Land Rights

Learning Intention
• We are learning about the Wave Hill walk off

Success Criteria
• I can identify similarities and differences between
the Wave Hill and Mabo
Vincent Lingiari
• He was a stockman who worked at Wave Hill where we often went
unpaid for his work. It was illegal to pay an Indigenous work more than
a certain amount. The money usually went to a pastoral companies’
account, not the workers.
• In 1966, he got sick of his people being ‘treated like dogs in their own
countries’. He led 200 employees and their families in a ‘walk off’.
• He demanded better pay, rations, and protection of Aboriginal women.
He also wanted the rightful return of Gurindji land. The strike lasted 9
years (the longest in Australian history).
• He became an early voice on the matter of land rights. He visited
Melbourne and Sydney to get support from more influential people.
• In 1973, Gough Whitlam visited Wave Hill. In 1975 he returned to pour
red soil into Lingiari’s hands to symbolise the returning of the land.
Wave Hill
• How does this story show a story of perseverance?

• What cultural assumptions did the people of Australia

make back then and how has it changed?

• How is this movement different to the Mabo decision?

• Write a paragraph that compares the two events. You
could create a Venn diagram to find the similarities and
differences. Consider the barriers they faced, the public
perception of the movement, the Government support,
and the result.
Similarities
Indigenous Rights:
Both the Wave Hill walk-off and the
Mabo decision were about fighting
for the rights of Indigenous
Australians. These events aimed to
challenge the unfair treatment and
lack of recognition that Indigenous
people faced.
Land Ownership
Both events dealt with the issue of
land ownership. The Wave Hill walk-
off was led by Aboriginal stockmen
and workers who wanted better
working conditions and rights to their
ancestral land. The Mabo decision
was a legal case that led to the
recognition of Indigenous land
ownership rights, challenging the
concept of terra nullius (the idea that
Australia was empty land when
Europeans arrived).
Change in Attitudes
Both events sparked changes in
attitudes towards Indigenous rights.
They brought attention to the
injustices faced by Indigenous people
and prompted wider discussions
about equality, land rights, and the
need for acknowledgment of
Australia's Indigenous heritage.
Differences:
Nature of the Events:
Wave Hill Walk-Off: This was a
protest in 1966 by Aboriginal
stockmen and their families who
walked off the Wave Hill cattle
station, demanding fair wages and
the return of their traditional lands. It
was a physical act of protest.
Mabo Decision: The Mabo decision,
in 1992, was a legal case in the High
Court of Australia. It challenged the
notion of terra nullius and
established the legal recognition of
native title, giving Indigenous people
the right to claim ownership of their
traditional lands.
Leadership:
Wave Hill Walk-Off: The protest was
led by Vincent Lingiari, an Aboriginal
stockman. He played a crucial role in
leading the walk-off and negotiating
with the government and
pastoralists.
Mabo Decision: The case was named
after Eddie Mabo, an Indigenous man
from the Torres Strait Islands. He and
his legal team fought in court to
challenge the concept of terra nullius
and secure native title rights.
Impact:
Wave Hill Walk-Off: This protest led
to the eventual return of some land
to the Gurindji people and marked a
turning point in the Indigenous land
rights movement, inspiring other
Indigenous groups to demand their
land rights.
Mabo Decision: The Mabo decision
was a landmark ruling that changed
Australian law and acknowledged the
ongoing connection of Indigenous
people to their ancestral lands. It
paved the way for the Native Title
Act, which allowed Indigenous
groups to claim ownership and rights
over their traditional lands.