National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advocacy Service

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advocacy Service Professional Advocacy for First Nations Australians

I hope people will take a moment to read this article I wrote today. It’s an important topic that deserves your thoughtf...
20/05/2026

I hope people will take a moment to read this article I wrote today. It’s an important topic that deserves your thoughtful contributions.

Australia continues to face a profound justice crisis affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Despite Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples representing approximately 3% of the Australian population, they account for more than one-third of the adult prison population nationa...

The truth behind the narrative is darker than you'd want to believe. Read now ...
13/05/2026

The truth behind the narrative is darker than you'd want to believe. Read now ...

This week we have witnessed something deeply troubling in the Fair Work Commission.Across several matters, parties have ...
11/03/2026

This week we have witnessed something deeply troubling in the Fair Work Commission.

Across several matters, parties have been refused permission to have representation during conciliation conferences. The refusals appear to be applying a uniform or “cookie-cutter” approach, rather than considering the individual circumstances of each case.

This raises serious concerns about whether the system is departing from the very object of the Fair Work Act — the principle of “a fair go for all.”

Under section 596 of the Fair Work Act 2009, the Commission may allow a person to be represented by a lawyer or paid agent where representation would make the matter more efficient, or where it would be unfair to expect the person to represent themselves effectively. The law recognises that representation is often necessary to ensure fairness between the parties.

Yet what we are now seeing appears to be the opposite.

Many workers who enter the Fair Work system are already in extremely vulnerable positions. They may have been dismissed, subjected to bullying, discrimination, or victimisation. A significant number are experiencing anxiety, depression, or psychological injury arising from their workplace dispute.

Forcing these individuals to confront their former employer alone — often against HR professionals, experienced managers, or legal representatives — creates a profound imbalance.

Conciliation is not simply a casual conversation. It often involves complex issues including:

• unfair dismissal
• general protections and workplace rights
• discrimination and protected attributes
• procedural fairness
• evidentiary disputes

Representation actually helps the system work better. Advocates and representatives assist to narrow the issues, structure negotiations, and help the Commission reach fair and efficient outcomes.

Removing representation does not solve the Commission’s workload pressures. In fact, it risks making the problem worse.

When people cannot properly participate in the process, disputes are more likely to escalate into arbitration or litigation in the Federal Court. Others will withdraw their matters entirely and refile them in different jurisdictions such as Human Rights Commissions or anti-discrimination tribunals.

That does not fix the problem. It simply moves the problem somewhere else.

The reality is that the Fair Work Commission is under enormous pressure with a growing caseload. But limiting representation is not a solution to a resourcing problem.

If the system is overwhelmed, the solution is simple:
proper funding and proper resources.

Working Australians should not be abandoned at the moment they need the system most.

A fair workplace relations system must ensure that both applicants and employers can properly participate in the process. Justice cannot be achieved if people are forced to fend for themselves in complex legal disputes.

Australia’s workplace relations system was built on the idea of fairness.

We must not allow that principle to be quietly eroded.

16/01/2026
16/01/2026

Keating was a good leader at the time to be taking on the tough issues. Still though, politics is politics, people are people and equal is equal, but how can we ever be equal when the interaction commenced with violence and dispossession. “I’m not racist, but”, just asking for a friend 😜

Pemulwuy and the First War on CountryWhen the British arrived at Warrane (Sydney Cove) in 1788, they declared the land e...
13/01/2026

Pemulwuy and the First War on Country

When the British arrived at Warrane (Sydney Cove) in 1788, they declared the land empty, terra nullius, and began occupying it without treaty, consent, or recognition of the peoples who had lived there for tens of thousands of years. For the Eora Nation and neighbouring clans, this was not settlement—it was invasion.

Among those who refused to accept this was Pemulwuy, a Bidjigal man from the lands around present-day Parramatta, Georges River, and Botany Bay.

Pemulwuy was born with a physical difference in his foot, which under Bidjigal law marked him as a person of spiritual and cultural significance. He grew to become a lawman, a warrior, and later a resistance leader.



The First War Begins

By the early 1790s, British farms had spread along the Hawkesbury and Parramatta River systems. These farms destroyed food sources, fenced sacred land, and violently displaced Aboriginal families. British soldiers and settlers routinely shot Aboriginal people, often without consequence.

Pemulwuy organised resistance.

This resistance was not random violence. It was war conducted under Aboriginal law—targeted, strategic, and focused on defending Country.
• Crops were destroyed
• Livestock was speared
• Settlements were attacked
• Soldiers were ambushed

Pemulwuy led coordinated attacks on British outposts, including government farms at Parramatta and Toongabbie. These attacks directly challenged the authority of the colonial government.

Governor Arthur Phillip himself acknowledged Pemulwuy as the most serious threat to British control in New South Wales.



War with British Soldiers

In 1797, Pemulwuy was shot by British soldiers during a raid but survived. His survival elevated his status even further—many believed he was spiritually protected.

The British response was brutal.
• Shoot-on-sight orders were issued
• Bounties were placed on Pemulwuy
• Soldiers were authorised to kill Aboriginal people without trial

This marked one of the earliest formal military responses by the colony against Aboriginal resistance. It was no longer sporadic violence—it was open warfare.

Pemulwuy continued fighting for years despite overwhelming force, muskets, and organised troops. His resistance inspired other clans across the Sydney basin.



Death and Desecration

In 1802, Pemulwuy was finally shot and killed by Henry Hacking, a British sailor and explorer.

What followed was an act of profound violence beyond death.

Pemulwuy’s head was severed and sent to England, preserved in spirits, as a trophy and a so-called “scientific specimen.” His body was denied proper cultural burial. His head has never been returned, despite repeated requests by Aboriginal communities.

This act symbolised the colonial desire not just to defeat resistance, but to erase it.



Legacy

Pemulwuy did not lose a battle of ideas.

He forced the British to acknowledge that Aboriginal people would fight back. He exposed the lie of peaceful settlement. He led the first war of resistance in what became Australia, long before later frontier wars across the continent.

His son, Tedbury, continued the fight after his death.

Today, Pemulwuy is recognised not as a criminal—as colonial records described him—but as a freedom fighter, resistance leader, and defender of Country.

The war he fought was never formally declared, never formally ended, and never properly acknowledged.

But it was real

99 deaths sparked a Royal Commission.617 deaths later — still no action.In 1987, Australia launched the Royal Commission...
12/01/2026

99 deaths sparked a Royal Commission.
617 deaths later — still no action.

In 1987, Australia launched the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody after 99 lives were lost.

Since then, more than 617 Aboriginal people have died in custody — at a higher annual rate than before the Royal Commission ever existed.

So we asked the hard questions:

* Why was 99 deaths enough to act, but 617 is not?
* Why were 339 lifesaving recommendations made, yet most were never implemented?
* Why do governments keep funding inquiries instead of fixing problems we already know exist?

We’ve published a detailed blog breaking down the facts, the numbers, and the uncomfortable truths behind Aboriginal deaths in custody — and why repeating Royal Commissions without implementation costs lives and wastes public money.

📖 Read the full blog here:
👉 https://www.myunion.au/post/99-deaths-sparked-a-royal-commission-617-deaths-later-where-is-the-next-one-in-1987-australia-re

If this makes you uncomfortable, it should.
If it makes you angry, it should.

Silence has already cost too many lives.

In 1987, Australia reached a moral breaking point. The deaths of 99 Aboriginal people in custody over less than a decade were so confronting, so clearly systemic, that the Commonwealth was forced to act. That action took the form of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, announced i...

Address

PO Box 665, Ormeau
Beenleigh, QLD
4208

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advocacy Service posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share