Views from Western Australia

The movie ‘Amazing Grace’ will introduce many to William Wilberforce; it tells the story of his campaign for the abolition of slavery and shows his close friendship with England’s youngest ever Prime Minister, William Pitt.  It also highlights that among his mentors was John Newton, a former slave trader, who was converted and priested; Newton also wrote well known hymns including ‘Amazing Grace’.  It is a compelling movie, but it only tells a part of the story of William Wilberforce.

Wilberforce was born in 1759 in Yorkshire and his father was a wealthy merchant.  Elected to Parliament in 1780 he spearheaded the campaign against slavery.  After many attempts he succeeded in abolishing slavery in the British Empire.  Due to declining health retired from parliament in 1825 and died in 1833.

Wilberforce was dubbed "the prime minister of a cabinet of philanthropists"; he actively supported over 60 philanthropic causes and gave away one-quarter of his income to the poor. He fought on behalf of chimney sweeps, single mothers, Sunday schools, orphans, and juvenile delinquents.  Wilberforce also supported Catholic emancipation and assisted in the formation of the ‘Church Missionary Society’, the ‘British and Foreign Bible Society’, the ‘Society for Bettering the Conditions of the Poor’ and the ‘Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’. 

In 1783 the Eclectic Society was commenced under the leadership of John Newton; it had a close relationship with Wilberforce and they were well informed about matters political.  At this time Pitt was determined to found the Botany Bay settlement and the Eclectic Society was actively interested in who would be chaplain for the colony; they selected Richard Johnson.  Wilberforce went on a delegation to Pitt recommending Johnson and Pitt agreed.  In 1786 Richard Johnson received a royal warrant as the first Chaplain to the Colony of New South Wales.  Subsequently, Wilberforce light-heartedly referred to Johnson as “the Bishop of Botany Bay”. 

Later Wilberforce was actively involved in a group based around the Anglican Parish of Clapham and led by its rector (1792–1815). The name ‘Clapham Sect’ was introduced later to describe the group (1844).  In reality the ethos of the Clapham Sect was anything but sectarian.  They shared political views concerning the liberation of slaves, the abolition of the slave trade and reform of the penal system.  The things which drew them together were evangelical Christianity and the joy of good fellowship with like-minded people with a commitment to principle.

In contrast to his role in ending the slave trade, Wilberforce was opposed to workers’ rights to organise for better pay, conditions and working hours.  In 1799 he drew up the Combination Act, which suppressed trade union activity and made all unions illegal. The penalty for trade union activity was transportation for life.

The British East India Company had been set up to establish a share in the spice trade.  For over ten years Wilberforce advocated for amendments to its Charter that would enable the company to employ religious teachers with the aim of "introducing Christian light into India."  He managed to persuade the House of Commons to include the clauses in the Charter Act (1813); among other things, this eventually resulted in the foundation of the Bishopric of Calcutta.

Britain spent 20 years of his career at war with revolutionary France, which he opposed from start to finish.  Calling war, ‘the greatest of human evils’, he made himself extremely unpopular with his peace motions in Parliament.

Wilberforce reminds us that evangelical Christianity was intensely engaged with the cause of human rights. The campaign against the slave trade and slavery was their cause and Wilberforce saw his role as a part of that cause.  In this vision he had the support of John Wesley and hundreds of other clergy. Wilberforce also scorned those who used the language of religion to justify slavery and oppression.

The roots of the modern human rights movement can be traced back to Wilberforce and his colleagues.  Seeing human rights as a social movement was Wilberforce’s genius; he developed the techniques of drawing attention to victims, the use of mass media, and the use of civil society organizations.  These are tools which continue to be used in human rights work today.  Wilberforce may be something of an unwanted model for some of today’s human rights activists because he was a Christian and a Conservative. But these are among the qualities that make Wilberforce such an important figure, in that he demonstrates the universality of the human rights message.  

Confusion over Native Title
Nov 2006

THERE has been extensive media coverage of the political reaction to the Federal Court’s judgment in favor of Noongar native title over the Perth metropolitan area. Justice Wilcox found that Native Title continues to exist within an area in and around Perth; this is part of a larger area included in the Single Noongar Claim, but was determined separately by the Federal Court at the request of the  Commonwealth and State Government in order to obtain certainty about whether Native Title exists in the Perth area.

The President of the National Native Title Tribunal, Graeme Neate, has correctly pointed out that the decision to recognise the Native Title rights of the Noongar people over Perth will have little to no impact on West Australian residents.

There has been considerable political rhetoric around the Noongar decisions inconsistency with the earlier Yorta Yorta judgement. However, a number of independent legal experts have stated the Noongar decision created no uncertainty, because it was consistent with the same principle of continuing connection to the land as Yorta Yorta. It was just that while the Yorta Yorta could not prove a continuing connection with the land, the Noongar claimants could.

Furthermore, the barrister who represented the Noongar claimants, Vance Hughston, denied there was legal inconsistency and said the claim had met the standards under native title law. A little reported fact is that Hughson ran the case for the State in the Yorta Yorta case; that is to say he acted against the Yorta Yorta people’s claim. It is reasonable to assume that he knows that case; but more importantly, that he knew the detail of the Yorta Yorta judgement intimately before arguing the Noongar claim.  The importance of this should not be underestimated.

On the day of the Noongar judgement the WA Minister responsible for Native Title, Eric Ripper’s, opening remarks were unhelpful and unwarranted; he was slamming the decision before his legal team would have had a chance to read the decision. This outburst showed little dignity and no respect for Noongar people.  After a few days, the Premier, Alan Carpenter, and even Eric Ripper, acknowledged the Noongar people as the land’s traditional owners.

Subsequently, the WA Attorney General, Jim McGinty stated “The West Australian Government is not appealing the decision by Justice Wilcox in order to overturn native title. We simply want to have a clearer understanding of what the ground rules are in order to embrace native title in the future.”  However, within days of these comments the State lodged its appeal and it is clear that the State’s appeal is an attempt to overturn native title. Among other things the State claims the Wilcox decision upholding native title over Perth should be overturned because Noongar claimants have failed to prove they lived as a single society at the time of white settlement.

The appeal also argues that Noongar claimants have not maintained a system of traditional laws and customs until present time, with enormous changes in lifestyle resulting in the disappearance of many traditional practices. We have a State Government that is duplicitous and confused.

Key ministers recognise Noongar people as traditional owners; the Premier says he has always known Noongar people as the traditional people of the South West and the Attorney General saying that it doesn’t want to overturn native title.  Yet it appears the twenty three page appeal is designed to overturn the Native Title rights of Noongar people. The Government is not being honest with Noongar people and the wider non Noongar community. The appeal is not seeking clarifi cation of what Native Title means in metropolitan Perth and the South West as suggested. The appeal is fundamentally arguing against Noongar Native Title and Noongar identity.

A spokesperson for the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, said the Noongar people had “put their case to the court with  great dignity and patience and great heart. They were subject to the full rigours of the court process. A judge with knowledge of all the law that’s gone before and all of the evidence made a decision.”

The problem is that the politicians listen to the lawyers who lost the case. The Government would have been well advised to get some independent legal advice. It now appears that the only acceptable outcome is a judgment that goes against Aboriginal interests.

This was an historic opportunity for the State Government to recast its relationship with Noongar people. It required strong and
visionary political leadership.

The Government has made a commitment to negotiate with the Noongar people while the claim proceeds; which contrary to the
views of some critics is a normal procedure in the legal system. We can only hope and pray that a positive conclusion can be
found that treats Noongar people with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Why the Wilcox Decision on Noongar Native Title is important nationally

Justice Wilcox’s decision on Noongar Native Title over the Perth metropolitical area restores the proper path of native title recognition, started by the High Court’s Mabo decision in June 1992. 

Wilcox’s judgment does not extend the scope of native title; however, the judgment is noteworthy for several reasons.

It highlights Perth’s wealth of post-European settlement writings which provide an insight into Aboriginal life, including laws and customs, around the time of settlement in 1829 and also into the beginning of the last century.

These documents enabled Wilcox to find that laws and customs governing land throughout the whole Single Noongar Claim (taking in Perth, and many other towns in the greater South West) were those of a single community. The claimants shared a language and had extensive interaction with others in the claim area.

Importantly, Justice Wilcox found the Noongar community had continued to exist despite the disruption resulting from mixed marriage and people being forced off their land and dispersed to other areas as a result of white settlement and later Government policies.  This is a very significant principle for future claims over other metropolitical, urbanised and ruralised areas in Australia.

Wilcox said families had kept in contact. Many, if not most, children learned at least some Noongar language while traditional skills, beliefs and as much as possible, land laws, had been preserved. As a result, Wilcox found there was a case for native title.

But he said it was neither a pot of gold for claimants nor the disaster for the community that it was sometimes painted. 

For most people, the judgment will have little impact.  

Stephen has been employed by committees for over twenty five years, commenting: ‘There are plenty of books for people going onto committees, but none for people going in to manage community organisations; maybe I should write it!’ 

He is also the oldest love child of two Anglican clergy in Australia; work that one out!