Aboriginal interests in land under the pastoral leases issued by
the Anglo-Australian Crown in the Northern Territory. The view
from Tennant Creek.
Bruce Reyburn 20 September 1989
The self-congratulatory and self-proclaimed historic agreement of
the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments to proceed
with instituting a means of providing small living areas for
Aboriginal people on land under pastoral lease in the Northern
Territory is a complete mockery.
Like the Land Rights Act, which allows for recognition of
traditional Aboriginal ownership to the wastelands of the Crown,
this living areas agreement is no doubt packaged for the
consumption by international trading partners concerned about the
developing Australian image.
The governments formula seems to be this: go for a high profile
and apparent resolution of conflict and rest assured that the
finer points, which maintain the status quo, will be overlooked.
How insidious it all is! Once again we have a 'solution' in which
the Aboriginal interests will be boxed up into small paddocks
while the Anglo-Australian interests will be allowed free reign
over thousands of square kilometres. Aboriginal people in the
Tennant Creek region refer to these excision areas as
'match-boxes'.
Once again it has been made perfectly clear that people who live
in boxes cannot make good decisions about the lives of people who
are directly connected to their surroundings by their senses.
Whoever it is who is advising the government on Aboriginal
realities in regard to this issue is clearly way out of touch with
core of traditional Aboriginal people seeking restoration to their
proper place in their living countries.
In the 'match-box' solution the reality of exclusive Anglo-
Australian domination, by a handful of non-Aboriginal families,
over vast areas of the Northern Territory's prime land will be
further entrenched. Virtually all of the wealth generating land in
the Northern Territory is firmly in the hands of a small
non-Aboriginal elite.
On the other side of the equation, the reality of Aboriginal
interests in that land will continue to be denied by the edifice
of vested interest and official dogma flowing from the doctrine of
terra nullius.
In my opinion, both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory
government should stand condemned for failing to act earlier and
decisively in providing basic living facilities for Aboriginal
'cattle station' communities in the N.T.. Or, rather, for those
few communities which have been able to remain on their own
country despite the ongoing harassment of cattlemen both since
the initial occupation of their living countries in the 1880's
and, in particular, since white Self- Government was introduced in
1976.
Both levels of the Crown, the Commonwealth and their regional
branch managers in the Northern Territory, have sat back 'unable
to act' because it might upset a few wealthy pastoralists while
thousands of Aboriginal people suffered ill-health, permanent
disabilities and died prematurely.
Better not to send a tremor through the hand holding the liquid
proceeds of cattle operations, probably on holiday at Surfers,
than to attempt to govern responsibly by insisting that basic
living facilities for Aboriginal people will be provided whether
empire builders like it or not.
With the general managers and the regional managers of Crown
interests now getting together in Canberra to 'thrash out' an
agreement over an issue which they have allowed to drag on for
years, we see the Anglo-Australian power brokers - minus
Aboriginal representation - deciding what is the best solution.
We see on television, as the agreement was signed sealing the fate
of Aboriginal people, the white hand of the Prime Minister of the
Commonwealth shaking the white hand of the Chief Minister of the
Northern Territory. This single act clearly captures the true
spirit of the transaction. Yes - they have taken care of that
difficult problem of the 'people the Land Rights Act forgot' once
and for all.
Wrong! They have added to the problem which now becomes the
difficult problem of 'the people the Land Rights Act and the
historic excisions agreement forgot'. That is, the traditional
Aboriginal owners of land under pastoral lease. But let us not
delude ourselves. These people were not forgotten. They were very
much present in the discussions and they were consciously excluded
by the Crown.
The traditional owners of land over which the Crown initially
issued pastoral leases to Anglo-Australian commercial interests
without_compensation_for their_loss of their_resource_base are the
very people who stand last in line in terms of the priorities of
this agreement. Is this the type of social justice we can expect
from the Prime Minister who weeps for people overseas but is blind
to events in his own backyard?
Some_Traps_for_Young_Players.
The foreshadowed legislation to be introduced in the Territory
will include, as criteria for eligibility for an excision,
considerations of need and historical residency. Traditional
aboriginal owners will only be allowed in through the back door,
as it were. This is entirely arse about face.
It will place traditional owners under obligations to other
Aboriginal people who may be resident on their land. There will be
great disputes about whose house, whose toyota, and whose
community it is. There appears to be no thought given to the
social impact of this agreement on Aboriginal people.
For example, there could well be cases where a group of Aboriginal
people are, by the twists of fate, living on a cattle station
which is situated on other Aboriginal peoples living country. The
traditional owners may have been hunted off years ago and now
reside in other places, not able to return due to mourning
concerns - but still carrying on the business for that country.
They are the re-incarnation of that country.
The non-traditional residents will be eligible for a match-box
living area before the traditional owners. The non-traditional
residents will be placed at a distinct advantage in the indigenous
exchange system by playing to the full the fact that they, and not
the proper people, are the ones who the mighty government
recognises. It is naive to think otherwise. It is a cop-out to
have this impact and then say, invoking a principle of
self-determination otherwise absent, "We'll leave that to
Aboriginal people to sort out."
It is also clear that the negotiation process with the
pastoralists will proceed according to a timetable which suits the
pastoralist not the needs of the Aboriginal people. Some
pastoralists may see it in their interests to settle quickly.
These cases can be held up as evidence that the government's
policies are working (what an exhausted expression). Other cases
will take forever.
Those with wealth on their side will find legal loopholes, appeals
to the Supreme Court, the High Court, challenges to legislation,
lobby of government Ministers, and the usual bag of tricks
including bluff, manipulation of division interests within the
Aboriginal communities and intimidation.
We can rest assured that a Tribunal will be suggested to hear
cases which cannot be resolved by direct negotiation. This will
most probably consist of a Judge, a representative of the cattle
industry and an Aboriginal representative. This formula of two
Anglo-Australians for every Aboriginal person is the whiteman's
idea of fairness.Perhaps it is a true measure of comparative
value? It is certainly indicative of the bias built into the
system.
There is growing evidence that we have unfair expectations of
members of the judiciary when we ask them to act according to
mystical conceptions of 'objectivity' in cases which require them
to consider matters of class conflict within our own society.
How unfair to them are we being, then, when we ask them to
exercise their judgement cross-culturally in relation to a world
of Aboriginal realities. Their social background, aspirations and
professional experience provides them not only with no
assistance, it actively inhibits their understanding.
The world they live in assigns a positive value to commercial
considerations and Anglo-Australian conceptions of property. It
is blind to the sort of concerns which inform Aboriginal life.
Indeed, the social formation to which they belong is rooted in the
denial of Aboriginal land ownership and the Constitution which
governs them, the 1901 constitution for a White Australia, is
incapable of dealing with issues of Aboriginal sovereignty.
Twenty-five years ago, this Constitution would not have even
recognised Aboriginal people as human members of society. We are
asking to much of our Judges when we expect them to exercise their
skills impartially in this situation.
Similarly, it is completely culturally inappropriate to impose the
recent western conceptual invention of the notion of the
individual onto Aboriginal decision-making. The philosophy at work
in traditional Aboriginal social life is one which recognises the
abuse to group well-being which results from separating an
individual from his group.
Aboriginal life is full of checks and balances which apportion
responsibilities for important matters collectively. The idea of
an individual Aboriginal representative is completely outside of
this tradition. One person cannot properly represent the
community.
Major_Failings.
But these concerns are not where the major fault of the agreement
lie. The major faults lie with the related failure to acknowledge
Aboriginal realities in relation to land under pastoral lease.
Some of these include:
* the protection of physical and living features of the
environment from adverse and disproportional impacts of
cattle
* protection of sacred sites and places of worship from
'improvements' such as fences and station tracks
* the free access to traditional foods, camping and
ceremonial places
* the shifting residential requirements of Aboriginal people
as determined by social, cultural and seasonal dictates
* the insistence of acknowledgement in real terms of the use
of Aboriginal living countries for the production of wealth.
* the requirement that cattlemen observe the values of
Aboriginal society in respect to their treatment of both land
and people.
In other words, Aboriginal people whose living countries are under
Crown pastoral lease want recognition as partners with culturally
specific interests in the use of the land. They want a balancing
of interests. They do not want, in my experience, to be locked up
in a paddock and forgotten about.
It is quite clear that the excision solution, dreamt up by Nugget
Coombs and others, is part of the policies of confinement which
have tainted Aboriginal-European relations since the pretence of
terra nullius was first acted on. These excisions are merely
mini-reservations to replace the hellholes of larger 'settlements'
and fringe camps in Territory tidy towns.
The provision of services to new excision communities will provide
a new source of funds for the regional Crown power brokers and the
Aboriginal communities can rest assured that all funds which make
it to their communities will come saturated with the messages of
Anglo-Australian patronage. In other words, you can have these new
facilities provided you conform to our Anglo-Australian standards
- and not before.
Additionally, the provision of services will directly benefit
those with a non-Aboriginal lifestyle before it contributes to
Aboriginal life. It will be good for white business. Government
employees and independent contractors will be able to service
their mortgages, replace their vehicles and holiday in Bali while
the Aboriginal community will still be scratching around trying to
find cash to pay for the fuel to take their overloaded community
vehicle to town to buy a drum of white flour...denied access to
the bush foods on the other side of the fence lest they disturb
the cattle on agistment.
And on the bottom line, the Australian taxpayer will, once again,
be propping up the Northern Territory cattle based lifestyle (it
may not be a viable economic industry) by paying for the solution
to the problem caused by the expropriation without compensation of
Aboriginal living countries. Proper payment for the use of their
land would be a better solution.
The 'Match-box' solution is not the one sought by Aboriginal
people but when the day comes that the excision solution is seen
to be a failure you can count on the response. The Aboriginal
people will be blamed for the expenditure of taxpayers money on
the provision of facilities on excision communities.
The fact that this was the result of white perceptions and
inadequate communication with the people concerned will be
'forgotten'. Negative stereotypes of Aboriginal people will be
re-inforced.
The_Failure_of_'Aboriginal'_organisations.
It is my opinion that the failure to properly articulate the real
issues amongst the remote Aboriginal communities can be placed
directly at the feet of the Land Councils. They have allowed this
farce over excisions to drag on as though getting title to a few
square kilometres of land under pastoral lease was the most
important thing in life for their constituents.
They have not negotiated from a position which accurately
represents the Aboriginal people in remote parts of the Northern
Territory who continue to insist that the issue of Crown title
over their living countries does not extinguish the rights they
have held in the country from time immemorial. Looking beyond the
failure of the Land Councils on this issue, one can foresee the
problems for the accurate representation and articulation of
Aboriginal interests in regard to macro issues such as sovereignty
should the Treaty process ever come down to the earth the Old
People sit on.
The initial failure to acknowledge the real social organisation of
Aboriginal Australia has produced major structural difficulties
for cross-cultural communication. The government's insistence on
recognising only those organisations which fall within a
Westminster definition of reality, such as being incorporated
under the relevant Act, is generating a distorted articulation of
the genuine Aboriginal voice.
The time has come to cease to accept the pretence that many
'Aboriginal' organisations are anything more than European
structures with black paint. They are established by Anglo-
Australian law; sometimes dominated by white professionals; often
staffed with people who qualify as Aboriginal on the criteria of
the colour of their skin rather than on socio- cultural criteria,
and have token Aboriginal Councils who are expected to operate
according to Canberra rules.
There is a negative co-relation between speaking an Aboriginal
language as a first language and being a successful applicant for
a position in an 'Aboriginal' organisation. Similarly, few
meetings of the theoretically governing Councils or Committees
take place in the local Aboriginal language. This is a sure test
of the degree to which the real Aboriginal voice is expressing
itself.
The culturally inappropriate constitution of these organisations
pushes the opinions of traditional people further into the
background. The staff usually take matters into their own hands to
ensure that the business expectations originating from the
mainstream economy and society are met. This often requires
denying the requests for use of the organisations resources by the
people who make a substantial unpaid contribution to its operation
- the members of the Aboriginal community themselves.
Lacking resources to adequately consult 'their people', the staff
make decisions which - consciously or unconsciously - reflect
their Western orientation at the expense of the values of
Australia's First People. Knocking off at 4.21pm and being paid
on time are often more pressing concerns than questions of
unextinguished sovereignty for people sitting around remote camp
fires.
There is no avenue for the critical Aboriginal voice, since the
organisation itself monopolises the resources to communicate with
the larger community. Senior staff members can bestow patronage to
silence any persistently embarrassing voice. In a wider community
which equates being Aboriginal with skin colour,
Anglo-Australian's accept the views of Brindle Bureaucrats as
being the real thing.
Unless you happen to have relations with traditional Aboriginal
people, you will remain oblivious to the difference between
traditional and transitional Aboriginal needs. Should you move in
these circles, you will hear some scathing remarks about
'Yellowfellas' who are Aboriginal when it suits them, but true
Whitefellas when it comes to putting their hand in their own
well-lined pocket...and this is the real test of Aboriginality.
Bureaucrats of any complexion can be expected to do one thing and
one thing only - to protect their positions and thereby preserve
the status quo. At this historical juncture, the status quo
excludes the core Aboriginal voice from its rightful place in the
affairs of the country. The resources which are directed, by the
dominant economy, to fair dinkum Aboriginal people continue to be
of benefit proportionate to the holders of Anglo-Australian
values.
The members of the Aboriginal Councils, without whom the employees
would have no credibility, continue to be the last paid for their
services. Until they are paid first and do the hiring and firing,
'Aboriginal' organisations will remain a Whiteman's fantasy -
funded from Canberra and a playground, it seems at times, for all
sorts of interests except those of the holders of core Aboriginal
values.
'Aboriginal' organisations are only made necessary by the initial
failure of Anglo-Australian authorities to recognise the existing
social organisation, the real social organisation of Aboriginal
Australia when the British expropriated sovereignty under the
doctrine of terra nullius.
If the real social organisations had been recognised then, we
would have no need for these white structures now. Once
established, however, they have a vested interest in maintaining
the status quo rather than moving towards the restoration of the
real Aboriginal organisational arrangements. This would place real
power in the hands of the Old People where it belongs.
The problem is a structural one and requires a structural
solution. We need to start communicating creatively about ways of
ensuring that core Aboriginal values and corresponding core
priorities are being articulated.
Rather than a new generation of Aboriginal organisations, with
cosmetic changes for the trendies in the industry, we need to
accurately target the core of the Aboriginal community with the
funds and other resources necessary for them to operationalise
the social organisation (unincorporated by Anglo-Australian law if
necessary) by which they already live their lives.
To make room for the voice of traditional Aboriginal people, it is
important that we can develop our ability to discern between
organisations which hide their Anglo-Australian aspirations behind
the ritualised expression ' under effective Aboriginal control'
and the voice of that community itself.
We must not confuse the face value which prevents public criticism
at Aboriginal meetings with genuine community consensus. That is
not how Aboriginal decision-making operates, despite the
requirements of government administrators for certain types of
organisations. Life has its own arrangements - older than the
Westminster system.
The organisations which have grown up in the Northern Territory
over the last two decades have generally been of a type which puts
up an Anglo-Australian inspired agenda (such as housing) and
regurgitates a cultural pre-stressed result - "a community
decision" - to the larger social formation waiting to go ahead
with its latest program (funds having been committed in advance
and pressure building up to acquit them by the rapidly approaching
end of the financial year). Such social strategies owe nothing to
Aboriginal priorities.
Deep_Equality_-_Sharing_Our_Country.
In my experience, the constituents of 'Aboriginal' organisations
want full recognition of their rights in their living countries
and they want what I call "deep equality" with Anglo-Australians.
They don't primarily want the material goods - house, school,
generator, running water etc- of Western life, although they do
need some facilities and they will take them if offered.
These items of Anglo-Australia culture are signs on inequality
rather than material goods intrinsically attractive themselves.
To obtain them is to move towards balance. This life current to
draw level is far more important to traditional Aboriginal people
than is access to the passing trinkets of a materialistic society.
This movement calls for a counter-current on the part on
Anglo-australians which develops a practical understanding of
things Aboriginal.
Deep equality involves sharing of the means of generating wealth,
not merely being passive recipients of Anglo- Australian benefits.
It means recognising the capital contribution of traditional
Aboriginal people to the wealth of contemporary Australia and
granting them the place in the Boardrooms which they qualify for
on the strength of their excellent record of management of the
continent and its resources.
This will, no doubt, sound completely incomprehensible to those
who operate with the obsolete and negative stereotypes produced by
the doctrine of terra nullius and the false worship of the
'economy'. When Aboriginal businessmen are properly recognised,
the need for 'Aboriginal' organisations will evaporate.
The mismanagement of European life has meant that Aboriginal
people can't be left alone to live freely on their living
countries. There seems to be an acceptance by them of the
likelihood that Anglo-Australians will continue to be part of the
constraints of life. Given this, there is no question in my mind
that most traditional Aboriginal men want to be recognised as, at
least, partners in running outback land in the Northern Territory.
The message is that, while they can not surrender their culture,
they are prepared to share.
Sharing means that Anglo-Australians must acknowledge the place of
the people whose lives are the land itself. Sharing means relating
both intellectually, emotionally, politically, financially...it
involves the whole Being, not some hived-off department.
The message of sharing country on mutually acceptable terms was
one that was successfully promoted by the Jawoyn traditional
owners at the hand-over of the Nitmiluk/Katherine Gorge this
month. In this situation, where the land had been the subject of a
successful traditional land claim in the face of considerable
local heat, the Jawoyn people no doubt appreciated that their best
interests would be served by using the traditional survival logic
of complementarity which lies close to the core of Aboriginal
decision-making and which has shaped so much of Aboriginal social
and cultural life.
That logic, unlike the narrow logic of science and commerce, is
one which acknowledges the importance of balanced relationships in
all things. It is a logic which stresses similarities in times of
conflict. We are all part of a greater family and to deny this is
to invite increasing hostility.
The Nitmiluk message from the Jawoyn people is quite clear: in
return for an act of real acknowledgement of prior ownership,
Aboriginal people are prepared to accommodate the modified
interests of Anglo-Australia. We have, therefore, a model which
can be applied to deriving an equitable solution in regard to
Aboriginal living countries subject to leases issued by the Crown:
both peoples must contribute.
The major problem remains, however, that of bringing about the
political conditions in which we can clearly hear the voice of the
people who retain the core of Aboriginal cultural values. The
existing Anglo-Australian political system can lay no claims to
being representative of this group of vitally important people.
The members of the pastoral industry themselves are past masters
at inhibiting this voice, as can be expected. The addition of
'Aboriginal' organisations to the list of non- representative
political structures for this task is indicative of the complexity
of the problem.
Perhaps as a step moving towards a more finely attuned means of
articulating Aboriginal realities would be to implement some means
of allowing for an independent community critique of the things
done by others in the local people's name. This cross-checking
device would be in keeping with the traditional Central Australian
structures which prevented individual and sectional interests from
assuming an inappropriate share of the countries resources.
Once we turn our attention to outcomes, and cut through the
rhetoric of the expropriated moral high-ground and the bland
reassurances of the brindle bureaucrats, there is a pressing need
for greater amplification the views of the people who truly
represent the country. They generally live in the worst conditions
and do not qualify for the benefits reserved for those who are
employable.
It remains a simple fact that traditional Aboriginal people are
finishing up well before their time while the employees of
'Aboriginal' organisations are using the political gains and
goodwill of their less acculturated relatives to satisfy their own
needs and map out their career pathways.
Let's face it - who would opt for an early grave in preference for
life on easy street? Only those who live the by truth of the
Dreaming we reflect, as we attend another early funeral. Well
attended by those in the industry.
The_First_Rule.
The first rule in coming to terms with Aboriginal realities
applies to both how we approach the problem of institutionalising
representative cross-cultural communication and to the questions
of cross-culturally valid human life rights. This simple truth is
this: if you attempt to separate these people from their living
countries, either in thought or in practice, you will cause damage
to both the people and the land.
The exclusive logic we inherited from the Greek philosophers, and
which allows us to conceive of people separate from country, must
be turned around if it is to be culturally appropriate for
Aboriginal life. We must come to see that the essential unity of
the Australian ecosystem is the result of the relationship between
Aboriginal people and living country. Without access to their
country, people suffer. Without the people who have managed that
land for eons, the land runs wild.
Similarly with organisations. If you empower people on the basis
of their degree of acculturation, rather than on their real degree
of traditional affiliation, you can only expect to amplify the
messages contained in their values. Putting 'Aboriginal people are
urged to apply' in big letters at the foot of the recruitment
advertisements when the selection criteria are entirely
Anglo-Australian in orientation is the ultimate hypocrisy.
We urgently need to operationalise the traditional Aboriginal
voice and stop playing the make-believe games of skin-coloured
equality.
We are slowly beginning to appreciate that the operation of
traditional Aboriginal practices is an important component of
orderly reproduction for the ecosystem. Aboriginal people have
been saying this for years. It is not merely a matter of their
importance as the ecological knot at the end of the food chain.
Rather, the structures of the ecosystem find their highest point
of articulation in the minds and practices of the First People.
The operation of practice informed by the Dreaming knowledge keeps
Australian life on track.
The reversal of continental land degradation which has resulted
from the simple minded substitution of European practices for
those of the indigenous people requires the restoration of
Aboriginal law into its proper place in the decision-making
processes of the country. Being locked up in a few square
kilometres of land not required by the pastoralists does not move
in this direction. We need to start talking about joint ventures
with Aboriginal partners on the board.
Without moving in this direction there will be further environment
degradation, since governments lack the political will to ensure
that pastoral inspection of land abuse is given a higher priority
than that of the worship of the economy. Aboriginal partners
living on their land would serve as an appropriate counterbalance
to the forces driven by the market.
Without such a move, there will be no meaningful way of life for
those people who do obtain excisions. The whole set-up will be
generated by government funding. This usually proves debilitating
for the people on the receiving end. Life requires meaning. Once
government funding withers, so will the community.
Community life on such an excision will be epi-phenomenal,
generated by government policy intermeshing with the interests of
the commercial mainstream - not founded on the inner workings of
the Aboriginal community. This points to a situation of increasing
anomie.
There is a genuine confusion for Anglo-Australians who want to see
improved living conditions for Aboriginal people. The mere
provision of material facilities as an excuse for the continued
postponement of the act of recognition of the prior place of the
First People in this country will not resolve the underlying
causes of our social problems. It is our turn to change our ways.
The changing world scene may soon take the luxury of selecting our
own pace for tacking this task out of our hands.
A Marriage_Proposal.
Genuine social justice requires that the traditional Aboriginal
owners of land under pastoral lease in the Northern Territory are
properly paid. To my mind, this either means involving them as
partners in cattle ventures which use their living countries or
directly compensating them for the expropriation of their resource
base. The interests of the environment favour the former
alternative.
There is presently talk of taxpayers funds in the order of $250
million being required to establish the infrastructure which will
be required for the match-box excisions. Funds of this magnitude
will be required to reduplicate the services already in existence,
in many cases, at the pastoral homestead.
Culturally inappropriate housing and schools, power facilities,
roads, new bores or water sources will have to be provided to
'raise living standards'. This money could be far more
productively used by purchasing equal shares for traditional
Aboriginal owners with key cattle stations located on their
living countries.
The benefits of this approach would include:
* a direct input into decisions affecting the use of the land
by those who acknowledge its role in reproducing life
* avoiding the need to reduplicate facilities such as schools
and health clinics where these exist on stations
* providing a meaningful life for younger Aboriginal people
in station management, stock work and other land based
activities in a context which would allow for traditional
enculturation
* overcome the problems associated with cattle stations which
are 100% Aboriginal owned (eg difficult to refuse demands
from non-resident relatives for fuel and meat; paper work;
shonky book-keepers)
* ongoing access to a share of the profits (or losses) of the
cattle operation by the Aboriginal community
* the provision of a capital input for the existing pastoral
company, allowing it to reschedule debt, reduce the strain on
the land, lift its land management game and put in capital
improvements
* provide a secure social base for the future of both the
Aboriginal people and pastoral industry and which really
acknowledges the contribution of Aboriginal land and energy
as well as non-Aboriginal capital and expertise.
* in place of consultant planned community disasters, people
could be provided with materials and relevant assistance to
develop their own community structures
* the protection of sacred sites on the land could be
achieved by the partners rather than through an unnecessary
and inadequate government agency
In situations where pastoralists do not see the benefits of
partnerships, perhaps rent could be paid by them to the
traditional owners to enable the Aboriginal people to make their
own economic decisions about their lives.
For example, a rent calculated at the market price of one bullock
per square kilometre for land in Central Australia would go some
way towards balancing the situation. This would provide the
traditional owners with part of the independent economic base they
require to be free of continual government interference in their
lives.
Such money would need to be paid into a community trust fund
administered by the senior traditional owners. This would enable
the responsible community decision makers to decide how to
appropriately spend the income and avoid the destructive effects
of the present authority eroding system welfare payments. Such a
rent may also encourage the empire builders to reduce their
holdings and stop grazing cattle on land which should have never
been stocked.
A move in this direction would certainly result in a better
marriage of interests - and do more to contribute to long term
social stability in Australia - than that proposed by the
Hawke-Perron Match-box solution. Cosmetic measures will not cover
the pox of the abuse of Aboriginal human rights by the cattle
industry. Real movement, not merely a splash of taxpayer funded
government largesse, is required.
Alternatively, it is not difficult to predict that failure to
address the real issue of recognising Aboriginal interests in land
under pastoral lease will eventually result in a call for
Australia's international trading partners to boycott Territory
beef for being socially and environmentally unclean. Trading
rivals would be sure to seize upon this opportunity to cut
Australia out of the competitive markets. The reality of our
situation will not be contained by match-boxes.
End.