Camp Sovereignty eviction looms : Melbourne Indymedia

Subject: cops at Camp Sovereignty

Reports are that the police have visited the Sovereignty camp this morning warning that they will return with legal papers to close the camp down. At present lawyers from our side are heading down there to legally defend our situation. Please head down there if you can. We can't let this opportunity slip.

Last night Camp Sovereignty Elders requested that all supporters are encouraged to return to set up camp again. Lets lock arms for true justice!

Below is a good letter sent to all MelbCityCouncil & Vic politicians a supporter wrote defending our position.

Feel free to write to help in the PR War

Honourable councillors,

Please recognise this correspondence in support of Camp Sovereignity and
its maintenance at its current location.

The indigenous people of Australia has suffered extraordinary crimes at
the hands of their occupiers, of which I am sure most of you are well
aware. Today, because of their dispossession of land and resources,
their life expectancy, health, education and employment are at levels
unbecoming for an advanced industrial nation such as ours.

The camp in its current location is merely a gentle reminder and a
symbolic claim to an equitable share of land and resources to the
original custodians of this land. Do not dishonour the City of Melbourne
by forcible removing people who have every right to remind us of their
claims to justice.
Yours sincerely,

"Last night Camp Sovereignty Elders requested that all supporters are encouraged to return to set up camp again. Lets lock arms for true justice!"

Just to clarify, does this mean non-indigenous people are free to sleep-over in tents now? I was aware that they were not allowed to before, (only to attend in daylight hours). Has this changed?

" This includes establishing permanent or semi-permanent camps and communities in areas previously occupied by the Indigenous Nation and now abandoned, as well as increasing traditional activities such as fishing, hunting, and other food gathering. A primary goal of such reoccupation would be eventually establishing self-sufficient and independent communities beyond the range and influence of colonial society. From these, sovereign and free territories can be reconstructed, ultimately removing Indigenous people from the colonial society - a primary aim of decolonization.

The process of colonization begins with the physical occupation of land and the domination of the Indigenous people. Following the primarily physical aspects of colonization (ie. Military conflict, relocation, etc.) non-physical methods are applied. These include what could be called mental aspects. Religious indoctrination, cultural, social and economic assimilation are common examples. Therefore it could be said that colonization is comprised of two primary aspects - physical and mental.

Prior to colonization Indigenous peoples were free and sovereign nations. Through colonization Indigenous people are deprived of their freedom and live in an oppressed situation. In order to be liberated from this oppressive state the process of colonization must be reversed. That is, it must begin with the mental aspects and move towards the physical.

Colonization is always destructive. This destruction becomes internalized within the Indigenous person. Some basic characteristics of this are:

1. Internal violence and aggression
Anger and violence directed toward oneself, one another and
family/community. This includes rape, murder, assault, sexual abuse of children, suicide, etc. The irrational violence within the colonized INdigenous person results from the oppressed conditions that colonization imposes upon people. (ie. Poverty, loss of identity, breakdown of family and nation structure, etc.) Some of this comes from specific methods used by the colonizing nation, for example Residential schools, the reserve system, etc.

2. Individualism - self interest
With the breakdown of the nation and the family, fragmentation and competition has come to replace the sense of unity, community and togetherness that was once the basis of Indigenous society.

3. Neglecting one's culture - assimilation
A key tactic if colonization is to portray the Indigenous culture as negative and irrelevant to (modern) society. Once this belief is entrenched within the Indigenous person they have no alternative but to assimilate and conform to the colonialist society.

4. Inferiority complex - identity crisis
The objective of the colonialist is to have the Indigenous person believe that there is little or no positive aspects within the Indigenous culture. Physical and mental domination, constant negative portrayals of Indigenous people and history, and white supremacist attitudes plat fundamental roles in the creation of the Indigenous inferiority complex. The indigenous person begins to question their identity and becomes caught between the historical concept of the traditional Indian and present day reality. "Who am I?" "What does it mean to be an Indian?" Major contributing factors to these questions are Residential/public schools, fostering of Indigenous children, inaccurate histories, centralization in urban areas, loss of language and culture.

5. Abandoning of traditional territories
Colonization creates a feeling of Indigenous dependancy on colonially established towns (reserve - towns) and cities. In order to benefit from colonial programs and institutes Indigenous people must migrate to these areas and leave their traditional territories. The act of relocating and isolating Indigenous people into the reserve areas is a tactic used to force the people away from the majority of their territory. This allows the colonial state to assume jurisdiction over lands that were once controlled by Indigenous Nations. It also removes the Indigenous people physically to accommodate the establishment of settler communities and resource extraction. The current BC Treaty process is a way of legally entrenching, and acquiring consent for an agreed upon abandonment and surrender of traditional territories.

Decolonization, as mentioned earlier, is the act of reversing the process of colonization. It can be said that decolonization is constructive rather than destructive. the following methods of decolonization are aimed at reversing the destructive effects of colonialism that have been described above. "

COME DOWN TO CAMP SOVERIGNTITY TONIGHT - EXPECTING PRESENCE, DON"T LET THE GOVT. SILENCE THE PROTEST AGAINST GENOCIDE - GENOCIDE MUST END

Seeing as nobody has responded to my comment, I will assume that everybody is welcome to camp at Camp Sovereignty (indigenous and non-indigenous). The language in the post out pretty much says this when it says, "everybody".

All talk, no action over illegal camp
Jen Kelly and Kate Rose
07apr06

AUTHORITIES are refusing to evict rebel Aboriginal protesters illegally camped near Melbourne's renowned Royal Botanic Gardens.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/

The State Government has washed its hands of the protest, the city council is refusing to intervene, and police say the mob is not breaking any state law.

Independent MP Russell Savage yesterday slammed the protest site and demanded the State Government, Melbourne City Council and police intervene.

"It's a disgrace," he said.

"It's a public park and it's an icon in Victoria. Under no circumstances should anybody be setting up a camp there.

"It's not some sort of refugee camp. Because they're indigenous members of our society, that's not a licence to behave badly. They've got to conform to the same rules as everybody else.

"They shouldn't be there, the police should do their job, and the State Government and the city council should back them."

The mob, camped in Kings Domain since before the Commonwealth Games, has vowed to remain permanently to draw attention to their cause.

The council has promised to help the group move its fire without putting it out. A Victoria Police statement said it had sent a police Aboriginal liaison officer to offer help, "which was well received by the group members".

City council spokesman Cr David Wilson said the group were told informally yesterday by council staff they had to move, but he did not know if they agreed.

He said the council stopped short of serving formal notice to leave, preferring to negotiate.

"There is an ongoing process to help them . . . see the need to leave," he said.

The group is breaching a council by-law by camping without a permit.

Sen-Constable Karla Dennis said the group had not yet broken any state law, because they would have to be served notice to leave -- and ignore it -- before they were found to be trespassing.

Aboriginal Affairs Minister Gavin Jennings' spokeswoman, Sofia Dedes, said it was the council's responsibility.

Spokesman for the protesters Robert Thorpe said the site included an ancient burial ground and corroboree site.

"Koori Tram"

Woke up in my Koori bed
Shook the cobwebs from my Koori head
Splashed cold water on my Koori face
Then looked about my Koori place
Crossed over to my Koori sink
And poured myself a Koori drink
Felt an inside hungry Koori need
So cooked myself a Koori feed
Switched on my Koori radio
To listen to the Koori show
Caught up with all the Koori news
As I put on both my Koori shoes
Found my cleanest Koori top
Then headed for my Koori stop
Met a sister there with a Koori pram
Together we boarded the Koori tram
Found myself a Koori seat
Sat down at looked at my Koori feet
Raised my head in time to see coming down the aisle
A black man dressed in tramway green, wearin a Koori smile
A leather bag hung from his neck holding tickets cash and keys
His eyes caught mine he grinned and said.....
…….Darks Please! Darks Please! Darks Please!

Dr. Bruce Mac

Deliberate Biological Warfare Was Used Against The

Native Population As Early As 1763.

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

Smallpox blankets

Lord Jeffrey Amherst was commanding general of British forces in North America during the final battles of the so-called French & Indian war (1754-1763). He won victories against the French to acquire Canada for England and helped make England the world's chief colonizer at the conclusion of the Seven Years War among the colonial powers (1756-1763).

Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst's name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:

... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]

*************************

Some more info on Germ Warfare against the Native population

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Spring04/warfare.cfm

Snippets from this site…

During Pontiac's uprising in 1763, the Indians besieged Fort Pitt. They burned nearby houses, forcing the inhabitants to take refuge in the well-protected fort. The British officer in charge, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, reported to Colonel Henry Bouquet in Philadelphia that he feared the crowded conditions would result in disease.

Smallpox had already broken out. On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a local trader, recorded in his journal that two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."

It is not known who conceived the plan, but there's no doubt it met with the approval of the British military in America and may have been common practice. Sir Jeffery Amherst, commander of British forces in North America, wrote July 7, 1763, probably unaware of the events at Fort Pitt: "Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them." He ordered the extirpation of the Indians and said no prisoners should be taken. About a week later, he wrote to Bouquet: "You will Do well to try to innoculate the Indians by means of Blankets as well as to try every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race."

The First Hague Peace Conference of 1899 issued a declaration prohibiting the use of poison and materials causing unnecessary suffering. The Geneva Protocol adopted in 1925 prohibited the use in war of "asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases and of all analogous liquids, materials, and devices," as well as biological methods of warfare. The Geneva Protocol has been accepted by most countries though not always followed. A German military maxim applies; roughly translated, it says: "To get out of a desperate situation, you have to bend the rules."

**************************

Original Letter (Amherst) - "Exterminate them"

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/34_41_114_fn.jpeg

*************************

Have you seen this site - it gives some more info on Native Genocide in Canada (as well as the States and Mexico).

Apparently, in 1850' and 1860's, the infected blankets of small pox victims were traded to the native people on purpose in order to make them sick and it almost wiped them out. In some areas, 95% of the native population was wiped out this way. This was sanctioned by the British Crown. This is one of the first recorded instances of deliberate biological warfare in Canada. It is repeating what Jeffrey Amherst did a hundred years earlier.

People were often prohibited from giving aid to Indians when they grew ill. Here is the web site - more info to add to your "war chest". You could add this to your time line as well.

North American Native History Today

http://www.interlog.com/~gilgames/atnattod.htm

*******************************

Some more snippets from another web site.

http://www.tseshaht.com/culture/timeline.htm

1862 Small pox epidemic ravages Aboriginal People in BC. The Haida are almost wiped-out losing up to 80% of their kin. The Wet'suwet'en and Gitxsan lose 30% of their kin. Small pox epidemic spreads from Bella Coola to Nagwuntl'oo. One-third of the people died. In other Tsilhkot'en (Chilcotin) Villages, nine out of ten people died. The following

excerpt appears in the writings of Father Morice…

"...I myself saw the graves of perhaps 500 aboriginals...two white men...went and stealthily gathered the blankets of the dead which had been thrown away in the bush, and were therefore infested with small pox, which they sold out again to the aboriginal people without revealing their origin, thus causing a second visitation of the plague, which carried off the second third of the aboriginal population..." (pg 317).

1900 Genocide has reduced the aboriginal population north of the Rio Grande -- estimated at between 12-15 million in 1492--to 300,000 (ibid) --in Northern BC, Father Morice and Bishop Dentenwill burn Wet'suwet'n feast (Potlatch) regalia in Hagwilget (Tse-kya) in a Catholic effort to suppress traditional beliefs.

1922 The RCMP seizes over 600 objects in a "potlatch" raid at Alert Bay on Vancouver Island, and divide the spoils between the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto and the National Museum in Ottawa (Monet et al). Some of the participants are jailed.

*********************************

http://www.zkea.com/archives/archive01002.html

Sometimes the use of smallpox was a bit more implicit. For example, a smallpox epidemic began in Victoria British Columbia in 1862, afflicting both whites and natives. However, medical authorities allegedly only vaccinated whites against the spread of the disease and very few natives. As a result the epidemic took root amongst the native tribes, killing about half the population from Victoria to Alaska.

For more information on these topics read Kevin Annett’s books “Hidden From History” & “Love And Death In The Valley”, at: http://www.preferrednetwork.com/html/religion_exposed.htm,

I thought Russell Savage was the elected repesentative for Mildura. He seems very vocal about what the Melbourne City Council ought to do about this fairly harmless act of self aggrandisement by illiterate dullards.

I wonder how he would react if an MP from Sunshine started to tell the Mildura Council how to manage things in their area of responsibility.

Please feel free, Mr Savage, to fuck off immediately. No one really cares what you say, you right wing tosser.

Asylum seekers
Are you happy for Australia to accept West Papuan refugees?

Yes - 79%

No - 21%

Total Votes: 965(Age)
http://theage.com.au/polls/national/results2.html

Recently we have seen West Papuans gaining Temporary protection Visa's, as they flee from genocide at the hands of Indonesia.

Seems that people here are more willing to accept Indonesian genocide of West Papuan's and for Australia to accept them.

Its a pity that people cant, wont make the links here of Indiginous peoples being treat worst than refugess in their own country, and the connection with the Papuans in terms of Mining, land theft & genocide.

Living in the Kulin Nations is like living in genocide central, with only 0.01 percent of their lands still in their hands.

How can you be an indiginous person without land?

"You won't find any fire like that in the state of Victoria because it's a symbol of Aboriginal law and religion," he says. "And it's one of the things they've been trying to stomp out all through the whole white history of this country." Robbie Thorpe

It is a daily assult on these peoples, from every government agency that 'interfaces' with them, to the white racist majority, and other miniorty culture groups who are afraid to speak out about Austrlian
racism.

Much respect to the brothers and sisters (of all nations) standing proud and keeping that fire on that land.

Always was, always will be Aboriginal Land.

Time line of Aboriginal Resistance

http://www4.tpgi.com.au/2juls/resistance.html

No one really cares what you say, you illiterate dullard

Please take your own advice.

"illiterate dullard"?

Why yes, now that mention it, I have noticed Chris Parsons slinking round like a shithouse rat.

Even though his cover is blown and his low intelligence makes him ballast rather than an asset for his handlers, a bloke's gotta make a living...even if it is as slime under a rock.

TOWARDS ABORIGINAL SOVEREIGNTY

On 16 July 1990
the Aboriginal Provisional Government (APG)
was formed by Aborigines in Australia.
This article was prepared by the APG
to outline its structure, purpose and strategies,
and some of the implications of the establishment
of a sovereign state for Aborigines

There has been a lot said about the sad treatment of Aboriginal people in Australia, particularly since the 1960s. As a result, government funded programs have been aimed at giving assistance to Aborigines. Practice shows that the best programs have been those funded by government but implemented by Aboriginal organisations run by Aboriginal people.

Programs aimed at reducing Aboriginal leprosy rates, other health problems, improving access to the goods and services of the community, for example, law, education, housing, and generally upgrading the social situation of Aborigines, have unquestionably benefited Aboriginal communities. With these social benefits have come some minor changes in Aboriginal politics. Until 1967 Aborigines were not regarded as human beings and were prevented from voting. There were too few Aboriginal spokespersons and any organisations acting on behalf of Aborigines were invariably run by whites. Generally speaking, that has changed.

From 1967 to 1976 there have been significant changes. Aboriginal Legal Services were established in every state and territory. In 1976 Land Rights legislation in the Northern Territory was passed by the federal parliament. The establishment and funding of the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC) gave Aboriginal people for the first time an effective voice at the national level.

Since then, however, it is at best difficult and at worst impossible to point to projects of the same magnitude as those mentioned above, apart from perhaps the Royal Commission into Black Deaths in Custody. Just as those initiatives indicated a trend towards better treatment of Aboriginal people by government, the failure by governments to have similar iniatives of significance in the 1980s indicates a trend in the opposite direction. Justice Michael Kirby best summed it up during the 1988 celebrations, by suggesting sadly that the white population had become bored with the subject of Aboriginal justice.

In the meantime, Aboriginal communities are left to suffer the disadvantages which have continued since the halycon days of the 1970s. There have been few iniatives, with no policy changes likely to benefit Aboriginal people to any significant level, and, even more frightening, no real direction coming from the Aboriginal community.

A DECADE OF CONSULTATION

When the APG was launched, one of the first outcries from some sections of the Aboriginal community was "lack of consultation" about its formation. For over a decade meetings of the Federation of Land Councils, Coalition of Aboriginal Organisations, National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services, SNAACC< and even the NAC saw numerous discussions held about the sovereign rights of Aboriginal people in this country. The same people who cried lack of consultation were present at these meetings where there was little action, but much talk.

At these national meetings where, presumably, the national delegates were reflecting the views of their local communities in talking about the sovereign rights of Aboriginal people, the call had long been for Aborigines to begin "acting" sovereignty rather than continuing to use rhetoric. How much longer would the discussions have had to be held - ten years, twenty years, or even longer before a decision would be made? How many more Aboriginal men and women and children would suffer while the debate went on?

There will always be those who oppose change, but not all Aborigines saw it that way. Former Department of Aboriginal Affairs Secretary, Mr. Charles Perkins, probably the most well know Aborigine of recent times, said on 17 July 1990 that some Aboriginal organisations had

"died on the vine and needed to change direction and become as creative and dynamic as they were thirty years ago."

Without doubt Charlie was referring to the enormous time spent by Aboriginal organisations and the delegates "discussing" a plan aimed at alleviating hardships for Aboriginal people without any of these plans seeing the light of day. The most embarrassing moment for those Aborigines opposed to the formation of the APG came from the unlikely source of former Northern Territory Chief Minister, Paul Everingham, who said in The Australian on 8 August 1990

"the fact is that self-determination will remain a dream until Aborigines show the determination to deal with the realities of Australia today..."

THE PURPOSE OF THE ABORIGINAL GOVERNMENT

The APG plans to change the situation in Australia so that instead of white people determining the rights of Aboriginal people, it will be the Aboriginal people who do it. In previous times, even when government policy was supportive of Aborigines, helpful policies at the same time reinforced white domination of Aborigines. For example, Land Rights legislation in the Northern Territory retains absolute ownership of that land for the Australian government but gives certain rights to Aborigines. If the white government ever repealed the legislation, the land would automatically revert to the white government.

The second important change sought by the APG relates to the status of the relationship between Aborigines and whites in this country. Until now Aborigines have always been regarded as nothing more than a minority group in Australian society. The APG rejects that, insisting that nobody in the world has any greater right than Aborigines to determine what it is that we desire.

Thirdly, the APG believes that, despite the fantastic work done by Aboriginal organisations through our country, Aboriginal people still are not able to fully accept responsibility for determining the long term future. Organisations have essentially been service delivery organisations, snowed under with all the day to day crises of a poorly treated people. They have been so busy trying to keep their communities alive that they had little opportunity to sit down, design and implement policies aimed at giving effective control of Aboriginal communities back to the communities themselves. The APG sees itself playing a major role in filling this void.

Fourthly, the APG looked at the current situation of Aboriginal Affairs and saw nothing to indicate that there was ever going to be change from continual reliance upon the white welfare system and being forced to participate in the Australian political system. APG members recognised the need for a body which, by virtue of its name and purpose, would be set a new theme and plan for the long term destiny of Aboriginal people. We believe that APG does this.

THE OBJECTIVE OF AN ABORIGINAL STATE

We can anticipate the white reaction to any challenge from the Aboriginal community to over 200 years of white supremacy and domination. What is seen by Aborigines as freedom and independence is for whites a form of apartheid; what has been put forward as the right of Aboriginal people to control themselves has drawn the comment of "separatism"; what the APG sees as self-determination for Aborigines is viewed generally by the white powers-that-be as a dividing up of the country.

Furthermore, whenever members of the Aboriginal Provisional Government talk about an Aboriginal State, the immediate response from our opponents is that "Aborigines are to be rounded up and put on a little piece of land somewhere in the middle of Australia". Clearly, all of these examples indicate the strategy of those opposing the intentions of the APG; namely, by putting fear into the discussion it is hoped that more and more Aboriginal people will turn away from the debate and therefore everything will remain the same.

Let it be clearly understood: the Aboriginal Provisional Government wants an Aboriginal state to be established, with all communities. The land involved would essentially be crown land but in addition there would be some land which would be needed by the Aboriginal community other than crown land.

The test for which lands come under the Aboriginal Provisional government would be the land needed by Aboriginal communities to survive on. No longer would Aborigines need to beg governments or judicial bodies for land to be returned to Aboriginal communities throughout Australia to enable them to survive as a Nation of people and the remaining land would be kept by whites and their governments as a basis for them to continue their nation.

There will not be a need for all Aboriginal people to live on Aboriginal land. Some may choose to do so, and some may choose to continue to live under the jurisdiction of white Australia.

There is nothing wrong with that because, if nothing else, it gives Aboriginal people a choice which we do not have now. We must all subscribe to white jurisdiction at the moment.

Nor would Aboriginal people have to live in a particular small area on Aboriginal lands. The areas would be scattered far and wide around Australia and would be the land needed by local Aboriginal communities. While some have scoffed at the peculiar boundaries such a division of land would create, it is not unusual in international circles. For example, the United States is a nation yet is separated completely from its territory in Alaska. Its territory in Hawaii is halfway around the other side of the world. This has not been seen as a reason to laugh at the jurisdiction of the United States.

At the moment Aboriginal communities have to abide by the white man's law. That would change under the APG because each Aboriginal community would determine its own form of legal system appropriate to its community situation. It would mean, therefore, that some Aboriginal communities would practice "traditional" laws, others who have had much more contact with the white community would have a mixture of white and black law, and even others would have a system which is simply appropriate to their life style in any given situation. Any person from outside the Aboriginal Nation entering Aboriginal land would be expected to abide by that legal system and, conversely, any Aboriginal person going into white cities or towns would be expected to abide by the white man's legal system. Here is one disadvantage of Aboriginal Sovereignty which is conceded: if the basis for Aboriginal self determination is the mutual respect of each others' rights as peoples, then Aborigines cannot expect to carry their own laws onto Australian government controlled areas. By the same token, people coming onto Aboriginal land cannot expect to ignore Aboriginal law. But it should also be recognised that there is scope for both sides to soften the normal harshness of penalties : if a white person came onto Aboriginal land and was not familiar with the laws and broke such a law, it may well be that the white person would not be punished as strongly as an Aboriginal person would be. By the same token, we would expect that Aborigines who broke the white man's law would also be treated in a lighter way than white people themselves.

The political control of each local Aboriginal community would be vested in the community themselves. There would be no point in transferring white power to an Aboriginal Provisional Government which simply imposed the same policies from above. The local communities must have absolute control over their day-to-day activities and the direction in which the local Aboriginal communities are to move. The residual powers of negotiating with foreign governments for trade, coordination of some uniformity between Aboriginal communities and so on, would be vested in the Aboriginal Provisional Government. Election to the APG would be via the local community controlled councils.

This then is the basic outline of how Aboriginal people can exercise control over their own communities without hindrance from any other government. The Aboriginal Government would operate alongside all other governments in the world, including the Australian government, and not be subordinate to it. White legislation would have no application whatsoever to Aboriginal communities because absolute control over Aboriginal land would be vested in Aboriginal communities. The laws of the white man would not apply unless the Aboriginal communities wanted it.

There would be no right of the police to come onto Aboriginal land unless it was by agreement with the Aboriginal community.

In exchanged for Aboriginal people giving up to perhaps half of the country to white Australians, there would need to be some compensation package. It need not necessarily be in the form of money and perhaps ought not to be, so that we become more self sufficient at an early stage. However, having access to specialised institutions such as medical facilities, education facilities and telecommunications systems could be a basis for that compensation for ceded lands. Further, it would be in the interests of the Australian government to prevent Aboriginal land being used as a sanctuary by criminals from its own area, or drug runners evading Australian police by running through Aboriginal land. This could be done by coming to some arrangement with Aboriginal community organisations to allow police access on certain conditions. Both communities would have mutual benefit. There is not necessity for continual conflict provided that the imposition of the white man's on Aborigines is removed once and for all.

GETTING THERE FROM HERE

JACK DAVIS Elder,
author & playwright
Jack is expected to be
on the body of Elders of
the APG.

Aboriginal sovereignty as described in this paper is not going to be handed over on a silver platter by any white government. If the struggle of Aboriginal people has been hard in the past it will be even harder in the future. The independence movements of other indigenous people around the world have had to make a lot more sacrifice than we have. This is not a call to arms but a recognition that Aboriginal people have got to be a lot more serious about the call for Aboriginal sovereignty before it will be recognised, not just by the Australian government, but also by governments overseas.

The APG anticipates small areas of land initially being given back to Aboriginal communities after specific campaigns over a long period of time. Political unification of those successful groups would form the developing Aboriginal nation territory. The strategy would be to rally all Aboriginal people around a particular community which is seeking to reclaim certain areas of land. Following passive resistance by Aboriginal people against police efforts to remove them from those lands, control would eventually be conceded by the white authorities as being revested in the Aboriginal communities. This of course would take great people resources, financial support and grim determination. The latter is entirely in our hands.

In addition, we need to up the stakes of negotiations with foreign governments so that they recognise us as the true owners of this country. As we have seen with South Africa, international pressure on an oppressive regime can bring about change provided the pressure from within is maintained.

The likelihood of us achieving self determination rests squarely on our own shoulders. If there are only a few of us willing to stand up and seriously push towards Aboriginal sovereignty, it is highly unlikely it will be achieved. If more and more Aboriginal people put themselves forward with their own ideas and efforts, then we can do it.

Meetings will be held to elect new people to the Executive body of the APG throughout Australia and it is hoped that more and more people put themselves forward. The current office bearers of the APG are there on the basis that if the Aboriginal community wishes to put new and better people forward, we would readily stand down. However, we strongly wish to be part of a process of bringing about change for the betterment of all our communities because we, like you, have not just witnessed the hardship our people have suffered but have also experienced it.

Specific ways that people can give their support to the APG are by:

Aboriginal people attending the meetings and putting themselves forward as part of the Governing Council.

Aboriginal people pushing forward their ideas and being constructively critical of other ideas that they hear.

All people making some financial contribution to the APG on a regular basis, no matter how small..

White people paying for occupation of the lands to the APG on a pay the rent principle. The amount of financial support would be determined by the capacity of the people to pay.

It is true that Aboriginal people in this country have never ever been given a choice as to whether we wanted to be part of the Australian political system, or be independent. It is true that there never has been a serious attempt by Aboriginal people to control ourselves, our children and our destiny without getting approval from the white man. All of this can change. It is possible to keep some of the people down some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. As the excitement and enthusiasm within the Aboriginal community grows on the basis that we can control our own destiny, so too will grow the likelihood of a practical outcome in our favour. Your participation will have a significant bearing on the future.

August, 1990

RECONCILIATION by 2001?

the white man's dream
continues the Aboriginal nightmare.

The Council for Reconciliation admits
that it can only hope to change attitudes.
Attitude change is always an escapable target.
The real problem is that Aboriginal needs
are totally dominated by white people's needs,
forcing Aborigines to rely on their masters
for the basic necessities of life.

The federal government has established yet another public body which it says will respond to the historically poor relationship between Aborigines and whites in this country. A committee of fifteen people - half of them black and the other half white - are to form the COUNCIL OF RECONCILIATION and have been given a mandate for the next ten years to reconcile the differences between the two peoples.

Clearly the federal government is using the council to give the impression that the government is behind Aborigines, hoping to hide the failure of government programs to bring about needed change.

Dogging the government's new approach is the criticism that the whole process is so vague as to be meaningless and that it will simply result in a waste of taxpayers' funds. This only further exposes Aborigines to the racist but oft-stated view that we are over-priveleged. Instead of Aborigines standing to gain from the process, we may well find ourselves resented even more by whites, through no fault of our own.

Nobody really knows what is meant to happen when the process of reconciliation is complete. Is there meant to be a social policy document capable of being implemented by governments? If so, how could that possibly be better than the 339 recommendations of the Black Deaths in Custody Commission, under consideration by state and federal governments now for several months? And if the council is meant to enquire into the circumstances of Aborigines, has that no already been done, over and over again?

To these sorts of questions, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr. Tickner, who has the responsibility for ensuring that the reconciliation process is successful, has responded with deafening silence. Usually the Minister tells the inquisitive they'll have to wait and see. This hardly justifies the claim that he is entirely on top of all this. And the government's standard throw-away response is that the body can come up with whatever it likes.

This is not good enough. Aboriginal people have a right to be told why they should patiently await the outcome of the reconciliation process, while still suffering because of government neglect to bring on more immediate change. By failing to come clean on this, the government will continue to frustrate Aboriginal people by raising expectations without any intention of satisfying them. This will be particularly important when the Council does its rounds of Aboriginal communities, if it intends to do so.

Without guidelines on what sorts of issues the government expects to be raised, Aborigines will have no idea what to ask for. "We want a four-wheel drive, 3 houses and meat for our dogs" would be an understandable response because the government has failed to explain what the Council can do.

The government cannot rely on its old line that "people can put forward what they like", because that ignores reality. Aborigines know this government's poor record on Aboriginal Affairs. It abandoned its promised treaty, it dumped uniform National Land Rights legislation, and made cuts to Aboriginal training programs. The Aboriginal community is unlikely, therefore, to raise the weighty issues. Unless the government outlines realistic political parameters for discussion, the whole exercise is doomed to an early failure.

Then there is the vital issue of trust. Aborigines are to wait ten years for completion of this process and may arguably expect things to be fairly cosy after the year 2001. After all, one tenth of a decade and millions of dollars later, the people at whom this process is directed should expect something. The bipartisan approach to reconciliation should have put any Aboriginal doubts about trusting the pollies to rest. Yet Dr. Hewson's recent tax package, within which Aborigines are to suffer a ninety million dollar cut, is hardly reassuring.

History will also play a negative part in this process. Aborigines have not forgotten that they lost the whole continent and with it the right to control themselves, consequently ending up the most under-privileged and powerless group in the land. All this was done on the pretext that "we all may live as one united people". This latest attempt at "bringing the people together" has not changed Aboriginal suspicion at all.

It is becoming easier and easier to accept the widely held view that the whole reconciliation process is nothing more than a government mechanism for enlisting white support for passing on some welfare benefits to Aboriginal people. If this is the case, this can be more efficiently and cheaply achieved by the federal government simply legislating to help Aborigines.

In the meantime, the despair continues. Take one example from the many hundreds. In towns in north-western Western Australia, children infected with parasites fluctuate between their camp homes and the local hospitals. They could be cured if only running water and decent living conditions were available to them. Where lies their hope for the future?

As far as the federal government is concerned, the future of these children rests in reconciliation. Having legislated the instrument of reconciliation and provided $2.6 million, the federal government has committed itself to a mechanism which it hopes will erase all the evils which have latched onto generation after generation of Aborigines. On the one hand the Minister raises hopes for a brighter future, but dashes them by failing to provide anything of substance. The Council will be tarnished with an "all cackle and no egg" image which it will find very difficult to get rid of. The reported statement by the Council's Chairman that the thrust of the task was to get Aborigines and whites to pass each other nicely on the street, did nothing to alter the view of the whole exercise as wasting time. But the Chairman should not cop the flak for what is an inherently absurd idea of government. The Chairman is merely showing that if there was a sensible, decent task given to him, he could get something moving.

The uncertainty of the whole reconciliation process is the first thing the Minister has to explain to the public. He will need to show some initiative and direction, for tax payers will be particularly critical in watching the allocation of scarce resources. The result will need to justify the resources spent. Aborigines on the other hand, are growing impatient with having to await the outcome of yet another well-meaning but ill-considered plan of whites before getting back to the only things of importance to them: land, improved conditions and self-government.

March, 1992

LAW REFORM AND THE ROAD TO INDEPENDENCE

"the most crucial (prerequisite
to empowering Aboriginal people)
is the desire and capacity of Aboriginal people
to put an end to their disadvantaged situation
and to take control of their own lives.
There is no other way."1

THE CALL IS NOW FOR THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE

Although justice for Aborigines has been a long time coming, and is still yet to come, there has always been a section of the Australian community calling for improvement. In turn, there has always been pressure on the authorities to find the solutions, prompting the observation that Aborigines must surely be one of the most investigated peoples in the world. Reforms have been agonisingly slow, but steady. They have been instigated by people with good intent, although perhaps lacking in foresight. It is easy, with the wisdom of hindsight, to look back on these efforts and denounce them for being paternalistic, opportunistic and in may instances, downright racist.

A look at just two such reforms can help to make the point. In its day the 1967 referendum gave Aborigines the right to be counted and to vote. It was undoubtedly seen as a momentous victory for providing the impetus for improving the circumstances of Aboriginal people, as unquestionably it did. It brought the Federal Government in the play, and as a result the social welfare needs of Aborigines were improved. Yet the repercussions of the referendum have returned to haunt that section of the Aboriginal movement wanting to build on that improvement by removing the dependency of Aborigines on the Australian Government. Because the referendum installed Aborigines as "Australians",2 it firmly provided both the legislative and moral grounds for closing the door on any Aboriginal moves for self-government. The Government moved quickly by introducing further legislation relating to the status of Aborigines. It has since relied on the dishonourable argument that as Aborigines had pushed for the 1967 referendum, they were now bound by its consequences, including change in their status.

Although the 1984 amendment to the Electoral Act making it compulsory for Aborigines on the electoral rolls to vote, was not quite as far reaching as was the '67 referendum, it was undoubtedly more opportunistic - it was introduced to help the A.L.P. come into office by coercing Aborigines to vote, anticipating that they would prefer Labor to the others. The Act has now become a notorious political weapon in the Federal Government's armoury, allowing for its civil service to coerce Aborigines into participating in the white political structure for fear of being prosecuted for not voting. Aborigines are then damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Taking these two reforms as an illustration, they show that unless each step toward positive change is part of the greater plan to allow Aboriginal people to run their own agenda, they will at best add confusion to the issues and at worst make for greater difficulties in giving complete control back to Aborigines.

The Law Reform Commission's report on Aboriginal customary law, completed prior to the beginning of the Royal Commission's inception and which has gathered dust on the Government's shelves ever since, took up this point when considering the response of the law to the substantive needs of Aborigines :

"Recognition of Aboriginal customary laws by the general law has continued to be erratic, uncoordinated and incomplete... It is true that such recognition [where it does occur] tends to be limited and to represent specific response to particular situations or needs."

Those comments clearly apply beyond the corridors of the law courts. Having critically analysed the historical abuse of Aboriginal self determination by government, the Royal Commission insisted that the implementation of its recommendations were entirely dependent upon governments negotiating a final settlement with Aborigines, an approach it saw as "...the fundamental question without which polices cannot succeed."

As if to hammer home this point to Government the Commission, when dealing with the history of Aborigines since the invasion, lashed out more pointedly:

"Aboriginal people have a unique history of being ordered, controlled and monitored by the State."

and very relevantly noted:

"...the deliberate and systematic disempowerment of their land and proceeding to almost every aspect of their life...Aboriginal people were made dependent upon non-Aboriginal people. Gradually many of them lost their capacity for independent action, and their communities likewise. With loss of independence goes a loss of self esteem."

Interference with a people by another on such a wide and fundamental scale requires a good deal more than the tokenistic and paternalistic style of assistance given to Aborigines to date. By inference, the Commission lacked confidence in governments to approach the task on the right basis and accordingly laid down the 339 recommendations, tactically giving governments little scope for ignoring the report.

The recommendations need to be read in conjunction with the introductory remarks made in the final report. For it is there that the essence of the Commission's well thought out conclusions are contained. The Commission states:

"But running through all of the proposals that are made for the elimination of these disadvantages is the proposition that Aboriginal people have for two hundred years been dominated to an extraordinary degree by the non-Aboriginal society and that the disadvantage is the product of that domination. The thrust of this report is that the elimination of disadvantage requires an end of domination and empowerment of Aboriginal people; that control of their lives, of their communities must be returned to Aboriginal hands."

Hence the Commission calls on governments to give up their control over Aboriginal people by withdrawing and conceding jurisdiction over Aboriginal lands, and its people, thus allowing Aborigines to begin the process of redeveloping and re-establishing structures appropriate to their future needs. The commission then provides 339 interim steps as a basis for transferring control back to Aborigines.

EMPOWERING ABORIGINAL PEOPLE

Relying on Aboriginal self-determination as the foundation for its policy direction the Commission, consistent with that philosophy, stopped short of spelling out what it saw as the end result. It appears that the Commission did not want to be seen as pre-empting that decision which it obviously saw belonged to Aboriginal people alone. If this is so, then the approach of the Commission toward implementation of its recommendations takes on just as much importance as the recommendations themselves. For it would mean that unless Aborigines decide themselves what they wish the future to hold for them, then government policies will be seen as being imposed and therefore not endorsed by the Commission.

PUTTING FORWARD A MODEL FOR DEBATE

The Aboriginal Provisional Government has as its platform, the demand that enough territory in this country be returned to Aboriginal people sufficient for their needs as a Nation of people. More particularly, those lands commonly referred to as crown lands would essentially form the basis of the territory over which Aboriginal people would exercise their own form of government. Other lands currently classed as private land and which is either in such proximity to land to come under the control of Aboriginal people that it would be senseless to exclude it, or had such significance to the Aboriginal people, would conclude the territorial boundary. The Federal Government's refusal to meet with the Provisional Government infers a rejection of this model.

The Commission, whilst limiting what it regards as sufficient territory for self-determination, nevertheless gave qualified endorsement of the A.P.G. proposal in its call for governments to comprehensively address the land needs of Aboriginal people by "restoring unalienated Crown land... on the basis of cultural, historical and/or traditional association", or where that was not sufficient, to provide "...an accelerated process for the granting of land title based on need." (My emphasis).

AT THE LOCAL LEVEL:

Notwithstanding the extent to which Aboriginal people have had to endure the domination and intrusion into their local communities by whites, the ongoing existence of these communities is testimony to their resilience (which can be relied on) and ability to hold onto their various forms of community organisation. As the Law Reform Commission found -

"In many, if not all, Aboriginal communities there exist methods for social control and the resolution of disputes...In some localities reliance is placed on the accepted authority of older men and women, and there are long established procedures for resolving dispute."

Even allowing for variation on the different communities, it would take little effort or imagination to have community control mechanisms firmly in place.

RAISING AN ECONOMY

Government revenue and expenditure figures show that approximately $2,000 million covers all essential living costs, including special programs, for Aborigines. The same source suggests that an Aboriginal Government would have $6,196 million available to distribute amongst its people, or putting it another way, three times more to spend on Aboriginal people than do white governments!

Annual government revenue figures suggest that approximately $700 million is set aside for the welfare needs of Aborigines, not including other costs such as pension and unemployment figures. Those same figures show a total expenditure of $10,300 millions is allocated to these other costs for general distribution, making fairly safe the estimate of $1,000 million of this being distributed to Aborigines. To ensure that there is no under-estimation of any other unknown costs, rounding off the total amount of $2,000 million as an amount to cover all current costs to keep Aborigines alive would not be far from the mark.

The 1986 revenue raised from mineral royalties in rural areas amounted to $788million. Add to that a mere 10% of revenue raised from property income ($7,581 million) and only another quarter of the Aboriginal budgetary requirements need be found. Government revenue is boosted by both company and individual income tax to the tune of $93,000 million a year, at least 5% of which ($4,650 million) must derive from Aboriginal territory, giving an Aboriginal Government access to no less than $6,196 million annually.

The issue here is not so much whether Aborigines ought to rely on existing revenue raising mechanisms when forging their own independence, but that there seems ample scope for the development of an economically sustainable Aboriginal Nation based on available figures.

LAW AND ORDER

Aboriginal political and economic independence are likely to take place only when whites give up their belief of having the divine right to maintain their control over Aborigines. Once of the best indicators of a shift will be the withdrawal of claims of legal jurisdiction, whether made gradually or with haste, allowing for community control at that most basic but critical level.

Perhaps more than any other people in the world, Aborigines are deserving of a break from a legal regime which has so systematically terrorised and demoralised them. The Aboriginal Provisional Government has laid out a program to transfer jurisdiction back to Aboriginal communities as follows:

1. Immediately identifying and separating those areas which fall into no of three categories -

(a) lands likely to be returned which are currently occupied by an Aboriginal community;

(b) lands likely to be returned but which not occupied by an Aboriginal community;

(c) areas of occupation by Aboriginal communities but which are not likely to be returned.

2. Providing a timetable for both the application of Aboriginal law (in whatever form), enforced by the Aboriginal community over category (a) lands. This process would be coincidental with the removal of white jurisdiction as we know it. The time frame for this process should be limited to 5 years.

This proposal is subject to each local community's desire.

3. Providing a timetable for the changeover of jurisdiction from whites to Aborigines for category (b) lands, allowing sufficient time for Aborigines to determine who are the appropriate custodians. Again, and subject to local desire, the process should have a maximum 5 year cut-off date.

4. Category (c) lands will generally concern urban situations which will remain the province of the while legal system. Accepting the principle that Aborigines residing within these areas cannot expect to carry their laws upon their shoulders, conversely the deprived circumstances of Aborigines living in that environment should mitigate against the rigidity of the application of the white laws.

The Commission's recommendations for reducing the impact of white laws in this situation through diversionary mechanisms are important. The Commission supports:

(a) the decriminalisation of a number of petty offences, and a greater reliance on community service orders;

(b) educating police to protect Aborigines from racial taunts and physical abuse;

(c) the reliance on work, training and education programs as an alternative to Aboriginal youth inevitably being scarred by early contact with police and the criminal justice system.

One other advantage of Aboriginal independence is the reshaping of the basis upon which greater lenience towards Aborigines living in the cities is given by the law. At present the call for change is founded only on compassion, placing Aborigines in the "beggar" category. With the advent of an independent Aboriginal Nation within which many whites would desire to live, the call for some softening of punishment of ex-patriots becomes reciprocal, and thus provides the organisations in the cities and towns with a sound bargaining position.

Detailing the structures possibly operating under an Aboriginal Nation are not entirely necessary when debating the merits of independence of Aborigines. Unfortunately those who oppose such development have a tendency to seize on anything to aid their cause, including the failure to put forward an outline of the practical steps and structures involved in the process. It is that in mind that some attempt has been made here to remove that temptation.

CONCLUSION

Reform of the legal system without a thorough re-examination of the over all relationship Australia has with Aborigines would be just another meaningless exercise in self-gratification. The Royal Commission was firmly of this view. In the response to the Commission, the Federal Government stated very positively that the Australian Government's goal "...is to create the means by which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people can take control over their own lives".

However, the Government then very disappointingly qualified this by stating that:

"This involves a renewed commitment to existing policy.", which is to promote ATSIC, provide for better education and push ahead with reconciliation. In short, more of the same. Perhaps it was this response that was anticipated by the Commission when it ominously quipped -

"Every step of the way is based on an assumption of superiority and every new step is a further entrenchment of that assumption."

What is clear is that leadership in this area will not come from governments. They will respond to the pressures exerted by Aborigines and our supporters who ever so quickly need to come to grips with the real issue to be put on the table.

To expect Aborigines to be "empowered" and to have control of our own destiny whilst leaving control of the political, economic and legal structures (which affect our ability to become empowered) in the hands of white governments, is incredibly naive. Promotion of "reconciliation" will be at the expense of action to immediately move towards real self-determination. If the hold on government moves towards Aboriginal sovereignty is because of disbelief that that is what Aboriginal people want, then they should undertake a referendum of Aboriginal people only, and commit themselves to standing by the outcome.

June, 1992

THE MABO CASE

The Court gives an inch but takes another mile

For over two hundred years
Aborigines have waited for Australian law
to respond properly to the injustices
The Mabo decision will prove
caused by the white invasion.
a great disappointment.

The Murray Islands lie well to the east of the gap between Cape York Peninsula and New Guinea. The total land mass of the three islands is a mere 9 square kilometres. These islands have been owned and occupied by the Meriam people for longer than anyone knows.

The Queensland Government wanted to remove any doubt that it had total rights over the islands. So in 1985 it had Parliament pass the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act. This Act was to abolish any claims to title to the islands by the Murray Islanders.

Three Islanders, including Eddie Mabo, took legal action against this Act, successfully arguing that the Act was contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act, and was therefore invalid.

Fearing renewed attacks from the Queensland Government, further action was taken in the High Court to have the rights of the Meriam people declared. Eddie Mabo died before the decision was handed down.

What the case decided.

The High Court ruled that:

1. Native title to lands in the Murray Islands were recognised and had survived the take-over of this country by whites.

2. The previous view by the courts, that neither Aborigines nor Murray Islanders existed at the time whites invaded this country, was wrong.

3. The rights of the Meriam people to their land could be taken away at any time by Government, now or in the past, provided it was done legally.

4. It was possible that Aborigines in the same situation as the Murray Islanders could likewise have their right to their traditional lands recognised.

5. Neither Aborigines nor, for that matter, anyone else could challenge in court the legitimacy of the white take-over of this country.

6. By a narrow majority, where native rights were recognised as having existed but have been taken away by government legally, either in the past or in the future, no compensation is payable.

Looking more closely:

Some very important preliminary matters:

1. The Murray Islanders did not argue against the claim by whites that the whole continent, including the Murray Islands, passed into the hands of the British when a flag was stuck in a beach at Botany Bay and proclamations read. The Islanders did not dispute this point. Consequently the case did not dispute the sovereign rights exercised by Australian governments.

2. Nor did they contest that from the day the British stepped on Australian shore, the common law of England applied throughout the length and breadth of the continent and its islands. In fact the case was dependent on that being so.

3. The issue was whether the Crown also took over native title as well as sovereignty when the flag was struck. The Queensland Government argued that this right also passed to the Crown. It was on this point that the Court ruled in favour of the Islanders and rejected the Government argument.

If the Murray Islanders sought no more than some legal protection from the Queensland Government's efforts to keep the "Fed's from our Aborigines," then for them the case was good news. However, the importance of the case is its anticipated bearing on the land rights of Aborigines elsewhere. In arriving at its decision the Court had to comment on the Aboriginal situation generally, because of the striking similarity of the circumstances of Aborigines and their claims, and that of the Murray Islanders.

Speaking of the form of title recognised as belonging to the Murray Islanders, the Court wondered how extensive were these rights. It was said -

"Obviously the proportion [ of the continent ] was a significant one. Conceivably, it was the whole."3

The issues raised by the case:

a. EFFECTS OF WHITE INVASION : TERRA NULLIUS and
SOVEREIGNTY.

The first and most positive new step taken by the Court was to abandon the long held legal fiction that Australia was "no-man's" land when whites first arrived. In the Court's view:

"Inevitably, one is compelled to acknowledge the role played, in the dispossession and oppression of the Aborigines, by the two propositions that the territory of New South Wales was, in 1788, terra nullius in the sense of unoccupied or uninhabited for legal purposes and that full legal and beneficial ownership of all the lands of the Colony vested in the Crown, unaffected by any claims of the Aboriginal inhabitants. These propositions provide a legal basis for and justification of the dispossession. They constituted the legal context of the acts done to enforce it and, while accepted, rendered unlawful acts done by the Aboriginal inhabitants to protect traditional occupation or use. The official endorsement...provided the environment in which the Aboriginal people of the continent came to be treated as a different and lower form of life whose very existence could be ignored for the purpose of determining the legal right to occupy and use their traditional lands."

Normally constrained by previous decisions of the courts, the Judges pondered the problem and concluded that this fictitious legal theory, at least in relation to terra nullius, provided a basis for acts forming the "darkest aspect of the history of this nation."4 In the circumstances, the Court felt compelled to review the previously accepted doctrine of terra nullius, and duly rejected it.

The Sovereign rights of Aboriginal people, notwithstanding that the Islanders did not argue it, necessarily arose during the case for consideration. The Court was at pains to point out that it was the Crown and not the judges who took away the territory of Aborigines. In their view, the courts have failed only by not recognising any form of Aboriginal title. The physical loss of their territory and sovereignty was nothing to do with the courts. This attempt at distinguishing one area of injustice attracting the court's attention from another is palpably absurd and unsustainable.

The Court refused to follow precedent on the issue of terra nullius for to do so would be to maintain a legal fiction based on political convenience. Yet the very same convenience was relied on by the judges to shut the door to any Aboriginal hopes for arguing Aboriginal sovereignty in the courts. This aspect of the judgment is pure hypocrisy.

The Court sought to justify their pulling of the shades after having made their token response to the cries for justice from Aboriginal people, by suggesting that taking issue with the actions of the Crown on sovereignty is a matter for the politicians, not the Court. How even more convenient! The politicians have not urged this view on the courts, making it all too obvious that the judges themselves want to wipe their hands of the whole issue and return to matters with which they are more familiar. Apart from relying on inappropriate and old legal precedent, the Court gave no reasoned arguments as to why this approach was adopted. Paradoxically, this same approach which was previously applied by the courts on the question of terra nullius was implicitly denounced by the Court.

What then is the practical effect of the courts closing their doors to Aborigines in this form, given that the most sympathetic politicians refuse to consider, let alone discuss, Aboriginal sovereignty?

It is established law in Australia that government actions which go beyond their powers can be challenged in courts. Even if governments did attempt to take action on the issue of Aboriginal sovereignty, the courts would open their doors to challenges on the basis that the interests of white people should be protected from governments seeking to interfere with those rights. The Court knew full well the difficulties Aborigines have in getting access to the international law courts, and must be taken to know the politicians' attitudes. The Judges have effectively sought to quell any Aboriginal thoughts of sovereignty by closing off access to the usual forum, the courts.

The Court has given a clear and unambiguous message to Aborigines : "you want sovereignty, you'll have to retrieve it by the same process which led you to lose it." It amounts to tacit approval for self help, yet if Aborigines took up this calling the court would then deal with any "acts by Aborigines as unlawful". This was the kind of circular argument which courts also applied in the past, which the High Court now condemns. The inconsistencies in the judgments highlight the difficulties white people have, whether they be professionals or not, in wanting to be seen as sympathetic, whilst at the same time supporting by their actions, white domination of not just Aboriginal people, but also our inherent rights.

b. TREATING ABORIGINAL SOCIETY AS BEING INFERIOR

There were three matters discussed in detail by the Court which are important if for no other reason but to show the inability of judges to pay due regard to Aboriginal legal rights without fearing the white backlash. It appears the Court had predetermined not to upset the established white control over Aborigines, and in going about their task let slip some pretty shoddy thoughts on the subject. The statements made by the judges provided an insight into the difficulties Aborigines will continue to have in seeking justice under white law.

The three matters were:

(i) Seeing Aboriginal society as "primitive"

Although the judges tried to portray their view as sympathetic to Aborigines the Judges apparently believed that, at the time of invasion, Aborigines were inferior to the people who invaded their lands.

The Court quite rightly examined contemporary international developments which showed that nomadic people in the Western Sahara had rights demanding recognition, and that it was no longer acceptable to draw adverse inferences from cultural differences. But having made the statement, the Court must only have paid it lip service. The Court went on to rule on the status of Aboriginal rights to land at the time of the invasion as not being equivalent to that of Europeans, but something less. They may have been "no less clear, substantial and strong than were the interests of the Indian tribes and bands of North America..."5 . The analogy drawn with other native people and not whites amounts to a view that indigenous people were something less that Europeans, a racist position indeed. The judgements are heavy with positive information about Aboriginal political and social organisation, and connection with the land. What was it then which, apart from some underlying philosophy, led the Court to presume that Aborigines weren't quite up to scratch with Europeans. There was certainly nothing in the elaborate forms of material from which they quoted.

(ii) Seeing Aborigines as a race, not a nation of people.

It is clear from the judgements that the Court was dealing with Aborigines as a race and not a nation of people. One has some sympathy for the Judges here, for there has been too much acceptance by Aborigines themselves of white imposed definitions of what are Aborigines. This acceptance without murmur places the judiciary in something of a predicament : alter the definition of Aborigines away from "race", a term accepted by Aborigines as applying to them, and thereby run the risk of being attacked for imposing yet another white definition; or suffer attack for sticking with the term which found its suitability in bygone days and thereby reduce the rights of Aborigines accordingly.

The importance of this distinction is critical in the finding of the existence of native title. Interests in land, whether held by individuals or the collective is, as we all know, capable of being handed down or disposed of. Aboriginal native title is not, according to the Court, as the group must retain their identity in a biological manner6, the right being a personal one only7 This reduces the test of survival of Aboriginal rights to land to the "strains of blood", and it is but a short step to once again class Aborigines as animals capable of having their entitlement accorded with the degree of "original blood".

At a time when Aborigines are moving in the direction of nationhood and joining all other peoples, including Australians, in determining their membership on non-biological lines, the High Court is marching to the tune of a different drum. The Court was unable to explain, let alone justify, its acceptance of the right of all peoples, except Aborigines, to determine the make-up of their communities in this way.

(iii) Setting the scene for assimilation

Enabling any community to exist in a non-dependent way involves having an economic base. Land, or rights over it, is the common foundation. For the Murray Islanders or Aborigines generally to be able to provide for their people independently of whites, land sufficient for their changing future needs is essential.

The High Court ruled on this point that -

"The rights are not, however, assignable outside the overall native system. They can be voluntarily extinguished by surrender to the Crown. They can also be lost by the abandonment of the connection with the land or by extinction of the relevant tribe or group."8

It seems that what the gods give, they can taketh away. Meantime, native rights are lost by removal of the group from the area, provided the removal is lawful. Australians can do as they wish with "their" land, unlike Aborigines. Effectively, these impositions on Aboriginal title anticipate the eventual dispersal of the communities with title reverting to the Crown. The so-called title then, amounts to no more than occupational rights. It is also made abundantly clear that the occupational rights are meant to represent a humane gesture by white authority.

What is native title?

Native title is the right of occupation of a certain area of land, by a particular group who practice their traditions over it. The title may be used by the people to prevent interference with their occupation.

The use of the term "title" may be misleading. It is unlike a form of ownership as Australians know it. In fact, it is based on occupation, not ownership and is more appropriate to be described in that way. Its status in relation to other interests in land is well down the scale, much closer to the bottom than the top.

It provides less than freehold, or land held under land rights legislation, or leasehold or even perhaps "deeds of grant in trust". It cannot be sold, traded or dealt with in any way except to be returned to the crown.

How can title be recognised?

The starting point for people claiming it is to show:

(a) they are in occupation of their traditional lands and have been since before the white man came;

(b) that their occupation of the land is based on traditions, customs and law.

Whether these two starting points can be established is a matter of fact to be decided by hearing from the people themselves, and others, as to how those customs etc. connect them to that land. If they successfully establish native title, the next question is:

Has native title survived white occupation?

The usual way for the title to be lost is, according to the Court, when:

1. The people lose their connection with the land, even where they have been forcibly removed;

2. The particular clan or tribe or individuals in whom title is recognised, have died out. The test for the demise of the relevant people is a genetic one.

3. The title has been effectively extinguished by some act inconsistent with native title. This will usually come from legislation or Crown grant which allows for:

(a) a church, school or other public facility to be built on the land;

(b) land is set aside for a public purpose inconsistent with native title. It is not enough, however, if such publish purpose land -

merely regulates the enjoyment of the land and is not thereby inconsistent with native title;

simply creates a body to control the land but gives them no powers to interfere with native enjoyment;

stops the land from being sold only, for this is consistent with what native title confers;

creates reserves for Aboriginal people, or national parks, but does not confer title;

or even prohibits people from a particular area. It would need to specifically refer to the particular Aboriginal group.

What if native title has been wrongly terminated?

If this occurred many years ago, it is not possible to get a remedy through the courts because time limits are placed on such actions.

Where governments attempt nowadays to get rid of native title illegally i.e. through invalid legislation, it has no effect on the title. The attempts may be invalidated because, for instance, it may offend against the Racial Discrimination Act because it was especially aimed at a "racial" group and would have denied them equal treatment.

Compensation

Although three of the seven Judges were in favour of compensating people for their loss of native title in certain circumstances, the majority were opposed to it. Therefore the court ruling is that Aboriginal people forced from traditional lands not only cannot get native title recognised, but get no compensation either.

This is another factor showing the lack of worth of native title when compared with other forms of title to land.

Conclusion

The Mabo decision will find support in two groups: firstly among Aboriginal groups seeking application of the more useful aspects of the case. Groups in isolated areas who have, in substance, maintained their traditions and their relationship with the land, can arguably rely on the decision as an effective device to prevent interference with their occupation of those areas. Drafters of legislation will not find much difficulty however in circumventing the defence lines put up by the case where governments are intent upon extinguishing Aboriginal rights in these areas.

The second group to find joy in the decision will be those whose ideas on the destiny of Aboriginal people rests entirely upon manipulation of white compassion to our advantage. Our rights are determined by the strength of support we can muster from the white population. So if land rights is popular, you have it; otherwise you await the turning of public opinion in your favour. For them, our only hope is to remain loyal to whites, their institutions and forms of justice. They would portray the decision in the best possible light, as a most symbolic turn in the direction of Aboriginal matters. On analysis however, it is difficult to see any substance in this view.

On the other hand, the decision will find many critics within the Aboriginal community, all of whom justifiably expected more. Out of the 300,000 Aborigines in Australia, no more than a third live in rural areas9 . Of these, very few live in the isolated areas so necessary to attract the cover of Mabo. What then of the remaining 250,000 or more Aborigines? Is their fate pre-determined by the extent to which they have suffered even more hardship through being more exposed to white contact?

There will be two other grounds for criticism. One is that the Court did not overturn anything of substance, but merely propounded white domination and superiority over Aborigines by recognising such a meagre Aboriginal form of rights over land. The Judges did little more than ease their own conscience of the guilty they so correctly feel for maintaining white supremacy. The other criticism is the effective abandonment by the legal system of the most disadvantaged and least powerful people in Australia to compete amongst other more powerful lobbyists for government favours. If Mabo represents the best that the legal system has to offer, Aborigines will be put off by the effort and costs involved in litigating for such puny reward.

Mabo offers something for those who are grateful for small blessings, but nothing in the way of real justice.

June, 1992

See here for details http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/04/110259.php

Hey guys i'm a Melbounian living in Kiwiland i want to say good luck today and i hope all goes well.

It seems ridiculous for me to wish you 'good luck' in this part of your struggle...

In fact, any words of 'support' seem a little silly - given that this whole country is Aboriginal land!!

I guess all i can say is ' thankyou' - for bringing the harsh realities of this country to the attention of so many...

I hope that all of you can stay strong through this - and I hope that the sacred fire never goes out, here or anywhere....

OK folks, you're fifteen minutes of fame is well and truly up.

We just don't care any more and, more tellingly, neither do the media.

You're being starved of what you crave and need - publicuty.

You're old copy now dears. Do the right thing.

Go away and stop being silly.

the above comment by Telford just perpetuates the same old bullshit "professional protestor" if what you deal with daily is worthy of protest then you will protest daily. Get out and get over this notion that because people are being seen and being heard more regularly on more issues somehow disavows what they have to say, perhaps that you know an Aboriginal persons name that is not a sports person offends you and perhaps the fact that you recognise an Indigenous person who is finally getting some airtime for political and social advocacy issues reminds you that those issues are still there, the fact that you have to negate his opinion by criminalising him his pretty much standard in contemporary racist Australia. You do not speak for me.

This quote from "Mr lefty's Boltwatch raises some intresting questions .... think the best criticism of the "sacred fire" was by the Wurundjeri elder Ian hunter: http:// www.heraldsun.news.com.au...55E2862,00.html I think what the people at kings domain are doing is a disgrace is actually a racist act by angry people who have no idea of their history.If what bolt says is true (and i somehow think it might be) then that man who’s been an "elder" for at least 3 tribes now is a disgrace and speaks for indigenous people as much as Ruxton speaks for non indigenous. My sister took my walpiri (i refuse to use the word aboriginal as i refer to my heritage as British /Italian) and the man who was "in charge there was rude and, in my opinion ignorant, from my sisters reporting."Aboriginal" people were not and are not one people, so how dare this mob say they speak for aboriginal issues. all they've achieved is giving fuel for the small minded red necks that exist even in a city like Melbourne.Solutions to the sorry state of many (not all) "aboriginals" who live in large communities on traditional lands are not what most lefties want to here. but its time for some tough love people of left persuasion (of which I definitely am) need to listen to people like Noel Pearson. there needs to be stronger pressure on removing camp dogs from communities, improved hygiene at home, attendance and achievement at school and slow reduction of welfare in communities. These can be sweetened by a big government initiative to train people in their communities in trades and industries to develop and market their recourses. much can be done to develop agriculture, tourism and mining in such a way that there are careers for "aboriginals" in their communities. this will turn around the situation of third world conditions in a first world country and allow them to keep their culture.My mum is teaching at the community (Lajamanu) where my children’s other grandmother was from (she’s already dead - drank herself to liver and kidney failure in early 40s) and its pretty disheartening.The solution to city based "aboriginals" who live in government housing with no idea of their culture and behave just like any other white trash there is the same as the other white trash. social workers can continue to burn out as the try to help people rectify their life while the people themselves do nothing but continue to make the decisions that fuck them up. if misery is all you've known its where you're most comfortable. Except for a few exceptional cases. Notallright

Can we start shooting criiminals in this coutnry before they work out if they dress like an indigenous person they can get away with anything, please save us from this tripe...