DOCSLIB.ORG

Edward Koiki Mabo: the Journey to Native Title

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Edward Koiki Mabo: the Journey to Native Title Noel Loos Edward Koiki Mabo: The Journey to Native Title Noel Loos Edward Koiki Mabo preferred his Murray Islander name, Koiki, to the colonialist, Eddie, by which he was known to the Australian public. Koiki was the name used by other Murray islanders and by those white Australians who had become close friends and interacted with him over a long period of time. I had addressed him for so long as Eddie that it took me quite a while to change and then only as a result of his persistence. My wife, Betty, who saw him less frequently than I, had to do so many double takes, which they both found amusing, that Koiki eventually gave up. ‘You can call me Eddie!’ he laughed. He continued to use Eddie as his public name, probably because he thought it would have been too confusing to change it; and that was the name that was registered in 1982 in the high court challenge that led on 3 June 1992 to the acknowledgement of native title in Australia.1 By that time Koiki had been dead for just over four months. When George Mye, Eidi Papa, read his poem, ‘Who Was That Boy’ to the united nations working group on indigenous populations in Geneva in 1995, the name Eddie did not appear even though the poem counterpointed his childhood on Mer, Murray Island, with the fame he had achieved through destroying terra nullius.2 Apek kebile, the little boy from the other side of the island, was unafraid of lamar, ghost or spirit, and lug-le, sorceror. George Mye had dramatically highlighted the independence and assertiveness of the child with the achievement of the adult. The lug-le is still ‘the greatest fear of islanders even today’, George Mye told me. ‘You show me an Islander who doesn’t believe in sorcery’, said Koiki’s cousin, Donald Whaleboat, ‘and I’ll show you a liar’. Yet, when I read the poem after George Mye, Donald Whaleboat and Elemo Tapim had translated the Miriam words and explained the nuances, it was ‘apek kebile’ that resonated with me. Literally Mabo was ‘the little boy from the other side of the island’. His village Las, sacred to the Malo-Bomai cult, is as remote as you can get on Murray Island from the centre of population that had grown up around the site of the mission. George Mye, Koiki’s friend and relative, had referred with affection to ‘that Las mob’ when I was discussing Murray Island affairs with him. The small village of Las was different and special. Apek kebile, ‘the boy from the back blocks’, I thought, the creative maverick that Koiki had been for the 25 years I had known him, was moulded by his origin. Koiki Mabo was certainly a ‘battler and stirrer’. He had grown up on an island that had become a colony of Queensland in 1879 and had been administered by a white administration throughout the twentieth century. In this situation, his proud and independent nature ensured that he would be a ‘battler’. He posed challenges to white colonial power and to the Torres Strait Islander establishment that had grown up under it, and this made it easy for him to be treated as a ‘stirrer’, a troublemaker, to the last years of his life. While this is not an uncommon fate for battlers, it was not one he deliberately sought. 108 Eddie Mabo Throughout the twentieth century, the oppressive Queensland administration had segregated the Meriam and other Torres Strait islanders from mainland developments under the policy of protection. It had fostered the change from a comfortable, satisfying subsistence economy based on agriculture and fishing to a cash economy based on the pearlshell, bêche-de-mer and trochus fisheries. The coming of christian missions in 1871 had, in effect, reinforced the cultural changes occurring in the Torres Strait. However, the islanders made christianity their own religion. They also incorporated their involvement in the fisheries and their participation in the colonial administration of their islands into their culture. Increasingly, Torres Strait Islanders collaborated in the administration of Queensland government policy. In doing so they were able to minimise the white colonialist presence on their islands and maintain their life style in a way unknown on Queensland’s Aboriginal reserves. They also funded their own colonialist controls by working in the fisheries. At the time Mabo was growing up on Mer, the islanders provided cheap black labour for the hundred or so ‘Master Boats’ owned by white businessmen. Throughout the Torres Strait some islander families owned their own smaller luggers, called ‘company boats’. An early missionary, FW. Walker, had encouraged islanders to buy their own boats and the Queensland government had supported this development when, in 1904, they began applying protectionist legislation to the islanders as they had to the Aborigines. However, the islanders were forced to sell their catch only to the Queensland administration at a much lower price than was generally available from the commercial buyers. The master boats and the company boats took most of the younger men away from the islands for much of the year, leaving the women, the children, the old men and those who didn’t wish to recruit to attend to church and council matters, to tend the gardens, to fish, to catch crabs, crayfish and birds and to collect oysters and other molluscs. The colonialist controls had been implemented by the protector stationed at Thursday Island, the administrative centre, and by a teacher-administrator on each of the inhabited islands. As the controls tightened and the islanders came to understand their situation, they resented their loss of freedom, especially the government’s control over their wages and bankbooks, but also such degrading measures as a nightly curfew. In 1936, the islanders on company boats stunned their white overlords by going on strike simultaneously throughout the strait. The Queensland administration had created a unity of purpose among people who had previously been concerned with their own island interests. They had also been drawn together into world-wide capitalism through the fisheries, introduced to a world-wide religion and its Torres Strait wide organisation through the missionaries, and become enmeshed in a western colonialist administration. The 1936 maritime strike was consequently successful because of the wider Torres Strait Islander identity produced by colonialist expansion, as well as being caused by the domination resulting from it. By 1936, the year Koiki Mabo was born, Torres Strait creole had developed throughout the Strait as a lingua franca, and on some islands had replaced the traditional language, but not on Murray. The islanders were also becoming familiar with English, the third language of Murray islanders. Torres Strait Islander English 109 Noel Loos had become a regional dialect, as different from standard English as Yorkshire or Cornish English. The strike lasted for four months in the western islands, while in the east the Murray Islanders boycotted the government-controlled fisheries until after world war II. Their gardens and the sea could sustain them. Indeed, Murray islanders are believed to have instigated the strike. They had always been noted for their self- assertive independence and had been dubbed ‘the Irish of the Torres Strait’. Strong leaders emerged to lead their fractious people until another strong leader challenged the old order. On Mer, ‘everyone mamoose’, the Meriam said of themselves, everyone is a chief.3 Throughout much of the colonial history, strong Meriam leaders had emerged to limit as much as possible the intrusion of Queensland’s colonialist controls into Meriam life. On more than one occasion they had defied Queensland authority, the 1936 maritime strike being but the best-known example before the Meriam demanded of the Queensland government, in the high court of Australia, the return of the native title to their land. Koiki Mabo was born in the year of the maritime strike and died in the year the Meriam won their ten-year high court challenge that destroyed the concept of terra nullius on which Australia was founded. Koiki was born on Mer, Murray Island, on 29 June 1936, the son of Robert and Poipe Sambo. His mother died soon after his birth and he was adopted by his maternal uncle, Benny Mabo, and his aunt, Maiga, in accordance with Torres Strait Islander custom, a circumstance which was to be heatedly contested in the course of his claim for native title to his ancestral lands. Because of his grasp of English, his third language, he was employed briefly as an assistant teacher on Yorke Island and as an assistant to a Queensland government team investigating an outbreak of malaria in the Torres Strait.4 Mabo told me that when he was sixteen, the Murray Island court found him guilty of drinking alcohol and making love to a young islander woman whom he thought he might have eventually married. In the eyes of the Queensland department of native affairs (DNA) and the Torres Strait Islander council implementing the laws, sexual relations before marriage and the consumption of alcohol were criminal offences, and Mabo was sentenced to twelve months’ exile from Murray Island. He decided to turn his punishment into an adventure by recruiting on a trochus lugger that was working to the south. This could have entailed visits to mainland ports like Cairns. He told me how he was taken before the senior DNA official, Mr Patrick Killoran, when he landed in Thursday Island, who quickly vetoed his plans and forced him to work on luggers that operated only in Torres Strait. This assertion of colonialist control angered him and he determined to migrate to the mainland with the steadily increasing flow of other Torres Strait Islanders.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eddie Mabo and Others V. the State of Queensland, 1992. 1 the Significance of Court Recognition of Landrights in Australia
    Kunapipi Volume 14 Issue 1 Article 3 1992 Eddie Mabo and Others v. the State of Queensland, 1992. 1 The Significance of Court Recognition of Landrights in Australia Merete Falck Borch Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/kunapipi Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Borch, Merete Falck, Eddie Mabo and Others v. the State of Queensland, 1992. 1 The Significance of Court Recognition of Landrights in Australia, Kunapipi, 14(1), 1992. Available at:https://ro.uow.edu.au/kunapipi/vol14/iss1/3 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Eddie Mabo and Others v. the State of Queensland, 1992. 1 The Significance of Court Recognition of Landrights in Australia Abstract In Australia, Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders have made much less use of the courts in the struggle for recognition of their rights to the land than, for example, the Indians in North America have. There have only been two major landrights cases in Australia; the first one, Milirrpum and others .v Nabalco and the Commonwealth, was brought by the Yolngu of north-eastern Arnhemland in 1969 in protest against the granting by the federal government of a mining lease to Nabalco on their land. The case was decided by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in 1971. The second case, Mabo and others v. the State of Queensland was an action initiated in 1982 by the Meriam people from the Torres Strait Islands to prevent an increase in government powers over their land.
    [Show full text]
  • From Mabo to Yorta Yorta: Native Title Law in Australia
    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 19 Access to Justice: The Social Responsibility of Lawyers | Contemporary and Comparative Perspectives on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples January 2005 From Mabo to Yorta Yorta: Native Title Law in Australia Lisa Strelein Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Lisa Strelein, From Mabo to Yorta Yorta: Native Title Law in Australia, 19 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 225 (2005), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol19/iss1/14 This Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Mabo to Yorta Yorta: Native Title Law in Australia Dr. Lisa Strelein* INTRODUCTION In more than a decade since Mabo v. Queensland II’s1 recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights to their traditional lands, the jurisprudence of native title has undergone significant development. The High Court of Australia decisions in Ward2 and Yorta Yorta3 in 2002 sought to clarify the nature of native title and its place within Australian property law, and within the legal system more generally. Since these decisions, lower courts have had time to apply them to native title issues across the country. This Article briefly examines the history of the doctrine of discovery in Australia as a background to the delayed recognition of Indigenous rights in lands and resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Tripartite Test
    HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA 11 February 2020 LOVE v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA; THOMS v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA [2020] HCA 3 Today, the High Court, by majority, answered a question in two special cases to the effect that Aboriginal Australians (understood according to the tripartite test in Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1) are not within the reach of the power to make laws with respect to aliens, conferred on the Commonwealth Parliament by s 51(xix) of the Constitution ("the aliens power"). That is the case even if the Aboriginal Australian holds foreign citizenship and is not an Australian citizen under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth). The tripartite test requires demonstration of biological descent from an indigenous people together with mutual recognition of the person's membership of the indigenous people by the person and by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people. The plaintiffs, Mr Thoms and Mr Love, were both born outside Australia and are not Australian citizens. Mr Thoms was born in New Zealand on 16 October 1988 and became a New Zealand citizen by birth. He has resided permanently in Australia since 23 November 1994. Mr Thoms is a descendant of the Gunggari People through his maternal grandmother. He identifies as a member of that community and is accepted as such by members of the Gunggari People. He is also a common law holder of native title. Mr Love was born on 25 June 1979 in the Independent State of Papua New Guinea. He is a citizen of that country but has been a permanent resident of Australia since 25 December 1984.
    [Show full text]
  • Torres Strait Islanders: a New Deal
    The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS: A NEW DEAL A REPORT ON GREATER AUTONOMY FOR TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Affairs August 1997 Canberra Commonwealth of Australia 1997 ISBN This document was produced from camera-ready copy prepared by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and printed by AGPS Canberra. The cover was produced in the AGPS design studios. The graphic on the cover was developed from a photograph taken on Yorke/Masig Island during the Committee's visit in October 1996. CONTENTS FOREWORD ix TERMS OF REFERENCE xii MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE xiii GLOSSARY xiv SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS xv CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE.......................................................................................................................................1 CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY ......................................................................................................................................1 SCOPE OF THE REPORT.............................................................................................................................................2 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................................................3 Commonwealth-State Cooperation ....................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Akiba V Cth .Pdf
    250 CLR 209] AKIBA V THE COMMONWEALTH 209 AKIBA.. ................................................................ APPELLANT; APPLICANT, AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS.............................................. RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS, [2013] HCA 33 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Aboriginals — Native title to waters — Fishing — Whether right to fish for HC of A commercial or trading purposes extinguished by legislation — Whether 2013 reciprocal access and use rights between Torres Strait Island communities constituted native title rights and interests — Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), Feb 12; ss 211, 223, 225. Aug 7 2013 Thirteen island communities in the Torres Strait applied to the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) for a French CJ, Hayne, determination of native title over part of the waters of the Strait. A judge Crennan, Kiefel and of that Court made a native title determination over the waters which Bell JJ included a non-exclusive group right to access resources and to take for any purpose resources in the native title areas in accordance with the traditional laws and customs of the native title holders and the laws of the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth, including the common law. Certain reciprocal rights and interests subsisting between members of Torres Strait Island communities were found not to constitute native title rights and interests within the meaning of s 223 of the Native Title Act. The Commonwealth appealed against the determination on the ground that colonial, State and Commonwealth fisheries legislation had extinguished any native title right to take fish and other aquatic life for commercial purposes. The Torres Strait Islanders cross-appealed against the finding that the reciprocal rights did not constitute native title rights and interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Autonomy Rights in Torres Strait: from Whom, for Whom, for Or Over What?
    Autonomy rights in Torres Strait: From whom, for whom, for or over what? W.G. Sanders and W.S. Arthur No. 215/2001 ISSN 1036-1774 ISBN 0 7315 2650 3 Will Sanders is a Fellow and Bill Arthur a Research Fellow at the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, The Australian National University. CENTRE FOR ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC POLICY RESEARCH DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 215 iii Table of contents Abbreviations and acronyms ...............................................................................iv Summary .............................................................................................................v Acknowledgments ................................................................................................v Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Calls for autonomy, and existing and proposed governance structures ................ 4 From whom? ....................................................................................................... 8 For whom? .......................................................................................................... 9 For or over what? .............................................................................................. 12 Autonomy, Australian federalism, and regional ethnic diversity: A concluding comment ...................................................................................... 15 Notes................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Community Engagement Plan
    Aboriginal + Torres Strait Islander COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN St Teresa’s College, Abergowrie seeks to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, families and communities through active engagement and collaborative partnerships, have equitable access to quality education that is mutually enriching for all. ST TERESA’S COLLEGE We acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land the Warragamay people and pay our respects to the elders both past, present and future for they hold the memories, the traditions, the culture and hopes of Aboriginal Australia. We must always remember that under the concrete and asphalt this land, is, was and always will be traditional Aboriginal land. In addressing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at Alice Springs in 1986, Pope John Paul ll said: “You are part of Australia and Australia is a part of you. And the Church herself in Australia will not be fully the Church that Jesus wants her to be until you [the Indigenous peoples of Australia] have made your contribution to her life and until that contribution has been joyfully received by others.” Address of John Paul II to the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Alice Springs, 29 November 1986 [online]. The Australasian Catholic Record, Vol. 83, No. 3, July 2006: 259-263. CONTEXT PURPOSE INTRODUCTION Warrgamay REGIONS WE WORK WITH Torres Strait Islands St Teresa’s College Abergowrie, is a Parents, carers, families and communities play a crucial role in St Teresa’s College, Abergowrie Traditional Owners Northern Penninsular Area Catholic secondary boys’ boarding College supporting successful learning outcome for children. This strategy respects, affirms and located in the Herbert River Valley, 38kms is about the College engaging with parents and communities to acknowledges the position of The College seeks to engage the Gulf of Carpentaria from Ingham, situated on Warragamay work together to maximise student-learning outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Ed. Kit Front & Back Cover
    IlanIlan PasinPasin this is our way Torres Strait Art EducationEducation KitKit NOTES FOR TEACHERS About The Exhibition With an identity unique to itself, the culture of the Torres Strait Islanders is relatively unfamiliar to the majority of Australians. Since European settlement non-indigenous Australians have largely subsumed Torres Strait Islanders into the culture of Aboriginal Australia. Ilan Pasin is the first major exhibition of Torres Strait Islander art ever seen in Australia and your visit will be one that you and your students will find to be an enriching and rewarding educational experience. Some things are known by mainstream Australians about the Torres Strait, one being that it is the birthplace of Eddie Mabo who fought and won the first great land rights battle. What is less known is the significance of the place of cultural objects in establishing a tradition and the occupation of land. These objects were originally gathered in 1898 by anthropologists of the Haddon expedition from Cambridge University and now 100 years later one of these holdings has come back on loan from Cambridge to sit beside the artworks of young contemporary Torres Strait Islanders. The Haddon expedition was the first to use film to document social anthropological findings and stills from these as well as other insights can be viewed on the Cambridge website at http://cumaa.archanth.com.qc.uk/museum.html Haddon belonged to a group of scientists who were developing Darwinian biology; their findings helping to depose evolutionary theories about European superiority and scientific racism. The exhibition is best considered in three sections.The first shows traditional artefacts from the time before European occupation.The second shows works of an ‘in-between’ period with western In part of the exhibition influences evident and the third and major part of the exhibition features the vibrant and alive there are a lot of prints.
    [Show full text]
  • Mabo Screening with Rachel Perkins at University of Johannesburg
    Mabo Screening with Rachel Perkins University of Johannesburg 19 April 2017 Welcome and let me add my thanks to all of you for attending today’s screening of the film, Mabo. My name is Ben Playle and I’m the Australian Deputy High Commissioner to South Africa. I’m particularly grateful to our partners here at the University of Johannesburg for hosting us today: Professor Ade Adebajo of the Institute for Pan-African Thought and Conversation; Dr Rookaya Bawa of the Library; and Professor Phyllis Dannhauser of the Department of Journalism, Film and Television. Many thanks to you and your staff. Above and beyond even our hosts, allow me to thank our special guest, Ms Rachel Perkins, for accepting the Australian High Commission’s invitation to visit South Africa for the first time. It’s a great pleasure to have you in town for a few days. As I’m sure you’ve already experienced, the legacy of apartheid continues to cast a long shadow across South Africa, including in relation to the issue of land. The forced movement of particularly black South Africans during the apartheid era has given rise to calls for redistribution of land, including calls from some for the expropriation of land without compensation. Those calls are rarely far from the surface of South African politics, and sometimes, as recently, make controversial headlines. 1 The issue of land is also at the centre of the film directed by Rachel that we’ve just seen. Rachel has spent the past 25 years telling the stories of Indigenous Australians, our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, through film.
    [Show full text]
  • English Text Summary Notes
    ENGLISH TEXT SUMMARY NOTES Mabo Text guide by: Peter Cram & Kay Perry Mabo 2 Copyright © TSSM 2017 TSSM ACN 099 422 670 ABN 54 099 422 670 A: Level 14, 474 Flinders Street Melbourne VIC 3000 T: 1300 134 518 F: 03 90784354 W: tssm.com.au E: [email protected] Mabo 3 Contents AUTHOR NOTES ......................................................................................................................................... 5 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................ 5 TEXT STRUCTURE ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Location ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Historical context ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Social context ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Economic context ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Political context ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Significance of the setting .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Native Title and the 'Acquisition of Property' Under the Australian
    —M.U.L.R- Brennan - final proof (pre-press completed).doc — Native Title — printed 19/05/04 at 21:14 — page 28 of 52 NATIVE TITLE AND THE ‘ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY’ UNDER THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION ∗ SEAN BRENNAN [The ‘just terms’ guarantee in s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution offers protection for the property rights of Australians, but does this protection extend to indigenous people who have native title rights and interests in land? Gummow J of the High Court has suggested the answer is no, at least where native title is extinguished by the grant of inconsistent rights over the same land to third parties. This article reviews recent case law on the meaning of ‘property’ and ‘acquisition’ under s 51(xxxi). The Australian law on native title — in particular its characterisation, its content and its extinguishment — is examined and assessed against the law on s 51(xxxi). The conclusion drawn is that in general the extinguishment of native title answers the description of an ‘acquisition of property’. Gum- mow J’s analysis that native title is inherently defeasible, and therefore that the ‘just terms’ guarantee does not apply to its extinguishment by inconsistent grant, should be rejected on the basis of precedent and principle.] CONTENTS I Introduction...............................................................................................................29 II Native Title as ‘Property’..........................................................................................30 A Conceptualising Native Title: Different Streams of Thought.......................30
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Aboriginal Land Rights in Transition
    University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture [email protected] | (479) 575-7646 An Agricultural Law Research Article The Mabo Decision: Australian Aboriginal Land Rights in Transition by Gary D. Meyers & John Mugambwa Originally published in ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 23 ENVTL. L. 1203 (1993) www.NationalAgLawCenter.org ARTICLE THE MABO DECISION: AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS IN TRANSITION By GARY D. MEYERS* AND JOHN MUGAMBWA** In Eddie Mabo and Others v. The State of Queensland, the High Court of Australia recognized the existence of native title to lands hitherto annexed under Imperial Authority. In so doing, the Court rejected the fiction of terra nullius and found that native title was not inconsistent with the Crown's radical title over its acquired lands. The existence of native title, the Court held, does not depend upon positive acts of recognition, rather it arises from proof that a group has a right to use or occupy particular land­ including uses tied to the community's traditional lifestyle. In drawing upon international law to bolster its conclusions, the High Court ushers in a new era for aboriginal land claims and portends new directions for Australian jurisprudence. I. INTRODUCTION No English words are good enough to provide a sense of the link between an Aboriginal group and its homeland. Our word 'home,' • Senior Lecturer in Law, School of Law, Murdoch University, Perth, West­ ern Australia. LL.M. 1991, University of Pennsylvania; J.D. 1982, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis and Clark College; B.A., cum laude 1970, University of Southern California. •• Senior Lecturer in Law, School of Law, Murdoch University, Perth, West­ ern Australia.
    [Show full text]