Graeme Campbell, M.P.
Graeme Campbell, M.H.R., is Labor member for Kalgoorlie, W.A., and a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. In this letter of March 28, 1984 to his Parliamentary colleagues, he argues that in certain important respects A.L.P. policy on Aborigines is ill-conceived. The real needs of Aborigines, he believes, lie not in gaining ownership of minerals but in improved housing, education and welfare. He also warns of the likelihood of a popular backlash if land rights policy is not modified.
Dear Colleague,
I would like to draw the attention of Caucus Members to an issue which I believe has the potential to cause enormous harm to the interests of the Labor Party if it is not correctly handled.
I refer to the Aboriginal Land Rights issue. While it is the view of a few that this is an issue that will only arise in country electorates and can therefore be disregarded, I would like to outline a case which will illustrate my view that this is an incorrect appreciation.
The Aboriginal issue is already on the agenda of all working class areas throughout Australia. It is not issue limited to West Australia and Queensland but one that is germane to all areas where you have a concentration of people in the lower socio-economic group. There is no greater breeding ground for racism than poverty and people in the lower socio-economic strata -- people that we in the Labor Party have or should have a regard for -- that feel very strongly about what they see, what they perceive to be, an advantage given to any other group. They perceive other groups, particularly minority groups, as a threat to their immediate position. Even if their assessment is not correct it is very understandable and will be ignored us at our peril.
The issue of land to use and the ownership of minerals are separate issues and should be treated as such. Article 3 of our Federal Policy objectives states that we believe in the democratic control and strategic social ownership of Australia's natural resources for the benefit of all Australians. This can only mean ownership by the Crown.
While this is clearly at odds with sections of our policy on Aboriginal Affairs it is in line with a socialist policy and should be applauded and upheld by all members off the Australian Labor Party. Because of the ultra democratic nature of the A.L.P. structure it is always possible and frequently occurs that one-issue zealots are able to write into our policy resolutions that are anathema to a socialist philosophy. This often happens in the dying days of conferences where general interest has waned.
I have always supported the idea of land rights. It is essential to understand what is meant by this rather emotive White term. If it means the granting to Aboriginals of inalienable freehold title to unalienated Crown Land, it means Aboriginal groups will have title to land not being used by anyone else but will not be able to sell it, to borrow upon it or to deed it. For those Aboriginal people who merely require land to use this is a perfectly adequate title. This demand could and should have been fulfilled years ago if successive Liberal/National Party State Governments had made pastoral leases or similar title more available.
In discussing Aboriginal Affairs it should be realised that there are in fact two problems, namely tribal community and urban Aboriginals. While there is an element of overlapping in the fringe dwelling area, they are in the main two separate problems that will not be resolved by a common approach. Of these two dilemmas the tribal is by far the easier to deal with. The demands of these communities are pressing, equitable and in many cases long, long overdue. They are also easily met with the application of relatively modest amounts of money. Their demand is for better health, schooling, land to use, better accommodation, a future for their children, transport and communications and in some cases relief from the presence of alcohol.
There are more Aboriginal people in my electorate than in any other except perhaps the Northern Territory. While I get constant demands for the foregoing I never have any demand for mineral rights from this group unless fulminated by White zealots or in some cases, urban part-Aboriginals. The urban Aboriginal problem is far more complex -- it is complicated by the cultural wilderness and generally hopeless economic circumstances in which these people live.
This group has a nucleus of educated or semi-educated people who articulate demands such as use of Aboriginal languages in schools and even the acceptance of Aboriginal English as having equal status in schools. It is interesting that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs has on occasions been harangued by these people but the masses they purport to represent tell us that their needs are more basic and usually revolve around the clear need for greater financial resources especially for those engaged in second chance or adult secondary or tertiary studies. From tribal communities the demand is always for English and arithmetic. Where bilingual education is asked for it is usually at the behest of the White educators or seen as a means of helping with literacy.
There is minimal political awareness among urban Aboriginals and although they are far more numerous they have little or no political clout. There is a much higher awareness amongst tribal communities. Although this varies greatly it tends to favour the A.L.P. This is not the case where fundamentalist Christian churches are strong or where individuals are perceived as being friendly.
Our record of delivery of service to the tribal community is very patchy and often services provided are not appropriate or wanted. I find it rather incongruous that Ayers Rock is given to a limited community in the Northern Territory while neighbouring communities have over 50 houses built but there is no water or power available for them and this situation has been known for at least two years. Other communities I know of still have no potable water or even basic housing. Health standards are abysmal, education beyond primary level almost non-existent, and job opportunities zero. The recipients of Ayers Rock achieved absolutely nothing tangible and incur for all Aboriginals the unnecessary hostility of the great mass of the population. It is in fact an example of extreme tokenism. In the historical sense it is an irrefutable fact of history that Aboriginals were taken over by a more aggressive culture -- one can argue whether that culture was more advanced or more enlightened but there is no doubt it was more aggressive and if that culture feels itself sufficiently threatened it will do it again and no political party of any persuasion will be able to stand against it. There are many thinking Aboriginals who already sense the backlash and as a politician representing a large number of Aboriginals I know the backlash is there and I am concerned to see that it does not become an irresistible ground swell.
There are, no doubt, some Aboriginals and activists who revel in the animosity of the general population. They are invariably those with good jobs or some form of group protection. Overwhelmingly Aboriginal people do not want to relish the opprobrium of the general public. Most Aboriginal people realise or sense that as they represent only 1.5% of the population any advancements long overdue to them must be obtained with the consent of the vast majority.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs it is quite apparent to me that the problems of the urban Aboriginal must be seen in socio-economic terms and not in cultural terms. We need a policy that addresses this need and not a policy hat seeks to salve the conscience of the guilt-ridden middle class. Such a policy should be delivering real benefits to the Aboriginal people, greater funding for second chance education, provision of more counsellors and a career structure within which counsellors can get support and service training, more teacher aides with career prospects and permanency within the system, more emphasis an curriculum development particularly in the field of standard English, more homemaking services and the provision of more and better housing. Only when these needs have been met can we begin to tackle the problems of job opportunity. Such initiatives are not as expensive as they sound as most of the money could be obtained from a restructuring of the present expenditure. A continuation of the tokenism will simply engender a backlash that will be devastating for Aboriginal people and give us enormous problems at the polls. Land rights has a place in the development of tribal community but has no relevance for urban Aborigines. Mineral rights are total anathema to a socialist philosophy and in any case will not redress the past years of wrongs.
The Northern Territory is a living example of this and while Mr Bjelke-Petersen obviously overstates the case when he says that mineral rights in the Northern Territory have created a class of black sheiks there is enough substance in the allegation to be uncomfortable. Mr Bjelke-Petersen could also have alluded to the many mediocre white lawyers who have grown fat on land rights. In the long run mineral rights will have to be clawed back from the Aboriginals in the Territory and I believe that this move will have the support of all those Aboriginal people who do not have any minerals on their land.
What is needed is a policy of low key consolidation where real problems are redressed -- a recognition that women have an especially significant part to play in urban Aboriginal advancement, and that the already dangerous White backlash is not further excited. The paper does not purport to be the last word on the issue. I am conscious of the generalisations in my arguments. However, it is a subject that the Party should be facing and it should be making informed decisions after rational debate. The hot-house conditions of Federal conferences do not lend themselves to this end.
No comments:
Post a Comment