Aboriginal Way | Issue 85 | Summer 21/22

www.nativetitlesa.org

2

7

Oodnadatta native title judgement

In Focus: River Murray and Mallee Aboriginal Corporation

5

11

0 ion 10,0 Circulat

Final resting place for Kaurna remains

Title Fight: How the Yindjibarndi battled and defeated a mining giant

A publication by South Australian Native Title Services

Issue 85 | Summer 2021/2022

0

Nukunu resolve native title claim See article on page 9

2

Aboriginal Way | A publication by South Australian Native Title Services

Oodnadatta native title judgement

The Oodnadatta Common Overlap Proceeding between Walka Wani and Arabana concluded with a Federal Court judgment to dismiss Arabana and grant Walka Wani native title over Oodnadatta and its surrounds.

Top, left to right: Anthropologists Belinda Liebelt and Robert Graham, Audrey Stewart, Principal Legal Officer Andrew Beckworth, Dean Ah Chee and Richard Aitken. Above right: Walka Wani members stand outside the Federal Court.

On 21 December 2021, Justice White handed down the judgment based on evidence from linguists, anthropologists, and a historian about each group’s connection to the area.

The judgment concerned overlapping native title applications by Arabana and Walka Wani over 150km2 in the far north of South Australia.

The Arabana people filed two separate applications for native title on 1 March 2013; the first application near Maree was successful in 2012 and the second involved Oodnadatta.

Evidence provided by anthropologist Dr Rod Lucas proved Arabana’s previous connection to the Oodnadatta claim area and was accepted by Justice White.

But Walka Wani contested Arabana and filed two native title applications of their own. The first on 12 April 2013 sought a determination of only part of the area claimed by Arabana; the second application filed on 14 September 2018 requested native title over the remaining area.

Walka Wani include two groups identified as the Lower Southern Arrernte and Yankunytjatjara/Luritja (sometimes referred as the Antakarinja). Their applicants were Audrey Stewart, Christine Lennon, Dean Ah Chee, and Huey Tjami.

The evidence presented by anthropologists Dr Scott Cane, Dr Belinda Liebelt and Mr Robert Graham proved Walka Wani’s ongoing connection to Oodnadatta from the time of effective sovereignty.

This is the period between 1875-1885 when colonisation impacted Aboriginal traditional laws and customs.

Justice White considered the Arabana led evidence from Aaron Stuart, Sydney Strangways, Joanne Warren, Leonie Warren, Veronica Arbon and Reginald Dodd.

Justice White said the final submissions showed the Arabana people previously had native title rights and interests in the area in accordance with their traditional laws and customs. But he found Arabana have not continued their connection – resulting in the dismissal of their application. Arabana and the state government has sought leave to appeal the decision.

Issue 85 | Summer 2021/2022

Narungga approve T-Ports Wallaroo project T-Ports have started developing a grain export facility at Wallaroo after Narungga Nation Aboriginal Corporation signed an Indigenous Land Use Agreement.

South Australian Native Title Services Level 4 345 King William Street Adelaide SA 5000 Editor Keith Thomas Communications Officer Caleb Sweeting Designer Alison Fort Advertising Enquiries (08) 8110 2800 Circulation 10,000 If you have any stories of interest to our readers, please address any correspondence to: aboriginalway@nativetitlesa.org

Aboriginal Way South Australian Native Title Services Level 4 345 King William Street Adelaide SA 5000 Ph: (08) 8110 2800 Fax: (08) 8110 2811 FREECALL: 1800 010 360 T-Ports Chief Executive Officer Kieran Carvill is looking forward to building a strong partnership with Narungga Nation and bringing development and career opportunities to the traditional owners.

“All businesses need to recognise that native title needs to be taken seriously and at T-Ports, we are actively working to develop a culture of respect and inclusion,” Mr Carvill said.

“We’re looking forward to offering competition for growers in the Yorke Peninsula and Mid North regions and delivering supply chain savings.”

Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development David Basham said the new port will be a game changer for local growers.

“The new port has been in planning for a long time and to see construction starting is a fantastic milestone,” Minister Basham said.

The Editor has the final decision on all stories and advertising that appear in this publication.

The grain export facility will feature steel silos with 20,500 tonnes of grain capacity and a 500-metre rock causeway with grain conveyed to a ship loader for loading onto the transhipment vessel.

A bunker site will feature six bunkers with a total of 240,000 tonnes of grain capacity. T-Ports will be ready to receive grain for the 2022/2023 harvest.

Above: Launch of T-Ports Wallaroo project. Photo T-Ports.

Advertise in the quarterly www.nativetitlesa.org

10,000 copies sent to SA & NT Contact: aboriginalway@nativetitlesa.org

Cover image: Nukunu consent determination in 2019. Justice Charlesworth with Nukunu Elder Lindsay Thomas at Port Germein. Photo: Nukunu Wapma Thura Aboriginal Corporation.

WARNING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are warned that the following publication may contain images, names, and stories of deceased persons.

3

4

Update

Aboriginal Way | A publication by South Australian Native Title Services

From the Editor & SANTS CEO: The Aboriginal Heritage Act is failing Aboriginal people Mr Lucas approved Leigh Creek Energy for construction of a carbon-neutral plant to manufacture urea, which would be sold as fertiliser. It would use in-situ gasification, which involves drilling inlet and outlet wells into coalfields. The coal is then heated, and air or oxygen is injected to ‘gasify’ the coal.

The process is banned in Queensland.

On New Year’s Eve, the Treasurer said, “I acknowledge that the authorisation I am now giving allows Leigh Creek Energy to undertake works that may result in interference with Aboriginal heritage that Adnyamathanha and Kuyani people say holds specific cultural significance to them because of its association with the Yurlu Kingfisher storyline.”

Acknowledgment means Mr Lucas and the state government understand they are authorising potential destruction to cultural heritage. Mr Lucas had previously assessed and refused an application in 2018 by the Adnyamathanha group to ban a demonstration plant being built at the site.

On 31 December 2021, Treasurer Rob Lucas used the Aboriginal Heritage Act to authorise a mining development at Leigh Creek against the wishes of traditional owners and the State Aboriginal Heritage Committee.

Opposite page, from top, left to right: From above the memorial park has been shaped to resemble a Kaurna shield. Photo: MAV Media SA; Left to right: Kaurna elders Uncle Jeffrey Newchurch and Major ‘Moogy’ Sumner; Left to right: Anna Russo and Madge Wanganeen; Coffins holding the remains draped with the Aboriginal flag; Premier Steven Marshall carrying Kaurna remains to the burial ground; Professor John Carty.

The government’s ignorance to the rights of traditional owners is not an excuse in the aftermath of the well-publicised Juukan Gorge disaster.

The problem lies in Section 23 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act, which gives the minister the authority to “damage, disturb or interfere with any Aboriginal site.” Ministerial authority needs to be removed to align with Article 26 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired; 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories, and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired; and 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the Indigenous peoples concerned.

As the state election approaches, I am urging bipartisan support of removing Section 23 from the Aboriginal Heritage Act. If the government cares about Aboriginal people, they will stop risking our culture in exchange for economic benefit. Failing to act may lead to another Juukan Gorge disaster.

Native title claims update Claims listed/or in trial Walka Wani Oodnadatta No.1 and No.2 and Arabana No.2 Judgment 21 December 2021. Arabana application dismissed and Walka Wani claims granted.

Wirangu No.2, Wirangu No.3 and Wirangu No.4 Sea claim Timetable for determination by June 2022.

Nauo/Nauo No.2/Nauo No.3 /Nauo No.4 Timetable for determination by June 2022.

Malyankapa Claims in trial in May 2022.

Far West Coast (FWC) Sea claim Matter listed for trial commencing in March 2022.

First Peoples of the River Murray and Mallee Responding to State assessment of native title report.

Yandruwandha Yawarrawarrka Claim in Queensland listed for trial commencing 2 May 2022.

Other claims Ngadjuri No.2 and Wilyakali Ngadjuri and Wilyakali have now been offered consent determinations. Position paper and draft CD circulated to respondents.

First Nations of the South East No.1 and No.2 and Ngarrindjeri Trial vacated. Mediation outcome waiting to be ratified by communities.

Narungga Nation Compensation matters continue to be negotiated.

Nukunu Remainder of Nukunu claim determined in February 2022.

Issue 85 | Summer 2021/2022

World first: Wangayarta Memorial Park final resting place for Kaurna remains Last December, around 100 Kaurna ancestorial remains that were dug up and disturbed by the development of northern Adelaide were reburied at a Kaurna-designed memorial park at Smithfield.

For two years, Kaurna elders have worked with the South Australian Museum on the pilot reburial project, the first of its kind in the world.

“The Keeping Place where the Kaurna ancestors have been held for so long is shared with all the other ancestors that have been disturbed from across South Australia,” said Anna Russo, the SA Museum’s Aboriginal Heritage Manager.

“We knew getting ready for the first reburials in the Northern mound, we needed to think about how to do that slowly and in a way that was respectful to those ancestors and to people today.”

The SA Museum is the custodian of 4,500 Aboriginal ancestorial remains that are held in storage with more than 30,000 Aboriginal cultural artefacts at Netley. The storage facility will be replaced by an $86 million building in 2024.

Kaurna elders Uncle Jeffrey Newchurch, Uncle Major ‘Moogy’ Sumner and Aunty Madge Wanganeen worked with the museum through the difficult process of repatriating their ancestors.

“I think repatriation in today’s society is a lesson and an understanding that we not only as Aboriginal people, but non-Aboriginal people must be on that journey together,” Kaurna Elder Uncle Jeffrey Newchurch “To the Kaurna people it’s really important, and this part of our journey is about healing.” Ms Wanganeen said.

Kaurna and Ngarrindjeri Elder ‘Moogy’ Sumner said the Wangayarta repatriation was like a lost family coming together.

“Our old people’s remains were waiting for us to come and get them and to bring them home,” he said. “I say our old people because it was a long time ago… a lot of them they’re children.”

On 7 December 2021, the memorial site opened with a significant and emotional ceremony opened by Premier Steven Marshall whose state government committed $300,000 towards the pilot project.

“Repatriation is the responsibility of all South Australians as a result of activities and attitudes of the past,” he said.

“Our lives here as South Australians are built on the historic disturbance of Aboriginal country. Those activities destroyed Aboriginal burial sites across the greater Adelaide area to create houses and infrastructure that we now use.”

Adelaide Cemeteries Authority also donated two hectares of land for the Kaurna Wangayarta Memorial Park, which will be protected in perpetuity.

“There are burials and sorry business, but the actual reburial was a new process, and it had some challenges in relation to tradition, culture, and ritual,” said Robert Pitt, CEO of Adelaide Cemeteries Authority.

From above the memorial park resembles a Kaurna shield, with native plants, and four burial mounds made up of soil taken from each corner of Kaurna Country.

The remains from the north of the Adelaide Plains were buried in the Northern mound, while the South, East and West burials will take place in the future. A contemporary Kaurna cemetery is also planned for the area.

SA Musuem’s Head of Humanities, Professor John Carty said it’s a place for permanent rest for ancestors who were disturbed and displaced by the construction of the city where we live.

“We need to be reminded of the grief that’s at the heart of this process, whether it’s through the building of roads in Adelaide or through the scientific practice of the museum, all these ancestors have ended up in our care.”

5

6

Aboriginal Way | A publication by South Australian Native Title Services

Commissioner to launch inquiry into child removals The role of Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People was created in 2018 to promote the rights, development and wellbeing of Aboriginal children and young people living in South Australia.

The inaugural commissioner April Lawrie used her first term to listen to the voices of young people to develop culturally informed policies and services.

Lawrie, a Mirning and Kokatha woman from the Far West Coast of South Australia, has been reappointed for a further three years and will use her new legislative powers to launch an inquiry into the government’s removal of Indigenous children from their families.

“The first three years of my term have been literally setting the priorities and identifying the key focus of my work for how I should go forward as Commissioner for Aboriginal children and Young People with statutory powers,” she told Aboriginal Way. Premier Steven Marshall appointed Lawrie in 2018, but it wasn’t until late 2021 that a change in legislation gave her the powers to conduct systemic inquiries.

Minister for Education John Gardner said Lawrie is acting as a ‘megaphone’ for Aboriginal children and young people who are disproportionately represented within the state’s most disadvantaged and vulnerable.

“I thank April for all her hard work since her appointment in late 2018 and I’m pleased to see her continue in the role for a further three years,” he said.

The Commissioner plans to investigate the number of Aboriginal children in non-Aboriginal care. She will check how often the government is following the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, which requires authorities to ensure Indigenous children remain in the care of their family or cultural group.

“I get the opportunity like the other children’s commissioner (Helen Connolly) to conduct inquiries with robustness; to really look at systemic issues in particular areas that are affecting the rights of Aboriginal children, and one of those affected is the right to family.”

The government gave Lawrie $616,000 to move into a stand-alone office, after sharing an office with another commissioner since 2018.

Lawrie would like to thank Aboriginal young people for sharing their views to set her priorities for the future.

Ngarrindjeri rangers restoring Country. Credit Ngarrindjeri Lands and Progress Association

Across South Australia, traditional owners work to care for Country by looking after heritage sites, revegetating Country, protecting threatened species and managing environmental threats like destructive wildfires, feral animals and invasive weeds. Unlike other states including Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory, South Australia does not fund community-based Aboriginal ranger teams directly or have any program that solely supports Indigenous land and sea management.

Now is the time to get behind traditional owners and grow Aboriginal ranger jobs in SA.

In Focus

Issue 85 | Summer 2021/2022

River Murray and Mallee Aboriginal Corporation

River Murray and Mallee Aboriginal Corporation (RMMAC) Director Fiona Giles spoke to Aboriginal Way about the corporation’s progress since receiving native title in 2011. The consent determination recognised the River Murray and Mallee people’s non-exclusive rights and interests to parts of their traditional lands and waters of 260km2 around Renmark, Berri, Barmera, Waikerie and Morgan.

How are you caring for Country and protecting culture?

What employment opportunities have you offered?

When the First Peoples of the River Murray and Mallee (FPRMM) were recognised as native title holders represented by RMMAC, the South Australian Government and RMMAC entered into an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA).

RMMAC and the Department for Environment and Water (DEW) then established the First Peoples Working Group (FPWG) to facilitate participation in planning and implementation of projects and activities within the FPRMM ILUA. The FPWG started in 2013 after a few FPRMM representatives went out on a bus tour of wetlands where some regulators were planned to be constructed as a part of the Riverine Recovery Project (RRP). DEW and RMMAC arranged formal meetings out on Country and scheduled to meet every second month.

Since the FPWG first started, FPRMM have been involved in the planning and delivery of many environmental projects and have established FPRMM processes including ILUA notifications, cultural heritage management and more.

RMMAC is also caring for Country through our Aboriginal waterways and cultural heritage assessments, track rationalisation, reburials, fencing of culturally sensitive areas, signage and more.

We are proud of developing a cultural heritage database called Fulcrum, which includes documented cultural heritage sites, Aboriginal waterways assessments, electronic forms, language, monitoring station, photo surveys, stories and work reports.

Cultural heritage officers were employed and rostered within the South Australian Riverland Floodplains Integrated Infrastructure Program (SARFIIP) to recognise, record, and protect cultural heritage sites within the areas of the construction of floodplain regulators, culverts and fishways within the national parks.

After the SARFIIP program ceased, all FPRMM community members were offered the opportunity to enrol in the TAFE Conservation and Land Management (CLM) Certificate II course. Recently, 8 FPRMM students successfully completed the CLM course and received their certificates.

RMMAC has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Berri-Barmera Council (BBC).

RMMAC casual rangers are also employed and rostered for the Barmera Lake Bonney Caring for Country plans – they’re currently working on the construction of the walking trail around the lake. We are establishing a new ranger program in partnership with MRLB, consisting of a ranger coordinator, team leader and rangers which are FP identified positions.

Above: Fiona Giles (RMMAC Director), Craig Gillespie (MRLB), Sheryl Giles (RMMAC Director), Philip Johnson (RMMAC Director), Rowena Danks (Murray Mallee Local Action Planning – MMLAP) and Rebecca Arnold (MRLB). Photo supplied.

7

8

Aboriginal Way | A publication by South Australian Native Title Services

What achievements are you proud of post-determination?

•

• • • •

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

FPRMM’s knowledge and understanding of Government organisations, legislations, policies and procedures, frameworks and processes.

FPRMM Community Development.

Community partnerships.

Casual employment of cultural heritage officers.

Employed and rostered casual rangers for the Barmera Lake Bonney Caring for Country plans.

Currently developing another ranger team in partnership with Landscape SA. Purchase of the RMMAC office in Berri – the building had extra spaces that we’ve leased to two local businesses.

Employment of an administration/ cultural heritage officer coordinator for the RMMAC office.

Water planning with South Australia Murray Darling Basin (SAMDB) water allocation plans, water resource plans and weir pool manipulation.

Groundwater workshops with Ngarrindjeri Aboriginal Corporation (NAC) and DEW to include the rock holes and soaks in the Mallee area for the Peake, Roby, Sherlock Water allocation plans (WAP).

Development of the Lock 3 Master Plans, Bookmark Creek concept design and planning.

Development of a FPRMM Plant Identification booklet, cultural uses, and field guide.

Development of FPRMM Seasonal Calendar with the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).

Why is RMMAC an important bridge between traditional owners and government?

Government has to meet their legislative requirements to identify and protect our native title rights and interests. In the past, FPRMM were never given an opportunity to be involved in any decision making on the future of our river, homeland or our people.

RMMAC is the Prescribed Body Corporate (PBC), and the nominated Directors must represent the native title interests of the FPRMM as a community.

Who can be a member of RMMAC?

What plans does RMMAC have for the future?

Any descendant of the RMMAC apical ancestors can be members, all memberships are approved by the RMMAC board of Directors.

FPWG members have had the opportunity to participate or nominate a family member to participate in monitoring or training with DEW/MRLB staff and ecologists in: • Fish surveys • Frog surveys • Mallee fowl monitoring • Cultural heritage data base training • Water quality testing training • First Aid training • Scar tree health monitoring training • Snake awareness training.

•

How do you support your members and the wider Aboriginal community?

•

•

•

•

• Above: FPRMM fish surveys out on Chowilla.

Photo supplied.

Established networks with local Riverland organisations such as schools, councils, MADEC, ASG and more.

All training and employment opportunities are offered to all registered members of the FPRMM community.

We have established the RMMAC office for First Peoples as a meeting venue and for RMMAC employees to submit their completed work timesheets.

Established a sub-committee of younger FPRMM community members to attend Director’s meetings.

Established a youth sub-committee to organise the RMMAC office opening event in March.

• • • •

•

•

•

• • • •

•

• •

Official opening of RMMAC office in March 2022.

Strengthening our partnerships and developing new ones.

Ongoing FPWG meetings and workshops.

Develop a corporate identity for RMMAC. ORIC governance training/native title operations and management for newly appointed Directors.

Establish fees for services and social enterprises such as venue hire, Welcome to Country, artist commissions, and cultural tours.

DEW has funded $50k to purchase equipment for RMMAC to progress the AWA program.

Ongoing employment of the BBC Rangers for the Lake Bonney caring for country plans.

Ongoing employment for Cultural Heritage Officers (CHO).

Extend Ranger opportunities with MRLB as the program progresses.

TAFE Conservation and Land Management.

Inclusion of SACE students with points gained through Caring for Country activities/projects.

Development of a localised Cultural Awareness training package to be delivered by RMMAC. Continued Mobile Language workshops.

Drought Resilience program with Regional Development Australia (RDA).

Issue 85 | Summer 2021/2022

Nukunu resolve native title claim After a long wait, the Nukunu people have been granted the second part of their native title claim, which they first lodged in 1996.

On 3 February 2021, Nukunu were

On 26 April, the Federal Court ruled out Kokatha No.3 claim. However, a successful mediation between Barngarla and Nukunu resulted in a shift of boundaries and progress towards consent determinations for both groups.

The Barngarla people recently won a native title claim over part of Port Augusta, which borders the newly described Nukunu native title area (see map).

recognised as the native title holders of approximately 983.94 square kilometres, which includes a small portion of Port Augusta and the Spencer Gulf.

Back in 2019, Justice Charlesworth granted Nukunu’s first native title claim over Port Pirie and part of the Flinders Ranges at a Federal Court hearing on Country. Sadly, the most recent judgement was delivered via a COVID-safe conference call.

Nukunu’s original claim overlapped native title applications by Kokatha and Barngarla.

South Australian Native Title Services congratulates the Nukunu people and commemorates those who passed away before they could see the result of their long and hard native title fight.

Right, top to bottom: Nukunu Aboriginal Corporation chair Uncle Kym Thomas; Nukunu sign; Frilled-neck lizard welcoming guests to Nukunu Country; Photos: Nukunu Wapma Thura Aboriginal Corporation.

South Australian Native Title Services (SANTS) for your organisation SANTS is an independent Aboriginal organisation with proven experience and expertise in providing a wide range of professional services to South Australian Aboriginal Nations.

We are responsive to the needs and priorities of Aboriginal Corporations and can bring a unique understanding of and respect for culture and communities in our provision of services.

We offer services in: • Corporate Governance • Corporate Administration • Community Development

• Native Title Legal Services • Financial Management • Human Resources Management

SANTS offers a very competitive fee structure to Aboriginal Corporations to suit their financial circumstances.

Contact our Manager of Corporate and Community Development for a confidential discussion and further information: (08) 8110 2800 | info@nativetitlesa.org | www.nativetitlesa.org

9

10

Aboriginal Way | A publication by South Australian Native Title Services

A short history of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy – an indelible reminder of unceded sovereignty Often people think about the Aboriginal Tent Embassy as something historic, dating back to the 1970s. But it should also be thought of as a site of the longest protest for Indigenous land rights, sovereignty and self-determination in the world.

Later, on 6 February 1972, the members of the Tent Embassy issued their list of demands to the government. The demands were clearly about our rights as Aboriginal people to our homelands, regardless of the fact cities were now built on the land or mining companies were interested in the bounties within.

Compensation was called for in the instances where the lands was not able to be returned. There were also demands for the protection of our sacred sites.

While the McMahon government cared little about negotiating with the protesters, the leader of the Opposition, Gough Whitlam, visited the Tent Embassy and publicly proclaimed a promise of Aboriginal land rights under a future Labor government.

The establishment of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy on Australia Day in 1972. Photo: National Museum Australia.

In fact, this year, the Tent Embassy is set to celebrate its 50th continuous year of occupation. Demonstrating its significance to Australian history, it was included on the Commonwealth Heritage List in 2015 as part of the Old Parliament House precinct.

In this momentous year, it’s worth remembering how the Tent Embassy came to be and what it has continued to stand for since its erection in 1972 – and the significance it still has today.

Aliens in our own land The Tent Embassy began its public life on 26 January 1972. On that day, Michael Anderson, Billy Craigie, Bertie Williams and Tony Coorey left Redfern and drove to Ngunnawal Country (Canberra), where they planted a beach umbrella opposite Parliament House (now known as Old Parliament House).

They erected a sign that said ‘Aboriginal Embassy’. With them on that day was their driver, Tribune photographer Noel Hazard, who captured the event in a series of photos.

The term ‘embassy’ was used to bring attention to the fact Aboriginal people had never ceded sovereignty nor engaged in any treaty process with the Crown. As a collective, Aboriginal people were the only cultural group not represented with an embassy.

According to Aboriginal activist and scholar Gary Foley, the absence of an Aboriginal embassy in Canberra was a blatant indication Aboriginal people were treated like aliens in their own land.

Initially, the protesters were making a stand about land rights following the then prime minister William McMahon’s speech that dismissed any hope for Aboriginal land rights and reasserted the government’s position on the policy of assimilation.

The Tent Embassy was therefore a public display of our disapproval of and objection to the policies and practices of the government.

In later years, it has become an acclaimed site of our continued resistance to the continuity of colonial rule.

Demands of protesters Police who were patrolling the area at the time of the Tent Embassy’s erection asked the protesters what they were doing outside Parliament House. They said they were protesting and would do so until the government granted land rights to Aboriginal people. The police were said to have responded, “That could be forever”.

As it turned out, it was not illegal to camp on the lawns of Parliament House, so the police could not remove them.

There was widespread support for the Tent Embassy from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and allies across the continent, and indeed the world.

Media attention also grew as it became obvious the Tent Embassy and protesters were not going to move on. Other Aboriginal activists joined the embassy, including Foley, Isabel Coe, John Newfong, Chicka Dixon, Gordon Briscoe and many others.

Forced removal and revival The government was not too keen on being reminded Aboriginal people were demanding rights, so it amended the Trespass on Commonwealth Lands Ordinance to make it illegal to camp on the lawn of Parliament House.

This gave the police the authority to remove the protesters.

The ordinance was but a few hours old when police attempted to forcibly remove the embassy. They did so to the roar of the crowd chanting “land rights now”. A violent confrontation with police ensued.

On 12 September 1972, the ACT Supreme Court ruled against the use of the trespass laws, and the Tent Embassy was temporarily re-erected before being removed again the following morning.

Then, at the end of 1972, the Coalition government led by McMahon lost the federal election to Labor. Whitlam was able to keep his promise in part – he did give the land title deeds to the

Gurindji people. This was captured in the historical photo by Merv Bishop of Whitlam pouring a fistful of dirt into Vincent Lingiari’s hand.

While this iconic image has become a demonstration of what might be possible, the work of the embassy is not yet done. Land rights across the continent have yet to be fully achieved.

The Tent Embassy was re-established the following year and remained until activist Charles Perkins negotiated its removal pending the enactment of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in 1976.

In the ensuing years, it occupied several other sites around Canberra, including the site of the current Parliament House. In 1992, it returned to its original site on the lawn of Old Parliament House to mark the 20th anniversary of the original protest.

Eleven years later, much of the Tent Embassy was destroyed by fire in a suspected case of arson. The police once again attempted to remove protesters from the site under orders from federal government’s National Capital Authority.

An enduring symbol of protest Today, the Tent Embassy remains on the lawns of Old Parliament House as a reminder of the successive failures of subsequent governments to address the demands for justice represented by the embassy and its people.

As Foley reflects in his history of the embassy: That it has endured for [five] decades as a potent symbol rejecting the hypocrisy, deceit and duplicity by successive Australian governments is a testament to the refusal of large numbers of Aboriginal people to concede defeat in a 200-year struggle for justice.

Nowhere else in the world have we seen such longevity around a site of protest. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy is an impressive achievement that demonstrates the tenacity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and our continued fight for the reclamation of our lands and sovereign rights as First Nations peoples.

Authors: Bronwyn Carlson and Lynda-June Coe.. Originally published

by The Conversation.

In Review

Issue 85 | Summer 2021/2022

Title Fight: How the Yindjibarndi battled and defeated a mining giant A David-and-Goliath story set in the ancient landscape of the Pilbara In the space of just fifteen years, Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest’s Fortescue Metals Group has built a global iron-ore giant generating $19 billion in revenue a year.

But in its rush to develop, FMG has damaged and destroyed ancient Aboriginal heritage and brokered patently unfair agreements with the traditional owners of the land.

When FMG has met resistance, it has used ‘tough and savage’ litigation to secure a lucrative outcome.

Right: The book cover showing photographs of Andrew Forrest (Fortescue Metals Group) and Michael Woodley (Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation [YAC]).

Survival Day – March 2022

Above, left to right: Survival Day protestor; Marcia Carter, Krystal Carter, Jason Harrison-Lawrie Senior and Junior; Nicole, Israel, Eldine, Nikylah and Eleni Likouresis; Tyrone, Lorraine and Melissa Wilson; Sean Wilson, Tosh Wayne, Peterson Walker, Debra Wayne and Lena Young; Protest organiser Natasha Wanganeen.

However, this strategy came unstuck when FMG encountered a few hundred Yindjibarndi people and their leader, Michael Woodley, who left school in grade 6 and was from then on immersed in his traditional culture.

Woodley has led his community in an epic, thirteen-year battle against FMG, all on a shoestring budget.

Clear-eyed and humane, Title Fight reveals the Wild West of iron-ore mining in the Pilbara. It tells the story of how a small group of Indigenous Australians fought tenaciously to defend their spiritual connection to country.

At a moment of national reckoning with our colonial and ancient past, with our relationship to the land, it asks some critical questions: Who does the land belong to?

Who gets to choose what it’s used for?

And whose side are we on?

Review by Black Inc.

11

Aboriginal Way | A publication by South Australian Native Title Services

Native title areas in South Australia N o r t h e r n

T e r r i t o r y Irrwanyere Mt Dare Native Title Determination Eringa Part A Wangkangurru/Yarluyandi Proceeding Part A Proceeding

Tjayiwara Unmuru Native Title Claim Eringa

Legend

W e s t e r n

Native Title Determination Area (NNTT name shown)

De Rose Hill Compensation Application De Rose Hill

Eringa No. 2 and Wangkangurru/Yarluyandi

MI NTA B IE

( !

Yankunytjatjara/Antakirinja SC2018/002 Walka Wani Oodnadatta #2

External boundary of Native Title Applications coloured (NNTT number and name shown)

Oodnadatta Common Overlap Proceeding SC2013/003 Walka Wani Oodnadatta

Dieri No. 3

Land Tenure

Yandruwandha/ Yawarrawarrka Native Title Claim

The Wangkangurru/ Yarluyandi Native Title Claim

Q u e e n s l a n d

Tjayiwara Unmuru Compensation Application

Dieri

Arabana People ( !

Adnyamathanha No 1 - Stage 3

Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara

Reserve/Park

SC2013/001 Arabana No 2 Arabana No 2 - Part 1

Dieri No.2 Native Title Claim Adnyamathanha People No. 1 (Stage 1)

Adnyamathanha People No. 1 (Angepena Pastoral Lease) ( !

CE DU NA

Kilometres

Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020 Prepared by: Geospatial Services, National Native Title Tribunal 25/10/2021

Adnyamathanha No. 1

SC1996/004 Barngarla Native Title Claim

SC1997/006 Wirangu No. 2 Native Title Claim ( ST RE A K Y B AY !

SC2021/003 Wirangu Sea Claim #2 SC2018/001 Nauo #3 SC2021/004 Brenton Weetra and Ors and the State of South Australia (Nauo #4)

Adnyamathanha No 1 - Stage 2

Adnyamathanha People Native Title Claim No. 3 SC1996/005 Nukunu Native Title Claim ( ! ( !

Barngarla (Port Augusta Proceeding)

SN2019/001 Attorney General WH YA LL A for South Australia (Wirangu)

Adnyamathanha, Ngadjuri and Wilyakali Overlap Claim

Q UO RN

PO R T A UG U S TA

Nukunu Part A

( ! ( !

( !

PO R T PI R IE

PE T ER B O RO U G H

J AM E S TO W N

( !

Barngarla Native Title Claim SC1997/008 Nauo Native Title Claim

PO R T LI N CO L N

( !

SC2011/002 Ngadjuri Nation #2 ( !

First Peoples of the River Murray & Mallee Region

CL A RE

SC2013/002 Narungga Nation

(BE R RI !

Kaurna Peoples Native Title Claim

( !

SC2019/001 First Peoples of the River Murray and Mallee Region #2

ADEL AI DE

( MU RRA Y B RI D G E !

Ngarrindjeri and Others Native Title Claim

SC2017/001 First Nations of the South East #2 SC1998/004 Ngarrindjeri and Others Native Title Claim

South Australia Native Title Applications and Determination Areas As per the Federal Court (27 January 2022)

( !

BO R DE RTO WN

( KI N G S TO N S . E. !

SC2017/002 First Nations of the South East #1

MO U NT G AM B I E R

( !

Get Individuals or organisations can request free copies of this publication.

Complete the form below and mail to 4/345 King William Street, Adelaide 5000 or email details to aboriginalway@nativetitlesa.org

Radio & Podcast Listen:

Name:_______________________________________________________ Address:_____________________________________________________ ________________________________________ Postcode:___________ Phone:_______________________________________________________ Email: _______________________________________________________ No. of copies:_________________________________________________

nativetitlesa.org/aboriginal-way-news

V i c t o r i a

SC2016/003 Nauo No. 2

SC2012/001 Wilyakali

W a l e s

SC2019/002 Wirangu #3

200

Adnyamathanha People No. 2

S o u t h

Gawler Ranges People ( !

100

( !

WO O M E RA

SC2016/001 Far West Coast Sea Claim

0

LE I G H C RE E K

Kokatha People (Part!( A)

Far West Coast

SC2021/002 Mirning Eastern Sea and Land Claim

RO X B Y D O WN S

NC2021/001 Malyangapa Part A Native Title Claim Group

N e w

A u s t r a l i a

Aboriginal Freehold

CO O B E R P E DY

ISSUE 85

12