Name: Chau Anh Bui

Student number: 6028597

Tutor: Amlan Haque-Comm101 Week 12-Monday 14:30 to 15:30

1.Briefly summarise (dot points ok) the history of the Wave Hill Walk-Off, on 23 August
1966

On 23 August 1966, 200 Gurindji stockmen, domestic workers and their families-initiated
strike action at Wave Hill station in the Northern Territory. Negotiations with the station
owners, the international food company Vestey Brothers, broke down, leading to a seven-year
dispute.

This eventually led to the return of a portion of their homelands to the Gurindji people in
1974, and the passing of the first legislation that allowed for Indigenous people to claim land
title if they could prove a traditional relationship to the country.

The Gurindji people had lived on their homelands in what is now the Victoria River area of
the Northern Territory for tens of thousands of years when in 1883 the colonial government
granted almost 3000 square kilometres of their country to the explorer and pastoralist
Nathaniel Buchanan. The Gurindji would have had no appreciation that someone from
outside their community ‘owned’ part of their country.

From 1913, legislation required that in return for their work, Aboriginal people in the
Northern Territory should receive food, clothes, tea and tobacco.

However, a report by RM and CH Berndt in 1946 showed that Aboriginal children under
twelve were working illegally, that accommodation and rations were inadequate, that there
was sexual abuse of Aboriginal women, and prostitution for rations and clothing was taking
place. No sanitation or rubbish removal facilities were provided, nor was there safe drinking
water.

The coming to power of the Labour Party in 1972 changed the political landscape. Prime
Minister Gough Whitlam announced in his election policy speech that his government would
‘establish once and for all Aborigines’ rights to land’.

2.In your view, did the strike action satisfy the three conditions for a justified strike set
out by Fagothey and Gonsalves (see your textbook, p.378). Why?
Yes. They were justified in taking the strike action because they had been occupying the area
long before it was taken and given away by the government. The land was rightfully theirs
therefore they did any means necessary to retrieve what was taken from them.

3. What role did worker (trade) unions play in this incident?

The worker (trade) unions played a sort of bystander role, as they did not help the aboriginal
workers as they were supposed to, for example, when the report from 1946 showed that the
aboriginal people were being mistreated, children working illegally and women being
sexually abused the union did not step in.

4. The Wave Hill Strike would most likely be regarded today as illegal. Do you think the
strike action taken by the Gurindji was morally justified? Why?

It was morally justified as they felt as though it was their land because again they were
occupying it for generations and the government just took it from them, however the outcome
was not what they were expecting as they did not receive in full what was taken from them,
only part. However, it is better than nothing and shows that Australia was changing.

5. Were the unions, and union members, involved (organising, donating, publicising,
etc.) in this action justified in supporting the Gurindji, or should unions restrict
themselves to matters that affect their members only? Why?

I believe that they were justified in being involved in this action because they saw fellow
human beings were being mistreated and taken advantage of and were not able to just stand
there, they did something about it. Even if it was just donating or organising etc. it showed
that the people of Australia were giving the government initiative to change. Therefore, I
believe that unions should not restrict themselves to matter that affect their members only.