Larrakia assertions of their ownership of Darwin have been present at all points in Darwin’s history. In 1971, spurred by the Gove Land Rights case, and the ever-decreasing reserve land in Darwin, Bobby Secretary led Larrakia people and other long-term Indigenous residents of Darwin in a series of protests under the banner of ‘Gwalwa Dariniki’, ‘our land’. These protests, which included sit down blockades of Darwin streets and the hoisting of the Larrakia flag,[3] brought the plight of Larrakia, and particular the struggle to gain title of the Kulaluk town camp, to national attention (Day 1994). Justice Woodward enquired into the issues at Kulaluk in his enquiry into Aboriginal Land Rights (Woodward J 1973). However, his recommendation that land rights be recognised in town areas was not incorporated into the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act 1976 (Cwlth) (ALRA).
The Kenbi land claim was one of the first land claims to be lodged under the ALRA, and having run for 23 years was the longest. It is a claim to Larrakia country on the Cox Peninsula outside the Darwin town boundary. The area is predominantly occupied by the ‘Belyuen’ who have a custodial relationship with the Larrakia in relation to their residence on Larrakia country. The initial unsuccessful claim concluded in 1991. Justice Olney, the Aboriginal Land Commissioner at the time, indicated that he had only been able to identify one Larrakia person who had ‘a “spiritual affiliation” to one site within the meaning of the Act; however, one person cannot be a group, and land rights can only accrue to groups under the Act’ (Olney J 1991; and see Parsons 1998).
A successful appeal was lodged and the entire claim was heard again. The claims process required Larrakia to give representations about their prior ownership of the Darwin area, and indeed themselves. Given the colonial history of Darwin, some Larrakia claimants did not publicly acknowledge their Larrakia ancestry, or had kept it hidden, and in some cases they simply did not know about it. The Kenbi land claim brought about a resurgence of Larrakia identity, and with it contestation from within the group and from opposing parties about the substance and basis of Larrakia identity. Justice Mansfield found that such a resurgence of knowledge did not constitute a continuing Larrakia tradition in the native title claim over Darwin (Mansfield J 2006: [839]).
In the second run of the Kenbi land claim before Justice Gray (1995–2000), the Northern Land Council (NLC) made a strategic decision to divide the claimant group into those descended patrilineally from apical ancestor Tommy Lyons, and the wider Larrakia, who claim their descent cognatically from nine Larrakia apical ancestors. This division fuelled intense contestation about membership of the group. Many Larrakia found their authenticity as Larrakia was challenged by inclusion in the larger group, which, because of its descent model had less chance of fitting the criteria of the Act. In the course of the land claim many of the senior Larrakia passed away. With increased disputation, the long-standing cooperative arrangements with the ‘Belyuen’ became tenuous. The decision of the ‘Belyuen’ group to also contest the claim as traditional owners, despite their custodial relationship with Larrakia in regard to the claim area, created considerable tension, and further challenged the authenticity of Larrakia.
Justice Gray handed down a positive recommendation in 2000, finding in favour of the six descendants of Tommy Lyons (Gray J 2000). The decision, though successful, was devastating for the approximately 1600 Larrakia people who were not recognised as primary traditional owners. The Northern Territory government, which had opposed the Kenbi land claim throughout its 21 year history, asserted that the Commissioner’s decision was ‘bound to have far reaching detrimental effects on the entire population of the Northern Territory’ (Commonwealth of Australia 2001: 22262). Prominent journalist Paul Toohey summed up the adverse public opinion in Darwin in relation to Larrakia in an article in The Australian:
The people Darwin folk grew up with have suddenly become Aborigines … Twenty years ago, these people were not thought of as Larrakia, perhaps because back then they did not loudly proclaim themselves as such … will the majority of the Larrakia, who live in houses, watch TV and speak only English, now cross the harbour to dress in lap-laps, and dance in ochre paint? In Darwin, there is a widely held view that these people never were real Aborigines. But if they have suddenly become Aborigines, then let’s see the spears and corroborees.[4]
Whilst the Land Commissioner made his positive recommendation in 2000 the grant of title by the federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has not occurred and is still pending the settlement of detriment issues.
Prior to the conclusion of the Kenbi Land Claim, three non-claimant applications under the NTA were lodged by the Northern Territory government in respect of a proposed subdivision in Palmerston,[5] the new East Arm Darwin port,[6] and the site for the liquid natural gas plant at Wickham Point[7] in Darwin Harbour. Native title claims lodged in response were cast as Larrakia attempts to halt these major developments, and as an attempt by Larrakia to claim the ‘backyards’ of Darwin residents (Stone 1998).
In 1994, on the eve of a Northern Territory election, a prominent member of the Danggalabba clan, who assert their separateness and primacy over the ‘post-classical’ new Larrakia Tribe as described by Sutton (Sutton 1998), held a press conference in the public bar of Darwin’s Don Hotel to announce a native title claim over all of Darwin. The claim was not lodged, but the impact on the election result was spectacular, with the CLP increasing its already considerable margin over the ALP. The election campaign itself was characterised by the incumbent CLP government’s platform that the ALP intended to introduce a separate legal system for Indigenous people. This position was central in a campaign of ‘push polling’, a practice that was relatively new in Australian politics (Williams 1997). Speculation and debate that the announcement was made in return for $50 000 grant funding from the incumbent CLP occurred in the 1994 Sessional Committee on Constitutional Development (Northern Territory Government 1994). The announcement of this claim had a divisive impact on the already fragile Larrakia polity and prompted a considerable public backlash, which expressed itself in the election outcome. The leader of the ALP in attempting to downplay the claim announced that the Larrakia could not demonstrate continuing occupation of the Darwin area, while the incumbent CLP government used the announcement to vigorously state that the claim would halt development in Darwin.
Debate about the vexatious nature of Larrakia claims continued until 1996 when the first proactive Larrakia native title claim over all vacant crown land and reserve land in Darwin was lodged. It was the first such claim over an Australian capital city. Larrakia claimants sought to assure the residents of Darwin that their aspirations for public beaches and reserves concerned Larrakia involvement in the management of these culturally important areas, not the exclusion of non-Larrakia (Carey and Collinge 1997). However, a public backlash occurred, fuelled by political comment from the Darwin Lord Mayor, Chief Minister Stone, and Prime Minister Howard—the latter describing the claim as ‘an extravagant ambit claim’ (Carey and Collinge 1997: 21). The NLC received a significant amount of mostly anonymous hate mail, including a newspaper photograph of Larrakia claimants at a press conference that had been modified by the drawing of targets with bullet holes on their foreheads (Wells 2003).
Due to the unknown nature of native title in these early years, and significant development proposals within the city limits, increased pressure came to bear on Larrakia people to respond to the demands of developers, the government, the general public and agencies such as the NLC and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). In addition a heightened awareness and recognition of prior Indigenous occupation nationally meant that there was an increased demand for Larrakia people to open events such as conferences, art exhibitions, and festivals. At a number of these occasions Larrakia individuals publicly contested each other’s affiliations and therefore rights to perform as Larrakia in such forums. At an organisational level, a number of competing Larrakia organisations, whose membership was based around family and historical association, competed for the authenticity of their memberships in the arena of native title consultative processes, and within the newly formed Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation (LNAC). This organisation is a coalition, initially facilitated by the NLC, of Larrakia families, individuals and factions, with the primary purpose of providing a corporate identity for Larrakia against increased pressure from external agencies to ‘know’ whom the Larrakia were. Mansfield J, in his assessment of Larrakia tradition, pointed to a ‘breakdown in decision making structures’, noting ‘it is clear that the decision making process among the Larrakia people has been largely transferred to the Larrakia Nation. Its composition is not traditional’ (Mansfield J 2006: [832]).