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 first paper by Ladner and Orsini, (2003) gives a detailed account, review and analysis of the First nations governance act. The paper reflects on the act and provides arguments supporting the fact that it is an example of a gentler, subtle form of colonialism that is still in practice today. It argues that although the government has well researched the problems affecting the first nations, it has not efficiently advocated the involvement of these people in their own welfare and improvement.
In 1840 the Māori chiefs and the English crown signed the Treaty of Waitangi which showed the dual heritage between the cultures and to develop a partnership to develop a shared future as we have today. This historical event has big impacts on Te Whāriki the way it was created with both Māori and Pākehā input to develop a curriculum that supports every child to develop as confident and competent learners. “.. all
The infectious diseases that were introduced by the British settlers were an immediate consequence which caused the Aboriginal population to decrease dramatically. The Aborigines had no sort of contact with the diseases brought therefore their bodies couldn’t development an immune or adapt to them. The most common epidemic diseases spread drastically and killed many people. These diseases included the chickenpox, smallpox and measles. The Aborigines were even reported by the British saying they were exterminated in Tasmania showing how devastating the diseases impacted them.
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).
In this chapter Jared Diamond describes how two societies the Maori and the Moriori were almost whipped out by the environment and in some cases each other. These two societies had some of the same ancestors but the Maori were way more developed than the Moriori. In the chapter Diamond explains how they were separated but developed in opposite directions. Diamond then goes on to explaining how the islands these societies lived on were different from each either. The next main point of this chapter was how population and politics were worked out on these islands. It is shown how many people lived on each island from populations as little as 5 people per square mile to 1,100 people per square mile. Diamonds last topic explains how both of these societies needed to advance their tools in order to survive the conditions they lived in.
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.
However, this did not come without challenge: native title claims could also be contested in the Courts as is the case with Wik Peoples v Queensland. In this ruling, the Wik Peoples controversially prevailed and successfully demonstrated that common law, in this instance, would protect native title claims despite the presence of the State’s existing land ownership. This case implicates the objectives of the Native Title Act 1993 Cth to protect native title, shown in this context through the Courts ruling native title could co-exist with the State’s holding of pastoral land8. A significant decision, which is cited to have “changed the relationship between settler and Indigenous Australians” and make its contributions to the growing reconciliation movement within Australia . However, whilst the case was a substantial indication for which rights common law would protect, it also demonstrated which rights it didn’t protect – namely, it was additionally ruled that when land entitlements are inconsistent between native title and State land holding, native title rights would come secondary8 . Thus, it is demonstrated that while previous legislation seeks to uphold the rights of First Peoples by granting native title rights, this theoretical precedent does not work
A treaty should not be seen as an alternative to constitutional recognition. Though, a reform of the constitution itself will only yield a partial resolution for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders – due to its symbolic nature. A critical analysis of Zia Akhtar’s article, ‘Aboriginal Determination: Native Title Claims and Barriers to Recognition’, will emphasise the importance of recognition and self-determination to the Indigenous. This essay will explore the notions that reconciliation is more achievable through constitutional recognition and treaty together, that changes must be made to the Australian Constitution, particularly sections 25 and 51 (xxvi), and how the Native Title (Amendment) Act has hindered recognition and determination in a variety of ways.
The challenges faced By Indigenous Peoples in achieving justice, are both complex and extensive. These issues stem from successive centuries of asserted colonial power, which consequently has resulted in the undermining of rights for many Indigenous communities, including the Australian Aboriginal Peoples and Maori Peoples of New Zealand. Systemic abuse of power has resulted in the gradual erosion of Indigenous culture, and as thus, rights of Indigenous communities, including Intellectual Property and Cultural Rights, have been neglected. As a result, a growing body of declarations, statements, and other developments both within governmental systems, as well as in the wider international justice arena have been received. However, many
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 arrival of the Europeans caused many changes to the Māori society between 1642 and prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Europeans brought with them many things to trade; however, they contributed to fatal impact in New Zealand as they brought with them weapons which killed a lot of people and enslaved many more as more and more Māori competed for weapons. By 1830 the Māori had learnt a lot about the world. They had learnt the skills of trade with Europeans and the Māori had missionaries that taught them how to read, write and communicate with the outside world. New Zealand was no longer an unknown and isolated land
The three sections discuss the impact of systematic dispossession of Maori land in Aotearoa New Zealand during the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The first section, Wynyard draws on Marx’s theory of primitive accumulation. Primitive accumulation in the New Zealand context is perceived as an alienation of Maori land for colonial settlers. Likewise, it represents a countless amount of force, fraud, and oppression towards Maori in order to operate a capital accumulation. In other words, it is a form of cultural theft in stealing Maori lands and resources (Heim, 1998). Thus, primitive accumulation causes indigenous Maori left with nothing besides selling themselves as labor to work for the European civilization. This concept is similar to how capitalism was formed in the early colonization in Europe through the same progress of stealing the land and the development of agriculture. The second section, Wynyard covers the case of the Native Land Court where he titled the section as the Theft made legal. The Native Land Court is an intention of freeing up the so-called Theft in obtaining legal act through creating the law in a way to benefit the settlers. The main mean of this act is to maintain the system of British law. This law is launched to completely destroy and ignore the Maori laws through establishing courts, institution and land acts that permit them to
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.
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.