Ecumenism In Australia Essay

In 1992, the doctrine of terra nullius was overruled by the High Court in the case Mabo v Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. After recognising that the Meriam people of Murray Island in the Torres Straits were native title landholders of their traditional land, the court also held that native title existed for all

Aboriginals lose a sense of meaning when the connection to the land is broken. There is a been a long history of a land rights struggle for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. In 1992, the high court rejected the notion of ‘terra nullius’ (land belonging to no one). This resulted in the Aboriginals being recognised as a civilisation that had lived on the land with laws for thousands of years before British settlement. The Native Title Act was passed in 1993 which sought to accomplish 4 objectives: acknowledgment of the land, validate past acts, establish a mechanism for determining claims to native title and set standards to deal with the native title in the future. This was significant for the Aboriginal spirituality because of the connection to the land. Many different cultures have their own interpretation of the land. James Price Point on Western Australia’s Kimberley coast has its own interpretation of meaning depending on the culture and

The Australian Indigenous community hold extremely significant corrections to the land of Australia, of which they refer to as ‘Country.’ Indigenous people acquire deep meaning from the land, sea and the countless resources derived from them. This special relationship has formed for many centuries. To them ‘Country’ is paramount for overall wellbeing; the strong, significant, spiritual bonds embody their entire existence. Knowledge is continually passed down to create an unbroken connection of past,

The Eddie Mabo v the State of Queensland [No. 2] (Mabo) case has had a deep impact on the legal, social and political reality of Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations in Australia. It’s established a long term consequences may require considerable litigation, or maybe a Federal Legislation. The Mabo case is the means of which the sovereign rights of Indigenous Nations to their ancestral lands. The result in the case was a recognition by the Australian legal system that the Meriam people hold rights to their land under their own system of law, and that those rights should enjoy the protection of the Australian Law.

Imagine for a moment, if everything you owned was taken away from you. The Indigenous people of Australia have unfairly been robbed of their land, culture and people. They were among the first people to inhabit this country, and sadly their land and culture are under threat of being lost forever. To the indigenous people, land is an important part of their life, their substance needs and spiritual belief all come from the land. However, we owe the Indigenous people a lack of compensation but then again not giving any back. Therefore, it’s time for us to treat them fairly and give respect to their land.

There is recurrent tension between the maintenance of Indigenous culture and essentially assimilating to the rules and regulations of the predominantly white society in Australia (Dockrey, 2010). Australia’s Aboriginal culture represented the oldest surviving culture in the world (Aboriginal culture, 2017). The traditions include having at least 270 different language groups and 500 dialects in the indigenous community (Shareourpride.org.au, n.d). The vast amount of languages and dialects were present to represent the intellect of Indigenous Australians. Language is a strong aspect of Indigenous culture as it connects and influences many Indigenous tribes as it is their form of communication. The environment also connects aboriginal people spiritually to their land and provides them with a sense of identity (Jackson 1999). Although there were many different groups and clans in the past, the tribes fighting over the land was a rare occurrence (Treatyrepublic.net 1996). This showcases the connection and respect they exhibited for the land and maintaining structure was their main priority. Additionally common law was a way that Indigenous Australians could preserve the ecosystem and cultural integrity, through their spiritual and emotional connection with the land (Langton 1996, p.10). However due to the colonization, there was less formal acknowledgement for Indigenous

Indigenous Australians have been fighting for their civil rights since European colonisation in 1788, in particular, for their rights to land ownership. Prior to the Mabo land rights case, there was very little success when it came to indigenous Australians making claims. The Mabo case took land rights to the highest court in Australia. It succeeded in achieving land rights and overturning Terra Nullius. The Mabo case helped to continue to chip away at the barriers of civil rights. The Mabo Case was a step towards Indigenous equality.

The goals and visions behind my reconciliation action plan was to bring the two sides of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians together in equality and harmony. Since the colonisation of Australia there has been a vast divide between the two sides that has caused many serious outcomes for Aboriginal people. My way of contributing to this is to create a better understanding, restore trust and eradicate racism as a positive way to help close the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia’s.

The case of Mabo decision with Queensland government was one of the most significant legal case in Australia, which recognised the land rights and the original ownership of Murray islanders in the Torres Strait. It was acting by Murray islanders and the High Court upheld. Based on the successful legal case, there are some key issues in the process for Indigenous’ land rights, which were changed in Australia law and affect future rulings in Australia, such as the Native Title ruling of the Aboriginal people’s land rights after the High Court passed the Act in 1993; in addition, due to this alteration of Australian laws, it not only had a big impact of Murray islanders but also on some other groups of Aboriginal people’s land rights reform.

After this time, many atrocities occurred, such as the fact that Aboriginals were often killed for sport, and massacres such as Myall Creek were occurring, where 28 Aboriginal men, women and children were murdered near Myall Creek Station in 1838. There was also the problem of the Stolen Generation, when Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their homes to be raised as though they were white. It was only recently in 2008, that Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia at the time, apologised for the actions that the government had undertaken. In another apologetic move, Prime Minister Paul Keating delivered a powerful speech regarding the fact that Aboriginal Communities were still segregated despite the fact that laws had been changed a number of years ago. This shows that the idea of atonement by Australia is quite a new topic. Does this prove the challenges that Aboriginal’s faced nearly 200 years ago are still present in today’s society? It was enough to force the Aboriginal men, women and children to begin act in support of their rights.

Terra Nullius was once apparent in Australian society, but has now been nullified with the turn of the century. With the political changes in our society, and the apology to Indigenous Australians, society is now witnessing an increase in aboriginals gaining a voice in today’s society. Described by Pat Dodson (2006) as a seminal moment in Australia’s history, Rudd’s apology was expressed in the true spirit of reconciliation opening a new chapter in the history of Australia. Considerable debate has arisen within society as to whether aboriginals have a right to land that is of cultural significance and whether current land owners will be able to keep their land.

The term ‘Native Title’ refers to the right of Indigenous people to their traditional land. In Australia it has a legal significance of the right to an area of land, claimed by people whose ancestors were the original inhabitants of the land before European settlement. Also who can prove that they have had a continuous connection with the land. Native Title is the term given by the High Court to Indigenous land rights by the Court in Mabo and others v State of Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. The case required

Reconciliation is the process of building respectful relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the wider Australian community. It is about understanding and respecting their culture and heritage and signifies ‘coming together’ to become one nation without racism and with equality for all. There are still vast differences in health, education, employment, and standards of living of the Indigenous peoples as compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Even today Indigenous peoples have a significantly lower life expectancy, up to 11.5 years for men and 9.7 years for women . The infant mortality rate for the Indigenous peoples is double the rate for non-Aboriginal Australians. Understanding these inequalities is the first step to reconciling the differences. Policies such as the stolen generation and assimilation policy destroyed Indigenous identity and culture and justified the dispossession of Indigenous people and the removal of Indigenous children from their parents. We can’t change the past but we can make a better future by understanding and learning from the mistakes of the past, reconciliation is about that. Many practical and symbolic strategies have been implemented over the last 50 years to achieve reconciliation such as ATSIC, Northern Territory Intervention and the Mabo decision. However, the most significant ones are the 1967 Referendum, Closing the Gap framework in 2008 and the ‘Sorry speech’. The aim is to improve the five dimensions of reconciliation: race relations, equality and equity, institutional integrity, unity, and historical acceptance.

The concept of reconciliation is well known amongst Aboriginal peoples living in Canada. For many Aboriginal peoples, it means the wiping out of seven generations of tradition, culture, trust and a way of life. The Encarta Dictionary defines Reconciliation as “The reconciling of People; the ending of conflict or renewing of a friendly relationship between disputing people or groups.” Reconciliation in Canada is about healing. Injustices inflicted to Aboriginal peoples in Canada have been cited by the Truth and Reconciliation commission of Canada (TRC) to cover the past seven generations.

Over the past years, Canadian courts have repeatedly urged that aboriginal title conflicts should be resolved through negotiation, rather than litigation. The primary reason being that litigation is costly and time-consuming. For example, the decision for the Delgamuukw case took a duration of thirteen years. Furthermore, litigations that deal with the issue of aboriginal rights and title are “generally narrowly focused” and “ultimately leaves the question [posed about] how aboriginal rights and title apply unwarned.” For instance, the courts of Canada repeatedly failed to come up with a clear definition on the legal scope of Aboriginal rights despite the fact that they have several opportunities to do so. The Delgamuuku case clearly illustrates this when the Court “did not define how aboriginal title applied for the First Nations involved.” Instead, the Court came to the conclusion that a new trial was required, which ultimately will be more expensive and take longer.