Land+Rights+-+the+Noonkanbah+Protest+-+Liv

All but one picture would upload, so I've created the above doc with the pics, in order of appearance in my wiki. Cheers.

**Indigenous Resources** a) Beresford, Q. (2006). //Rob Riley: An Aboriginal leader’s quest for justice//. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. b) Film Australia (1980). On Sacred Ground. Documentary Film, Director Oliver Howes. c) Photograph: Dicky Skinner holding flag – cited from Rob Riley text (Beresford, 2006). **Non-Indigenous Resources**  d) National Native Title Tribunal (2008). ’15 Years of Native Title’. Government released documentary film. e) Plater, D. (2010). Noonkanbah: Fight for Aboriginal land rights, Australian Geographic Article, September 7 issue, retrieved from: [] . f) Media photograph: Noonkanbah protestors adopt western methods of protest for public appeal. Cited from Hawke, S. & Gallagher, M. (1989). //Noonkanbah, whose land, whose law//. Fremantle, Fremantle Arts Centre Press.

** Aboriginal Land Rights – The Noonkanbah Protest **
When you hear or view material related to the 1979 Noonkanbah protest, it is often bestowed with the massive reputation of being the beginning of Aboriginal land rights. Although stationed in the remote Kimberley region, the Noonkanbah dispute sparked a nationwide curiosity and support, from non-Indigenous as well as Indigenous Australians, international giant AMAX Iron Ore, together with the State Government of Western Australia – led by development visionary Sir Charles Court – took to the Nookanbah area that covered grounds around sacred Pea Hill and various other ‘special places’. The land rights struggle was endured long before the Noonkanbah dispute, but for the first time images and footage of the protest, of the Yungngora people defending their land and culture, were in full view to the nation. In an act of savvy journalism the protestors invoked, through traditional, western versions of protest, a wave of media attention with banners that read (in English) ‘No mining on sacred sites‘ (Beresford, 2006). The fact that it was this conforming to dominant Australian tradition that sparked such interest and support for the Aboriginal cause at once raises questions about social norms and perspectives, and how one perspective is held up as correct and acceptable.

When the government has explicitly committed to upholding Aboriginal cultural values through land conservation, and now even more so since the implementation of the Native Title Act in 19, there is an observable contradictory pattern on behalf of State and Federal governments to continue the actions of the pre-Native Title era – to prioritise western, neo-liberal and pro-development agendas at the cost of delegitimizing the right to self-determination of Indigenous peoples (United Nations (UN), 2007). Such contradictions are clearly depicted in government endorsed (and made) resources like the short documentary film ’15 Years of Native Title’ (reference d) which portrays a positive but idealistic overview of land rights within Australia and indeed throughout the Kimberley region. The film employs the example of the Noonkanbah dispute of 1979 to suggest to the audience that the abuse of Aboriginal peoples through the destruction of land and therefore culture, community and identity, belongs to a bygone era. The film attempts to contrast the Noonkanbah protest with a post-Native Title period in which the act provides a level playing field for Native Title holders to defend their lands and possess ownership over what does or does not happen to them. Questioning the intention of the film draws attention to vested interests. For the uninformed audience the documentary paints a comforting, harmonious picture of opportunity, cultural unity, and a definitive ending to the relentless struggle for Aboriginal land rights. For the informed, however, a bias underpinning is evident – one that excludes an entire scope of information surrounding the land rights movement and one that fails to reveal a struggle very much alive and kicking (Highland, 2008). Not only is this of concern because it smells like government propaganda, it also highlights the importance of critical analysis when in receipt of information, as well as the importance of evaluating a wide scope of material – from all angles – to attain a rounded and informed interpretation; much like the methodology of history that we have discussed throughout this unit.

Although delivered in a similar documentary style, the film entitled ‘On Sacred Ground’ (reference b) portrays a very different picture of land rights and the Noonkanbah protest. Presenting actual footage of the event, the audience is thus able to view primary sources and accounts of this piece of history that has been extensively documented and talked about. The documentary, unlike the government film, is told through the eyes of an Aboriginal spokesperson. The film also presents a detailed historical overview pre dating the Noonkanbah protest, providing insight to the cultural significance of the area and illustrating the social and political landscape in which the dispute took place – and why. Through the lens of the Yungngora people, the audience grasps a sense of the deep connection to and knowledge of the land that gave meaning to the Noonkanbah protest. In this light we are able to develop a layer of understanding as to why the Aboriginal community was so opposed to mining on this sacred ground and what it meant for their unified voice to be heard.

This pursuit of equality remains a path lined with obstacles, as depicted in the Rob Riley text (reference a). The text portrays a detailed description of the 1979 Noonkanbah dispute as well as providing a political and social backdrop from which to anchor the event. Rob Riley – the biography’s protagonist, member of the Stolen Generations and life long political activist – not being a Kimberley boy commits himself to the Noonkanbah protest, demonstrating the colossal importance this event was for the national Indigenous struggle for justice. From the Rob Riley text we sense a very different tone to the previous references (reference d and reference b) by nature of it being a biographical novel. We are witness to a personal experience surrounding this very public event and the profound impact it had on Riley and others like him who stood in the battle foregrounds for Indigenous rights in Australia. This Riley account of Noonkanbah provides us with a level of meaning that the other resources do not, in that our emotional senses of compassion, empathy and understanding are awoken. This is a fitting reaction as the audience is d rawn into the event through an Aboriginal perspective and provides a platform for non-Indigenous readers to psychologically engage with the struggle; perhaps enough to do something aboutit.

A very different approach to the personal narrative is that of the media article that attempts to provide an objective and unbiased portrayal of, in this case, an extremely controversial issue. The selected Australian Geographic article (reference e), although written in with the journalist slant, highlights some very important points. In 1976, in the aftermath of the Noonkanbah Station walk-off and pre-Native Title, the Western Australian Government bought and purchased granted lease rights of the land covering the station grounds and surrounds; the result of which in excess of two hundred Aboriginal people returned to their traditional lands with the collective goal of rebuilding and unifying a community, through both physical infrastructure and reconnection to country. The article also points out that the AMAX drilling exploration was fruitless, emphasising the willingness of government and corporations to cause unwarranted destruction to sacred sites and country, even if the chances of success are slim to none. And while big business moves on to the next best prospect, it is always the traditional owner who is left to pay the ultimate sacrifice – through the dispossession of country, culture, and connectedness (Maddiso n, 2009). On a venture that lasted over some years AMAX, together with the Liberal Government of Western Australia and its leader, Sir Charles Court, fervent believer in big business, ran an operation that would ultimately reverse any privileges to the land that was granted to the Yungngora people. The outcome, but more significantly the process of this operation would quash any authenticity on behalf of the Government’s claims of committal to the Aboriginal cause for rights to culture and land (Hawke & Gallagher, 1989). Representing the struggle is Dicky Skinner, who appears in the image below (reference c) of the infamous photograph taken in the heat of the protest in 1979, in which Skinner, in traditional dress, stands tall with his arm stretched above his head and hand clasping the Aboriginal flag. Whilst a defiant pose, Skinner’s head and gaze tilts towards the earth, suggesting a somewhat thoughtful disposition and juxtaposing the very real fig ht for Indigenous rights alongside an historic struggle for maintaining connection to country and the deep, intrinsic thought process that has translated into a collective Aboriginal voice (Foley, 2001). The reference material adopted here for the exploration of the Noonkanbah protest not only tell a story of what is considered to be the birth of Aboriginal land rights, the material also represents a timeline illustrating the ongoing struggle for a cause that took place during the station walk-off to contemporary Australia where the Noonkanbah story still provokes interest and political journalism (reference e). Looking at the event from both an Indigenous and non-Indigenous lens, as well as different formats and methods of history-telling, reminds us that there are, and always will, continue to be multiple ways of knowing; and each of those methods have historical value in their own right, regardless of dominant norms or tradition.


 * References:**

Dodson, P. (2007). //Whatever happened to reconciliation?// In J. Altman & M. Hinkson (Eds.), //Coercive Reconciliation//,. Melbourne: Arena Publications Association, pp.21-29.

Foley, G. (2001). ‘The Road to Native Title: The Aboriginal Rights Movement and the Australian Labor Party 1973-1996,’ The Koori History Website [].

Hawke, S and Gallagher, M. (1989). 'Noonkanbah', Fremantle, Fremantle Arts Centre Press. Highland, G. (2008). ‘Submission to the NSW Legislative Council Social Issues Committee Inquiry into Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage By Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation [ANTaR].

Maddison, S. (2009). //Black Politics: Inside the complexity of Aboriginal political culture//. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007, September 13). Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/29. Retrieved from: [].