In November, 1982, senior law men of the Warumungu-Alyawarra
alliance prepared a ground painting in the bush to the east
of the Mulga Aboriginal town camp in the Northern Territory
outback town of Tennant Creek. The painting was specially
prepared by the men to be shown to the Aboriginal Land
Commissioner, Justice Sir William Kearney, and the other
significant members of the Commissioner's party.
With the exception of the First People themselves, the ground
painting was the single most important piece of 'evidence'
presented in the Warumungu land claim. And yet the twists of
events resulted in it being consigned to a non-existent
realm - put out of sight and out of consideration. The key
evidence was 'over-looked' in a land claim process which
produced over six thousand pages of transcript, several trips
to Courts of Appeal (two to the High Court), untold amounts
of tax-payers funds for legal costs, and unknown costs to the
well-being and life of the First People.
The examination of how this situation came about requires the
examination of social processes underway in contemporary
Australian life.
Interestingly, there appears to be a clustering of interests -
an alliance of sorts - which shares one common denominator.
They deny the reality of the role played by senior Aboriginal
lawmen in maintaining social and ecological balance.
It is ironic that this message of denial should emerge from a
process - a 'traditional' land claim process - which has as
part of its rationale the recognition of rights of the First
People. Those rights, it appears, will only be recognised to
the extent that the Anglo-Australian formation can do so
without incurring real cost to itself.
These costs are not merely financial. The most expensive costs
would involve changing the Anglo-Australian norms from
monoculturalism to a working bi-culturalism. This would
require a genuine acceptance of the validity of a non-European
way of interpreting experience and relating to life. It is
clear that Anglo-Australia does not presently see the value of
making this move.
First People are to be recognised only to the extent that they
are prepared to be dressed up in European fashions. Under the
guise of recognition, then, we find a continuation of the
pattern of subjection which has accompanied the European
invasion of Australia.
WHOSE GROUND RULES?
In 1982 Justice Kearney was conducting an official Hearing,
under the terms of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern
Territory) Act of 1976, into a traditional land claim in the
Tennant Creek area of the Northern Territory. Under the terms
of that Act, Aboriginal people may bring traditional land
claims to areas of unalienated (vacant) Crown land.
To obtain recognition as 'traditional owners' (as defined by
that Act) they must be able to satisfy the Commissioner that
they belong to a 'local descent group' with primary spiritual
responsibility for the land under claim. The Land Rights Act
defines 'traditional Aboriginal owners' of land to mean:
...a local descent group of Aboriginals who
(a) have common spiritual affiliations to a site on the
land, being affiliations that place the group under a
primary spiritual responsibility for that site and for
the land; and
(b) are entitled by Aboriginal tradition to forage as of
right over that land.
If the Commissioner is satisfied that the claimants meet these
and other criteria as set out in the Land Rights Act, he may
recommend to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that the
claimant peoples be recognised as traditional owners for the
unalienated Crown land.
The findings of the Commissioner are not binding on the
Minister. It is usual, however, for the Minister to eventually
accept the recommendations of the Commissioner and to
recommend the granting of a form of title to a land trust (not
the traditional owners). A trust, apparently, is an acceptable
means of recognising Aboriginal ownership by the concerns for
property which lie at the heart of the Westminster system of
government.
Being granted title to the wastelands of the Crown, by this
complicated process, falls a long way short of the objectives
of the senior lawmen of the First People. In the opinion of
this writer, based on several years association with senior
Warumungu and Alyawarra men, they seek recognition of the
vital role their system of law plays in the government of the
affairs of life.
The participation of the senior lawmen in the Warumungu land
claim did not merely involve an attempt to gain recognition
for the desert country lying between the extensive leases,
from the Crown, to the cattlemen. It involved a statement of
claim to the very waters of life itself. They were not passive
players in a game in which the ground rules originating from
Westminster - as laid down in various Acts - were accepted
without challenge.
The senior lawmen were active players with ground rules of
their own. Universal proclamations in distant Houses did not
extinquish their system of law. Life had selected them as its
representatives for the country. Their problem is to obtain
recognition of this.
The senior lawmen participated in the Warumungu land claim in
yet another attempt to establish diplomatic relationships with
the officials of Anglo-Australia. It was not their first
attempt. They had tried in 1901 to communicate with
representatives of the Anglo-Australian order - the
anthropologists Spencer and Gillen. European categories of
understanding had prevented their messages from being
received.
It was not the first time, either, that Warumungu messages
would be subject to an enormous amount of interference to
prevent them from being received and understood.
For the Warumungu men, subjected to a testing century long
'affirmation drought', making contact - real contact - was a
task of the highest priority. Making the attempt would involve
taking a calculated risk. Things which are normally not shown
to 'outsiders' would be put on display.
Failure of this initiative would rebound on the senior men in
ways which remain invisible to those outside the system of
reciprocities. The system of give and take between living
people comprises the real workings of life in First Australia.
Their continued struggle would be made more difficult if their
initiative failed. Their authority and standing would be
questioned by the younger people.
The erosion of traditional authority is itself a central
factor in the processes of destruction presently running
amok in life. Social and ecological breakdown affects both the
Anglo-Australian and Aboriginal peoples. The healing process
requires that we become critical of the outcomes of the
application of 'scientific' thought (as opposed to banking on
its promises) and that we develop a real understanding of the
role played by traditional authority and the operation of
First law in fine tuning the forces of life.
The messages which are derived from direct experience with
Warumungu people by Anglo-Australians are usually rendered
'unreal' by the operations of a sort of remote control
imperial order. The mechanisms for this are buried deep within
the system of order which we construct as part of the process
of socialisation.
While the representatives of the Warumungu continue to pursue
'deep equality' - dialogue - with Anglo-Australia, the
cultural enterprises of Western life continue to deny this
voice and insist that the First People be dressed and housed
in categories of the middle-class/wage-slave imagination.
There is money in housing contracts but not, apparently, in
acknowledging the place of First Australians as possible
partners in life.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PAINTING.
The significance of the ground painting can be assessed from
at least two levels. Firstly, from the level of its
significance within First life. Secondly, from its position
vis-a-vis the Anglo-Australian formation.
It may well be possible for others to decode the messages of
the ground painting as part of a visual language employed by
life in Central Australia. The development of a semiotic
approach to such paintings is still in a rudimentary stage.
Interestingly enough, one claim to being able to decipher the
language comes from a non-anthropological study which relates
the designs to those employed by the ancient Egyptians and the
Masonic Lodge.
This is not the place to explore the richness of such a
relationship, except to comment that First Law
probably predates anything as recent as the Egyptian
experiments.
The interpretation of ground designs requires access to the
esoteric song/chants which accompany their preparation. Both
designs and song/chants are part of the complex known amongst
the Warumungu as the Wirnkarra (Dreaming). The senior lawmen
are the experts in this interpretation, and it would be
completely inappropriate for novices to attempt to usurp their
position.
One general principle which can be applied to order the
otherwise baffling degree of complexity, is to assume as
axiomatic that First law treats respect for life as a total
social fact. Respect is the key which transforms the
complexity created by the imposition of European understanding
into simple sense.
What can be said is that the presentation of such a design is
a means, within the original system of Australian law, of
proving the credentials of people claiming to have a
preordained relationship to aspects of the cosmos. These
aspects include features of the country.
The so-called 'totemic' system is one in which the foundations
of consciousness are linked with features of the world as
signified by the Wirnkarra cosmology. Both people (Being) and
country (Cosmos) are related metaphorically. The country
provides the basis for consciousness. Life, as signified and
not as objectified by Western thought, aligns with forces
which lie outside of a European notion of 'humanity'.
Gillen provides a telling account from the Warumungu of the
controls associated with the reproduction of designs:
At one time during the progress of decorating the
performers we thought there was going to be a serious
row. One old fellow, always a promiment man, suddenly
started off to his camp after the men began painting and
returned in a short time armed to the teeth, a couple of
boomerangs in his hand also a murderous looking butchers
knife - and half a dozen boomerangs in his belt. He came
forward waving and shouting out in a voice hoarse with
passion and paused assuming a threatening attitude about
30 yards from where the men were grouped. His language
was decidedly vigourous ... On enquiry we found that
another man had dared to decorate without the old
warriors permission a man who should have been decorated
by him. This and this only was the cause of the trouble.
(Gillen 1968:220 - emphasis added)
The process of bestowal demonstrates that the use of these
designs is not a simple matter of 'Blackfellows' painting
themselves up for a meaningless song and dance. Rather, the
situation is subject to strict controls. The metaphor which
comes to mind is that the procedure involved is similar to
that associated with the experiments of physicists - except in
this case it is not subatomic particles which are being
manipulated but living forces.
It may be worth drawing attention to the fact that First
People did not 'dress up' in the European sense for everyday
life. It is European life which insists that ceremonial dress
will be worn at all times in public. When First People make
visible their identity, as determined by cosmological
considerations, it is an occasion charged with great
significance. Then they truly become their eternal selves.
The designs associated with these highly charged situations
are not mere play things. Within the system of First law the
designs are transcendental credentials. Their importance is of
a higher order than anything 'ordinary' - including title
deeds on paper.
The semi-public display of these credentials provides
significant others with the opportunity to provide better
credentials. Failure to be able to do so renders any verbal
claims by competitors empty and, in so doing, strips
legitimacy from any corresponding action.
Part of the significance of the ground painting in the
Warumungu claim was to demonstrate that the men staging the
display were the appropriate people, vis-a-vis other First
People, for the Anglo-Australian authorities to be dealing
with.
Secondly, in putting on the display, the senior men were also
issuing a direct challenge to the credentials of the Anglo-
Australian authorities. The land categorised by Europeans as
being 'under claim', was also categorised by Europeans as
'Crown land'. This itself is subject to dispute by First
People.
By their actions, since they are often (but not always) unable
to directly articulate the question, they ask to see the
credentials of those who claim ownership of their living
countries. They ask to see the credentials as signified by the
Wirnkarra/cosmological law of the country. Distant decrees of
sovereignty by other players do not extinguish the operations
of the original system.
(Footnote in original)
In addition to the claim to areas of unalienated Crown land,
the claim book which was prepared for the claimants and which
was presented to the Aboriginal Land Commissioner prior to the
commencement of his hearing, requested the Commissioner to
exercise another of his functions as specified by the Land
Rights Act Section 50(1)(b)). This function was to inquire
into the extent of Aboriginal ownership of areas of alienated
Crown land. Alienated areas of Crown land included pastoral
leases and town land.
The Warumungu claim book stated:
There can be little doubt that Warumungu people are
interested in obtaining recognition of the full extent of
Warumungu country. It may be appropriate to suggest that,
in addition to the collection of evidence in relation to
areas of unalienated Crown land, the Land Commissioner
consider the exercise of the function given to him under
Section 50 (1)(b) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) Act
during the present hearing.
Section 50(1)(b) of that Act lists a function of the Land
Commissioner as being:
"to inquire into the likely extent of traditional
land claims by Aboriginals to alienated Crown land
and to report to the Minister and to the Minister
for the Northern Territory, from time to time, the
results of his inquiries;"
An inquiry under this section is not an inquiry into
traditional ownership as such but is, rather, directed
towards the likely extent of traditional land claims to
alienated Crown land. There will be considerable amounts
of evidence relevant to such an inquiry generated almost
as a by-product of the present land claim hearing. Given
that the process of hearing land claim evidence involves
a great expense, and given the meagre financial resources
of the claimants, making such an inquiry within the
context of the land claim hearing would appear to be
appropriate.
From the perspective of the present claimants, such areas
of alienated Crown land would include, either in whole or in
part, the following pastoral properties: Tennant Creek
Station; McLaren Creek Station; Singleton Station;
Kurundi Station; Epenarra Station; Dalmore Downs Station;
Alroy Downs Station; Brunette Downs Station; Rockhamption
Downs Station; Brunchilly Station; Phillip Creek Station
and Banka Banka Station. There may also prove to be other
areas of alienated Crown land as defined in the
Aboriginal Land Rights Act that could be included in such
an inquiry. (Hagen et al 1982:3-4)
As the author of those words, I was translating my
understanding of the claims being made by the senior men. I
had developed this understanding during the three years of
intermittent research with the senior Warumungu and Alyawarra
men. They did not accept that their interests in their
traditional living countries were to be restricted to those
areas which had been discarded by mainstream Anglo-Australian
interests after a hundred years of unfettered expropriation.
This raises the question of the duty of the anthropologist. I
interpreted my duty as being one which required me to
accurately translate (taking into account a broad range of
non-verbal communications) their position to the Anglo-
Australian authorites.
(Footnote ends)
What was being claimed in the Warumungu claim was far more
than rights to areas of vacant Crown land. While achieving
recognition of 'ownership' for areas of vacant Crown land was
a desirable outcome, it was not the only outcome nor the most
important outcome. The areas under claim, and this may explain
why it produced such a fierce resistence, included areas of a
less tangible character.
We are not well equipped for dealing with these less tangible
realities. It is not sufficent to say that the claim included
a social and moral component. Nor is it sufficient to say,
limply, that there were a variety of unconscious games in
play.
Such language does not capture the true power of the forces
involved.
To adequately convey something of the character of the
original Warumungu land claim requires the use of stronger
language. In the Warumungu land claim we can see no less than
the unfolding of a cosmic drama.
In this drama, two very different life-designs come into
contact. One design is part of life as constituted by the
open-ended Songlines of experience. One design, apart from
life, constructs fences and proclaims the laws of private
property.
The present land claim was 'supposed' to be restricted to
those areas of land which, generally speaking, remained
unwanted by the cattlemen and other mainstream Anglo-
Australian interests. The scraps, as it were. It was not an
invitation to share and engage in human dialogue.
The ground painting which the men constructed for the
Aboriginal Land Commissioner demonstrated that, according to
the law of First Australia, their interests extended over a
very wide region and included land leased by the Crown to
other parties. It also demonstrated that, according to the
law of First Australia, their interests extend over areas of
life which the assumptions of Anglo-Australian sovereignty
reserve for itself.
Coupled with this statement of priority by First People is a
message of a willingness to engage in cross-cultural dialogue
and discourse with the Anglo-Australian people. There is a
motivation for balanced and genuine power sharing - 'deep
equality'. It is often referred to in Aboriginal-English as
'level'. The two peoples must become level.
Central to the act of recognition this requires is the
appreciation that the First People are not powerless victims
of some mechanical and inevitable historical process.
Their power is mystified by the motivated system of false
consciousness which pervades European life. The Westminster
system systematically expropriates the power of First People
to itself - the power of providing the stable base for life.
As it lies outside the European way of seeing, the
contribution of Australia's original lawmen remains
unacknowledged. Yet the base laid down and the finer tuning
made possible by First Law enables other games to be played.
Without a functioning First Law, flood and bushfire run
rampant. The restoration of the First Law into the centre of
the decision-making process of mainstream life is crucial for
all people.
Restoring First law is not the same as 'raising the living
standards of Aboriginal people'. It does not mean further
changing Aboriginal life to comply with European standards of
living. Those standards are killing people. Rather it means
that there has been enough change on the part of the First
People - they drive vehicles, speak English, wear clothing,
and so on - and it is now time for a demonstration of good
will on the part of Anglo-Australians. It is the time for
Whitefellas to change if they want to have a share - a
place - in the scheme of things.
The original Warumungu land claim hearing, with the
participation of the senior lawmen, was itself an expression
of the continued willingness of the senior lawmen to attempt
the difficult task of engaging in dialogue with European
Beings seemingly heedless of their surroundings.
Within the terms of the law of First Australia, this ground
painting - in which every stroke is applied to the
accompaniment of song-chants - constitutes a full and complete
statement of the bona fides of the men as the genuine human
representatives for the surrounding country. The senior men
were not merely presenting more 'evidence' for the consumption
of the European Court. They were engaged in negotiations of
those ground rules.
If the claim to land (perceived in European terms as a
commodity) is known as 'land rights', then the senior men -
who identify land with life - were making a claim for 'life
rights'. These include the right to continue to govern life
according to the directives of the original system of law.
The living countries of the First People provide both a
resource base for present people and the means of re-
incarnation in the eternal cycle of life. The claim for life
rights cuts across several areas of social justice. It is a
claim for a form of truly comprehensive human rights.
These rights include, in the definition of human well-being,
rights to the resources required to live a properly elaborated
life without being reduced to the landless condition of the
European working class. The definition of human rights, for
First People, must include the rights to their living
countries.
This was the true voice of the First People - that of the
senior 'claimants' in the Warumungu land claim. It is a voice
which lies outside of the workings of the market place. It
speaks of a different way to that of the owner of capital and
that of the working man.
It is not the voice of the great Aussie Dream of a quarter
acre block. Rather, it is the voice of the Great Australian
Dreaming.
As soon as this voice was heard, with all its implications for
the rights of all people, steps were taken to silence that
voice...