998.
Reconciliation/justice cannot occur without history being truthfully acknowledged. This may be the deciding factor on when and what the reconciliation process will eventually achieve.
Treaty
“Our land was taken by massacres and displacement. No treaties were signed. We have never ceded our sovereignty. Our sovereignty cannot be extinguished. Under international law, we still own the land�
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder (August, 2000)
Unlike other Western nations who have signed treaties with their indigenous peoples, (such as the USA, NZ and Canada) Australia has still failed to do so.
When the Australian continent was invaded by the English empire, it was done so under a false doctrine of terra nullius, meaning either “a country without a sovereign� or a “territory where nobody owns any land at all�. The idea of terra nullius was rejected in the High Court ‘Mabo’ decision in 1992.
The terra nullius doctrine has abetted the failure of a treaty to be signed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
“A treaty between indigenous peoples and Australia could have recognised and protected indigenous rights and led to a just constitutional basis for the Australian Federation�
ATSIC National Treaty Support Group (May 2001)
A treaty needs a balanced informed debate beforehand, with all voices being heard. These debates must include the voices of all indigenous people, not only the ATSIC board. Issues of how, why and what a treaty is about need to be fully discussed. There are many differing opinions on a treaty and whom the treaty/treaties will be between.
A treaty is also tied up in the issues of reconciliation, self-determination, land rights and reparations for the past. A treaty needs to be part of the solution to these other issues, an agreement between two or more parties on the best way forward, and to settle, as much as possible the mistakes of the past, fairly and honestly.
Who the treaty will be between also needs to be understood. Will it be with each traditional Indigenous nation, larger regional groupings of nations, separate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander treaties or a treaty encompassing all Indigenous peoples of Australia? Will the treaty be with current landowners, pastoralists, local councils, state or federal governments. Will the treaty grant self-determination?
Why has an apology to the stolen generation been so controversial?
The Bringing Them Home report about the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their parents over generations shocked the sensibilities of many Australians. The report came as a result of the Royal Commission on Deaths in Custody, which uncovered that many Aboriginals who died in custody were members of the stolen generation(s). The extent of Aboriginal child removal had not been properly acknowledged previously.
“As the Bringing Them Home report states, not one Indigenous family has escaped the effects of the removal policies�
Audrey Ngingali Kinnear and John Brown, National Sorry Day Committee Co-Chairs (May 2001)
Yet the Howard government mocked the very concept of stolen generations of children and slammed the Bringing Them Home report as distorted, downplaying and ignoring the report’s recommendations. While people were shocked and distressed by the report’s finding, the Howard government showed great insensitivity to such a sensitive issue as forcefully removing children from their families.
The Howard government refused to officially say sorry, but the refusal cut deeper into Australian history’s most controversial issue- the treatment of the nation's Indigenous people. Seen in this light, it is not just an apology to the stolen generation, that is a so-called ‘controversy’, because if the stolen generation is apologised too, then perhaps the entire invasion and colonisation of Australia’s Indigenous people should be apologised for.
When looking at images of Aboriginal chain gangs, learning of massacres and slavery, or hearing the testimonies of the stolen generations, an apology does not seem so controversial. The forced removal of indigenous children from their families, communities and their very identities was a shameful and bigoted part of Australia’s history and must be acknowledged.
One of the main reasons that many Australian find an apology to the stolen generation a controversy, is that the policy of forced removal of children was not due to the present government or present society.
To not acknowledge, in the present, that the stolen generation should be apologised to and be given reparations, requires an apology in itself, for a lack of understanding and compassion. Our present society has evolved from what society did in the past, and the present generation should be able to recognise the grave mistakes of the past and attempt to make amends as best as possible. We can’t undo the past but we must recognise the past.
It is a double standard when many people (such as Howard) can demand an apology from the Japanese government for atrocities committed in the second world war, yet refuse to apologise to the stolen generations, because it was a policy enacted by past, not present generations.
Society, collectively should make reparations for the past.
Another ‘controversy’ is the financial compensation that may result once an official apology is given. If it is such a widespread concern that this will occur, aren’t those concerned recognising that the stolen generation have a good chance of receiving money, due to their legitimate grievance?
Can you put a price on genocide? With genocide being the worst crime humanity can inflict on itself, how can reparations be made? A dollar figure or a dollar motive is created by the cynics, who refuse to face the responsibilities we have of acknowledging the past and giving back what we can in reparations.
A person taken from their family when young loses their connection to their roots, their home and their family. The family is left behind and unaware of their child’s wellbeing. Lifetime family relationships are lost. The official policy of Aboriginal child removal was cruel and racist. The official apology is long overdue from the government. By refusing to apologise and downplaying the harm done by the removal policy, the Howard government has negated healing and failed to achieve genuine reconciliation.
With saying Sorry only the beginning, the symbolism of an apology will spur the reconciliation/justice process on to addressing the serious issues facing Indigenous Australians. The unfinished business can be finished and Australia can move into the future with a stronger vision, guided by the ancient spiritual and practical wisdom of the nation’s indigenous peoples.
“We can guide you in creating a culture based on peace making, caring and sharing, and healing the land and the people. There is too much at stake and we hold the key to survival. Listen to us and respect what you hear. Commit to peace not war�
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder
Wallaby Poors
Author’s notes
This essay was written by me for uni in 2002, and was meant to address the issues of reconciliation, the stolen generation and treaty. I have edited it a bit- I got rid of most of the first section on reconciliation, as I have become more informed from Aboriginal people since, and believe that it wasn’t totally accurate or written in the understanding I now have.
I have a cut out a few things elsewhere and also changed the word reconciliation to justice in most of the essay or changed it to reconciliation/justice. I would also say that my analysis could go further on the issue of treaty. I like this article because I incorporated quotes from Arabunna elder Kevin Buzzacott and Mirrar elder Yvonne Margarula
It is really interesting to read over old essays to see where your access and understanding of things were at, at that time
BIBLIOGRAPHY
R.Broome, 1997, ‘The Colonial Experience, The Port Phillip District 1834-1850’, La Trobe University, Brown Prior Anderson.
Council For Aboriginal Reconciliation, 1994, ‘The Red Yellow and Black Book’, Darwin, Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.
Council For Aboriginal Reconciliation, ‘Walking Together’, Number 29, August 2000
Commonwealth Government, ‘Paths to Reconciliation’, 1999
Reconciliation Australia, ‘Tracks to Reconciliation’, March 2002
ATSIC Victoria, ‘Koori Grapevine’, Issue 2, November 29, 2001
ATSIC National Treaty Support Group, ‘Treaty, let’s get it right’, May 2001
Kevin Buzzacott, Arabunna Elder, ‘Lake Eyre is calling- Ankaku’, August 1999
Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner, ‘Jabiluka Mine, Dead but not Buried’, April 11, 2002
Sue Charles, ‘Keepers of Land, Visions for Camp Kooyoora’, December 2001
Robert Manne, ‘Mabo: A moral crisis festers’, The Age, May 27, 2002.
posted by Wallaby Poors @ 4:16 AM
0 comments
