Demands by Aboriginal Tent Embassy activists for access to toilets at the vacant Lobby Restaurant to be restored highlight the need for a conversation about the relevance of the protest site and what should be done if it is to stay.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The activists say the National Capital Authority has secured the restaurant site, denying them use of its toilets, as payback for a controversial occupation of The Lobby in November.
Several days after the activists "evicted" the NCA from the restaurant, which had been vacant for more than a year following a dispute between the former operators and the NCA, they were moved on by police.
The embassy, which was set up in 1972 and has been dismantled and re-established several times since then, is not supported by some members of the local Aboriginal community who regard it as an intrusion on their own sovereignty over the land of their ancestors.
Within the ACT community views on the embassy, which was added to the Australian Register of the National Estate in 1995, can best be described as mixed.
To some it is an icon and a long standing symbol of indigenous resistance to colonial and post colonial repression. Others regard it as an eye-sore that perpetuates negative stereotypes of Aboriginal people living in squalid conditions.
The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
In the meantime Canberrans have to face up to the fact the embassy is here, at least for now, and that living conditions at the site, which draws indigenous people from all over the country, are far from ideal.
If it is to remain there needs to be a shared vision, accepted by both the Federal authorities and the indigenous stakeholders, as to what future form the tent embassy should take and what services and facilities should be made available.
The current ad hoc sanitary arrangements, based as they are on port-a-loos and access to toilets at Museum of Australian Democracy and, until very recently, The Lobby, aren't sustainable.
While previous attempts to reach such a consensus, including a parliamentary review headed by Jim Lloyd in 2005, have been less than successful, that does not mean the question should remain in the "too hard" basket.
The National Capital Authority is, in the meantime, between a rock and a hard place. If it accedes to the wishes of the activists and grants access to The Lobby toilets many people will likely complain about having one set of laws for a politically active minority and another for the broader population.
If, on the other hand, the Authority enforces the property rights vested in it by the Federal Government it will be vilified as racist and insensitive by the activists and their supporters.
That said, the NCA is caught on the horns of a dilemma it has apparently helped to create.
It could be argued if the authority had been doing its job properly The Lobby would have been re-tenanted months ago. If that had happened this situation may not have arisen.
