Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Rights In Australia

2013
Indigenous Rights and Freedoms
History, Year 10
Research Essay

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights have been a huge issue over the

past 75 years. Many different changes to civil laws concerning indigenous rights have occurred during these 75 years, as well as many symbolic, but not legislative, changes. Although some small legal changes were made to the civil rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as a result of the Mabo decision, the 2008 Apology and the ‘Bringing them Home’ Report had a much more symbolic impact on society, regarding the way indigenous people were perceived. The Mabo vs. Queensland case is a widely celebrated event. Eddie Koiki Mabo was the face of the decade long (1982
– 1992) struggle against the
Queensland government, and consequently, the Federal Government, for the land rights of Murray (Mer) island, where He grew up. “ 'My name is Edward
Mabo, but my island name is Koiki.
My family has occupied the land here for hundreds of years before Captain Cook was born. They are now trying to say I cannot own it…We should stop calling them boss. We must be proud to live in our own palm leaf houses like our fathers before us.” Mabo said this to show the importance of the island to him, he talked about his ‘island name’ and how he is proud to be a Meriam person. This quote shows how much he wanted to gain his land back from the Queensland Government. The final decision was
“that the land in the Murray Islands is not Crown land…”. This was one of the three declarations made by Justice Brennan, one of the seven judges on the case. The judgments made on the Mabo vs. Queensland case were ones that only affected Meriam people (people who lived on Mer Island), not all
Indigenous Australians. This is shown by the claims to land made by the Yorta Yorta people, the Miriuwuny people and the Gajerrong people, all of which have been unsuccessful. The Yorta Yorta people have made a claim over land in the Murray River in Victoria and New South Wales, whereas the Miriuwuny and the Gajerrong people have both claimed entitlement over sections of
the Kimberly. That these claims that have been dismissed by the government demonstrates that while the Mabo decision made very much change for
Meriam people, it had no effect on the rest of the indigenous population of
Australia. The significance of the Mabo decision was huge, it impacted
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders all over Australia, with hope that they would gain their land back and they were being treated equal with European
Australians.
The legislative impact, however, was much, much smaller, with change only brought to the liver of Meriam people, not all Indigenous
Australians.

The Apology for the Stolen Generations played a major role in reconciliation between White and Indigenous Australians. Though each state and territory had already formally apologised for the mistreatment and removal of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children the Federal government hadn’t apologised officially. But on the 13th February 2008, the Prime Minister gave an apology to the Stolen Generations over all Australia. “Today we honour the
Indigenous peoples of this land… We apologise especially for the removal of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry...” . This was a part of the speech by the Prime
Minister, the first to perform his speech on the day. The nationally televised event had an apology from Kevin Rudd and the opposition leader, and
in addition, a speech on what the apology means to Indigenous communities from Tom Calma, an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner. Tom Calma said that “Through one direct act, the parliament has acknowledged the existence and the impacts of past policies and practices of forcibly removing Indigenous children from their families, and by so doing has paid respect to the Stolen Generations for their suffering and their loss, and for their resilience, and ultimately, for their dignity”. (This quote is from the speech in response to the Opposition Leader and the Prime Minster).
When Mr Calma says “paid respect to the Stolen Generations for their suffering and their loss” it shows that the apology was a matter of importance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people all over Australia, this is because respect in indigenous communities is a very important thing. So in saying that
Australians have shown respect to the Stolen Generations it say that White
Australians are finally doing the right thing for valuing Aboriginal culture. The apology to the Stolen Generations had a major symbolic impact for children, who are now adults, which were taken, and their families and friends. There was no judicial impact, with civil laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders having absolute equality in Australian society.

The ‘Bringing Them Home’ report was a published report which brought recognition, as well as legitimacy, for Stolen Generations. Issued in 1997, it is a
“…National inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families”6. The report has many testimonies of children, who were stolen, showing the full extent of the damage brought by the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. By showing these things, uncensored, to the Australian public it made many people see what abuse, whether it was sexual, physical, spiritual or emotional, these children went through. By doing this it made the pain real to many Australians, not just a story, but an event that was genuine and a part of their history. In showing these many children’s’ stories to Australia there was many changes in the way White Australians viewed Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander People. Tom Calma, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner, presented a speech at the ‘Ten Years Later: Bringing them home and the forced removal of children’ conference. In his speech he addressed many issues with the way the Australian Government has addressed reconciliation and reparation with the Stolen Generation. He said that “They
(the Australian Government) have consistently been warned… against leaving the resolution of Stolen Generations cases to our adversarial court system. The courts can’t deliver healing or pass laws to guarantee similar human rights breaches won’t occur again... Why can’t it (the Australian Government)… conceive of a reparations package to heal the scars of what must be one of our country’s worst social injustices?… no government can afford to overlook
…these facts (that) confirm that Indigenous health, education, employment and general life chances have all been reduced by forcible removal policies – and that the effects of these policies continue to hold back our kids from enjoying the opportunities that other Australians take for granted. Ten years on – the time for government action and leadership is overdue.” His speech shows that the Australian Government has done very poorly to change the way they treat Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people science the Brining
Them Home report was published. This shows that the actual legislative impact from the ‘Bringing them Home’ report was extremely small. Therefore the
Bringing Them Home report had no judicial impact on civil rights for Indigenous
Australians.

Although there were legal changes brought about by the Mabo decision; the apology by Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister in 2008, and the ‘Bringing
Them Home’ report had little or no legislative impact on civil rights concerning
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in Australia. The influence of these things in the public was crucial for changes to the way Indigenous
Australians and White Australians interact today, but they had no judicial effect on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

References
Australian Government. (2008). Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved Wednesday 12th, June, 2013, from, http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/our-people/apology-to-australias-indigenous-peoples
Australian Human Rights Commission. (1997). Bringing Them Home Report (1997). Retrieved Tuesday 18th, June, 2013, from, http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/bringing-them-home-report-1997
Calma, T. (2007). Responses to the inquiry- Australian Government. Retrieved 30th July, 2013, from, http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/rightsed-bringing-them-home-9-responses-inquiry-australian-government
Graham, T . (N/D). My name is Edward Mabo. Retrieved 30th July, 2013, from, http://www.mabonativetitle.com/info/myNameIsEddieMabo.htm
Mabo v Queensland No. 2. (1992). N/A. Retrieved Tuesday 18th, June, 2013, from, http://foundingdocs.gov.au/scan-sid-89.html
National Sorry Day Committee (NSDC). (2013). The Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved Tuesday 18th, June, 2013, from, http://www.nsdc.org.au/events-info/the-apology-to-australias-indigenous-peoples
N/A. (N/D). Overturning the Doctrine of Terra Nullius: The Mabo case. Retrieved Tuesday 18th, June, 2013, from, www.aiatsis.gov.au/ntru/docs/resources/resourceissues/mabo.pdf‎
The Age. (2002). A judgement that Changed Australia. Retrieved Tuesday 18th, June, 2013, from, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/08/1022982782789.html

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. N/A. (N/D). Overturning the Doctrine of Terra Nullius: The Mabo case.
[ 2 ]. Graham, T. (N/D). …My name is Edward Mabo…
[ 3 ]. Mabo v Queensland No. 2. (1992). N/A.
[ 4 ]. The Age. (2002). A judgement that Changed Australia
[ 6 ]. Australian Government. (2008). Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples.
[ 7 ]. National Sorry Day Committee (NSDC). (2013). The Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples
[ 8 ]. Australian Human Rights Commission. (1997). Bringing Them Home Report
[ 9 ]. http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/r