The Aboriginal community has been done a grave disservice by the taking of the coat of arms from the outside wall of Old Parliament House and the absurd High Court writs seeking injunctions against the Commonwealth for using emblems of the kangaroo and emu on the grounds that they are sacred or significant to the Aboriginal people. Further writs were being considered against various sporting and business bodies that use the symbols.
The writ in the name of the Aboriginal Embassy sought for all High Court judges to disqualify themselves and for an international tribunal to hear the matter.
The patent absurdity of the writ and the action of taking the coat of arms away have infuriated many Australians. Fortunately other Aboriginal groups have dissociated themselves from the action. Ngunawal elder Ruth Bell said the tent embassy members were not representative of her people. She was rightly concerned that the actions of the tent embassy members would reflect badly on the Ngunawal people. Other responsible Aboriginal leaders should do the same thing. But if they do, the question arises in the precisely what the Aboriginal tent embassy does represent. If it and the actions of people claiming to be representative of the embassy are disowned by Aboriginal groups across Australia, its validity comes under question. If the actions are not disowned, it means that the embassy, as a representative of the Aboriginal community engages in some very silly actions.
The representatives of the embassy have done as much damage to themselves as the wider Aboriginal community – they have brought into question their own role.
The whole exercise is a little more than a stunt. It has got publicity, but of the wrong kind. Instead of drawing attention to the tragic inequalities between indigenous Australians and other in things like health care, infant mortality, education, imprisonment rates and so on, it has drawn attention to a misguided belief that there is one law for Aborigines and one for everyone else: that Aborigines can camp on national land with impunity and at least in the first few days after the action that they could take things with impunity. In short, the actions have unfortunately given succour to stereotypes and prejudices.
The other stereotype gaining succour is that the courts are being used as playthings. The claim that the Commonwealth of Australia or any other body cannot use the kangaroo or emu because they are sacred Aboriginal objects is obvious nonsense. Its frivolous, publicity seeking nature is a blot on the courage, hard work and sense of justice of those Aboriginal litigants and their legal teams who fought the Mabo, Wik and other landmark human- and land-rights cases.