Maori Land March. . The Maori Land March Can Be Seen As

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since 1945 with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about a change from oppression to equality. Unfortunately on the other hand, some rights and freedoms have not improved at all or have even worsened.

Aboriginal people, since British settlement, have faced great inequalities and much racial discrimination on their own soil. Aboriginal Australians through great struggle and conflict have made significant progress in the right to their own land. To better understand the position of the Aboriginal Australians, this essay will go into more depth about the rights that Aboriginal people had to their own land prior to federation. It will also include significant events and key people who activated the reshaping of land rights for Indigenous Australians and how that has affected the rights Aboriginal people now have in the 21st Century, in regards to their land.

Over the past 230 years, Aboriginals have protested in many different ways to gain rights, which they believe they are deserving of. Through aims of what they wanted to achieve, the processes they went through brought them disappointment over the poor results of some actions and pleasure over the success of others. Over those years, very few periods of protest have been as revelational or effective as the protests occurring between 1938 and 1972. During this period many different groups of Aboriginals have fought for the common cause of being recognised as people rather than interferences caught in the midst of Australians expansion as a nation.

Each example given has also shown how self-determination was and continues to be a major struggle for Aboriginal people. Beginning with the Whitlam government, the Land Rights Act was going to be the national recognition that Aboriginal people had been waiting for, however the swift dismissal of the government and subsequent changes to the bill meant that an uninformed government would dictate claims of Aboriginal land rights. This was continued in the Heritage Protection Act for Western Australia in which no monitoring of abuses of power within the authoritative ministry was assessed; hence damage to heritage sites for the development of industries occurred. Finally the Racial Discrimination Act although making racial discrimination illegal has clearly been violated by the government in the Northern Territory interventions and hence is not valued by Australia despite the international commitments made to recognising Indigenous rights. Although legislation has been introduced to recognise Indigenous rights, there seems to always be a catch. A final reoccurring theme in the legislation discussed is the uninformed views of the non-Indigenous government as decisions are made on behalf of Aboriginal people; hence two major statements were discussed that precisely define Aboriginal self-determination by Aboriginal

The Mabo decision of 1992 was hailed as a landmark case in the history of indigenous-white relations in Australia. Overturning centuries of injustice, as well as the myth of right by ‘terra nullius’, the case prompted the passing of the Native Title Act of 1993, which affirmed native title and asserted that native Australians possessed their land under common law, and in doing so ushered in a new era of equality in Australian society. However, though correctly lauded as a milestone in recognition of aboriginals as valid legal entities, the act was not without its problems, and in truth has had little impact on Australian society as a whole. As we shall see, the trend of positive reform existent in the act was not supported in practice, and aboriginal Australians remain at the mercy of Western courts when it comes to their land. Though the Mabo decision and the subsequent Native Title Act went some way to correcting past injustices, its actual impact on Australian society has been negligible.

The native title act inspired by the mambo case enabled and encouraged the aboriginal people in the past, present and future to stand up for their culture, community and land. The mambo case allows me to understand the fight the aboriginal people fought for. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rights to land, the Court held that these rights, where they exist today, will have the protection of the Australian law until those rights are legally extinguished (HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA,2017).

Since European invasion in 1788, Indigenous Australians have fought to retain their rights and freedoms and to have governments recognise them. From 1788 and onwards the British created settlements on land that Aboriginal people previously used and controlled. Throughout the 19th century the government applied policies of ‘protection’ that have segregated Aborigines from Australian society by denying them equality and opportunity. They have achieved some significant changes in the brawl for acknowledgment (Anderson, 2014). Certain key developments that are significant in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders struggles for rights and freedoms are ; 1967 referendum, Mabo decision, bringing them home(stolen generations) and the apology. These four main key developments have been momentous developments for the Australian Indigenous population that are now allowed they’re human rights and freedoms.

Protection involves the Government working to ensure Māori have at least the same level of health as non-Māori, and safeguarding Māori cultural concepts, values and

I support the principle view of the author mentioning of the ultimate outcome of self-determination, is to have the “right to maintain traditional culture, and to protect their land and natural resources” (p.3). It is truly a difficult outcome to achieve and many indigenous communities (tribes) are still struggling with it, including Fiji indigenous communities.

With the change from Keatings progressive labour government to John Howard's’ conservative Coalition government, came resounding regression to the Native Title act, with the 10 point plan, and the coinciding Wik decision nine months after. The Wik VS Queensland case (1996) established that in cases of conflict between pastoral leases and native title, pastoral leases override and can successfully extinguish native title , which was adopted with the change of legislation and introduction of the Native Title amendment Act (1998). If there is no conflict, they can coexist. Many cases of Native Title extinguishment has occurred, and only approximately 600 areas hold Native Title in all of Australia, with less than 1% in NSW. As a procession from the Native Title declaration, this legislature has digressed justice to the ATSI community , and as further iterated by Sydney Morning Herald has “undone the good of the Mabo decision”. ATSI discrimination following the legislation of the Native title Act (1996) significantly rose in the public discourse with renowneded personalities claiming they could “take their backyards”, and an unspoken deeply-rooted fear for many, dating back to Australia’s colonization; that Australia could be declared completely under Native Title, and the sovereignty of the Crown could be questioned . For ATSI peoples’, the introduction of the 10 point plan, and the Native Title Ammendment Act (1998) marks a significant national regression upon achieving justice for their community as they sought to pour “"bucket-loads of extinguishment" on the native title rights of Indigenous Australians. Law reform, in this case has been dominantly ineffective in achieving justice for the ATSI peoples, and rather revoking

A Key conflict that endures as one of the most noteworthy events in New Zealand’s early history is the Waikato war of 1863-1864. The significance of the battles lies in the definition of the status of Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand. Particular historic debate surrounds whether the Waikato war was caused more primarily over the dispute of land or sovereignty. Maori were rising against British control and domination over them exhibited by establishment of the Kingitanga movement and the resistance to land sales. Responding in a way they saw that they had the right British invaded the Waikato. The outcomes of these events still hold debate and controversy in the regions of occurrence even today. With large loss of lives on both sides directly from the clashes, as Maori retained their pride refused to surrender to the British’s superior technology. New laws were passed as a result of the resistance involving shameless policy’s which marginalised Maori and there rights further. The consequences of this war were drawn out until the late 20th, when finally reparations were made in full.

The Maori, “Children of Heaven”, are the indigenous people of New Zealand. It has been thought that Polynesian navigator Kupe, discovered New Zealand in 950 AD, and named the island Aotearoa, “Land of the long white cloud”.1 The Maori migrated to New Zealand from the tropical islands of

The article, Stereotypical Constructions of the Maori ‘Race’ in the Media, written by Melanie Wall (1997), can be summarised as an article focusing on the effect the colonisation of New Zealand had on the Maori as a population. It mainly focuses on the way Maori have been imagined as the stereotypical ‘Black Other’. It speaks of the perpetuation and (re)formation of Maori identities, including the way Maori are constrained by their ‘Black Other’ stereotype within New Zealand. The article talks about representations of race through ‘identity images’, the effect of the Maori Renaissance (in particular its effect on identity formations), and Maori Stereotypes in the Media.

In the beginning of the 19th century, almost all New Zealanders were considered to be Maoris. The Maoris made up nearly the whole country, with a population between 100-120,000, while the European population was down in the hundreds. In 1818, the Musket Wars resulted in the loss of over a fifth of the Maori population, at least 20,000 dead and thousands more captured (“Overview of NZ”). The Musket War was a war that began when the Europeans introduced their advanced technology and muskets into New Zealand. The Musket Wars were a series of inter-tribal wars caused by tribes all trading to obtain muskets. At the end of the wars, in 1830, a new conflict for the Maori population took rise when “warfare gave way to economic rivalry” (“The Musket Wars”). From 1830 on, Europeans would come to New Zealand in waves of hundreds and thousands of people, threatening the Maoris’ once complete control over the land. This brewing economic rivalry was what paved the way for the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document. This treaty was interpreted differently by the English and Maoris, something the British had purposely done. The British plan to deceive the natives resulted in both land and governmental conflicts. Land disputes caused by the treaty’s misinterpretations between the Maori people and the settlers sparked the New Zealand Wars in 1861-1870. At the end of these wars, new laws were passed that nearly abolished Maori rights. In 1896, New Zealand was no longer a Maori

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an agreement made between groups of people representing the British crown and Māori chiefs in 1840 (Orange, 2004). The Treaty of Waitangi has four elements: kawanatanga, tino rangatira, oretitanga and tikangatanga. This essay will focus on oritetanga element of the treaty in relation to socio-political contexts and social justice with examples. It will then go on to the current views of Maori in health experiences in relation to existing clinical and community health/disability services. It will then apply the knowledge of Maori health to everyday professional practice. Finally, this essay will have a brief discussion of nursing practice in relation to oritetanga.