Custodianship of Country: Towards Truth on First Nations exclusion and resilience
First Nations people have sustainably managed the land of NSW for millennia, maintaining a spiritual and cultural connection with Country. But new research from Towards Truth demonstrates how laws and government policies have disturbed this connection and ignored Aboriginal expertise in caring for Country, causing harm to the environment.
Early colonists documented Aboriginal people’s custodianship of the land. Botanist Joseph Banks noted the use of fire for land management in 1770, while other British colonists remarked how the landscape reminded them of the country estates and parks of their home country. These early impressions expose the myth that Australia was an unmanaged wilderness prior to European colonialism.
The impacts of colonialism were rapid and stark. King George III gave Arthur Phillip, NSW’s first Governor, broad powers to grant land on the condition that the owners ‘improved’ the land, leading to land clearing. While the harms of clearing were known to authorities as early as 1803, land clearing was largely unregulated until 1875. And by 1921, it was estimated that 44% of land in NSW had been cleared – significantly changing the landscape on which First Nations people had lived for countless generations.
Despite the harms of European land management and agriculture, First Nations expertise was either outlawed or ignored by NSW Government laws and policies for much of the state’s history.
Aboriginal hand stencils in Mutawintji. Image credit: John Hill, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Challenging the ‘museum approach’ of National Parks
Attempts by European colonists to protect and restore the environment following the harms of colonialisation have often prevented First Nations people from accessing and caring for Country. The National Park system, which began with the establishment of the Royal National Park in 1879, did not involve Aboriginal people in its creation or management.
The Crown Lands Alienation Act 1861created some protected spaces that later became National Parks. This law made no mention of Aboriginal people or their relation to the land. The introduction of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1967allowed for the creation of new National Parks – but made no mention of the interests of First Nations people.
Two years later, this Act was amended to permit the protection of ‘Aboriginal areas’ and ‘relics’, but First Nations people had no say in determining what these areas or relics were. And the changes did not recognise Aboriginal cultures as living and on-going, meaning Aboriginal people did not have access or control over National Parks, or the protection of Country.
These changes also demonstrate the NSW Government’s conservation strategy, later described by Stewart Smith as a ‘”museum” approach, where tracts of land are “locked” away, usually precluding settlements, promoting public ownership and government control.’
‘This approach overlooks the fact that indigenous people have been managing their environment for over 60,000 years,’ Smith observes.
But there was prominent criticism of NSW’s National Parks system by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.
In 1980, the landmark Keane Report (a Parliamentary Committee’s Inquiry into Aboriginal people in NSW) highlighted the failure of the state’s National Parks laws to empower Aboriginal decision-making about protected Aboriginal sites. The report recommended that some National Park land be transferred to the control of Aboriginal Community Councils.
And in September 1983, the issue was brought to the forefront by a historic demonstration of First Nations resistance. 200 Aboriginal people blockaded the entrance to the Mutawintji National Park in western NSW, after tourists removed Aboriginal rock engravings.
Increasing participation
The NSW Government responded to the blockade by closing off sacred Aboriginal sites to the public. And in 1996, the National Parks and Wildlife Act was amended, allowing for Aboriginal ownership and joint management of ‘culturally significant’ land.
Seven sites were identified as ‘lands of cultural significance to Aboriginals’, including Mutawintji, which was returned to Aboriginal ownership in 1998. Mount Grenfell Historic Site followed in 2004, and Biamanga and Gulaga National Park in 2006.
Other culturally significant areas have been returned to Aboriginal ownership and joint management under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW). And Kinchega and Paroo Darling National Parks are ‘cooperatively managed’ under Memorandums of Understanding between the NSW Government and Aboriginal groups.
Several other identified areas have yet to be transferred to ownership and joint management. And even when parks enter joint management, First Nations people have faced unfair barriers to independent decision-making. In an interview with historian Heather Goodall in 2008, advocate Peter Thompson noted:
‘A neighbouring landholder who had property on both sides of the National Park and who had been for a long time moving his sheep across the National Park… the incoming Board members expressed clear disapproval of this situation… When the Board took over, and found these two problems still happening, it tried to get them changed, it moved all the right resolutions and then it was just ignored.’
Thompson also described a ‘punitive approach’ to funding and employment for parks under joint Aboriginal management, with other National Parks ‘treated more favourably’ by being offered significantly more funding for Aboriginal employment than Mutawintji.
But, Thompson said, Aboriginal ownership of National Parks is a testament to the resilience of First Nations people and ‘one of the best land rights achievements in New South Wales’.
‘It’s time for non-Aboriginal people and governments to recognise Aboriginal ways of looking at the world and support those aspirations. I look forward to the day when Aboriginal ownership of National Parks is the rule rather than the exception.’
We represented Emma Bennison in a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission, which has brought a commitment from Jetstar to improve accessibility.
Custodianship of Country: Towards Truth on First Nations exclusion and resilience
First Nations people have sustainably managed the land of NSW for millennia, maintaining a spiritual and cultural connection with Country. But new research from Towards Truth demonstrates how laws and government policies have disturbed this connection and ignored Aboriginal expertise in caring for Country, causing harm to the environment.
Early colonists documented Aboriginal people’s custodianship of the land. Botanist Joseph Banks noted the use of fire for land management in 1770, while other British colonists remarked how the landscape reminded them of the country estates and parks of their home country. These early impressions expose the myth that Australia was an unmanaged wilderness prior to European colonialism.
The impacts of colonialism were rapid and stark. King George III gave Arthur Phillip, NSW’s first Governor, broad powers to grant land on the condition that the owners ‘improved’ the land, leading to land clearing. While the harms of clearing were known to authorities as early as 1803, land clearing was largely unregulated until 1875. And by 1921, it was estimated that 44% of land in NSW had been cleared – significantly changing the landscape on which First Nations people had lived for countless generations.
Despite the harms of European land management and agriculture, First Nations expertise was either outlawed or ignored by NSW Government laws and policies for much of the state’s history.
Challenging the ‘museum approach’ of National Parks
Attempts by European colonists to protect and restore the environment following the harms of colonialisation have often prevented First Nations people from accessing and caring for Country. The National Park system, which began with the establishment of the Royal National Park in 1879, did not involve Aboriginal people in its creation or management.
The Crown Lands Alienation Act 1861 created some protected spaces that later became National Parks. This law made no mention of Aboriginal people or their relation to the land. The introduction of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1967 allowed for the creation of new National Parks – but made no mention of the interests of First Nations people.
Two years later, this Act was amended to permit the protection of ‘Aboriginal areas’ and ‘relics’, but First Nations people had no say in determining what these areas or relics were. And the changes did not recognise Aboriginal cultures as living and on-going, meaning Aboriginal people did not have access or control over National Parks, or the protection of Country.
These changes also demonstrate the NSW Government’s conservation strategy, later described by Stewart Smith as a ‘”museum” approach, where tracts of land are “locked” away, usually precluding settlements, promoting public ownership and government control.’
‘This approach overlooks the fact that indigenous people have been managing their environment for over 60,000 years,’ Smith observes.
But there was prominent criticism of NSW’s National Parks system by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.
In 1980, the landmark Keane Report (a Parliamentary Committee’s Inquiry into Aboriginal people in NSW) highlighted the failure of the state’s National Parks laws to empower Aboriginal decision-making about protected Aboriginal sites. The report recommended that some National Park land be transferred to the control of Aboriginal Community Councils.
And in September 1983, the issue was brought to the forefront by a historic demonstration of First Nations resistance. 200 Aboriginal people blockaded the entrance to the Mutawintji National Park in western NSW, after tourists removed Aboriginal rock engravings.
Increasing participation
The NSW Government responded to the blockade by closing off sacred Aboriginal sites to the public. And in 1996, the National Parks and Wildlife Act was amended, allowing for Aboriginal ownership and joint management of ‘culturally significant’ land.
Seven sites were identified as ‘lands of cultural significance to Aboriginals’, including Mutawintji, which was returned to Aboriginal ownership in 1998. Mount Grenfell Historic Site followed in 2004, and Biamanga and Gulaga National Park in 2006.
Other culturally significant areas have been returned to Aboriginal ownership and joint management under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW). And Kinchega and Paroo Darling National Parks are ‘cooperatively managed’ under Memorandums of Understanding between the NSW Government and Aboriginal groups.
Several other identified areas have yet to be transferred to ownership and joint management. And even when parks enter joint management, First Nations people have faced unfair barriers to independent decision-making. In an interview with historian Heather Goodall in 2008, advocate Peter Thompson noted:
‘A neighbouring landholder who had property on both sides of the National Park and who had been for a long time moving his sheep across the National Park… the incoming Board members expressed clear disapproval of this situation… When the Board took over, and found these two problems still happening, it tried to get them changed, it moved all the right resolutions and then it was just ignored.’
Thompson also described a ‘punitive approach’ to funding and employment for parks under joint Aboriginal management, with other National Parks ‘treated more favourably’ by being offered significantly more funding for Aboriginal employment than Mutawintji.
But, Thompson said, Aboriginal ownership of National Parks is a testament to the resilience of First Nations people and ‘one of the best land rights achievements in New South Wales’.
‘It’s time for non-Aboriginal people and governments to recognise Aboriginal ways of looking at the world and support those aspirations. I look forward to the day when Aboriginal ownership of National Parks is the rule rather than the exception.’
Wins
Jetstar to improve passenger services after blind passenger left stranded in airport lounge
ABC News: Qantas agrees to change assistance dog processes after being sued for disability discrimination
Equality Bill ‘an important step, but not the end of the journey’