Aboriginal struggle like those in China and Iran

Michael Anderson (Nyoongar Ghurradjong Murri Ghillar) is an Aboriginal rights activist, clan leader of the 3,000 Euahlayi peoples of north-western New South Wales and Native Title claimant to their traditional lands on their behalf.

From 1969 Mr. Anderson has been one of the leaders in the Australian Black Power movement and was appointed by his peers as the First Aboriginal Ambassador to white Australia after he and two other comrades established the Aboriginal Tent Embassy on the front lawns of Australia's parliament house in 1972.

He was taught his customs and traditions through his people's sacred ceremonies. In 1979 he was appointed to the Office of the Public Prosecutions in criminal law as an instructing officer (the equivalent of a solicitor) in the state of New South Wales.

Mr. Anderson has been a lecturer at several Australian universities, writing and teaching units in Aboriginal studies that were inclusive of traditional Aboriginal society. He is the National Convenor of a new political movement in Australia that is promoting worldwide the continuing sovereignty of indigenous peoples.

Mr. Anderson is also involved in connecting the sacred songlines of the ancient traditions of Aboriginal peoples around the world in an attempt to prove that they have a Dreaming that links them to the original creation.

Mr. Anderson has also played professional Rugby League football. He also paints in the dot technique.

Bio source:
Michael Anderson - Interview with an Aboriginal leader

Goodooga - Larger Map

For more information about The Euahlayi Tribe. See The Euahlayi Tribe by K. Langloh Parker, 2005

Michael Anderson
Goodooga, Northwest NSW, 5 December 09

By continuing their assimilation policies despite the success of the 1967 referendum, the Australian federal and state governments should realise that some of the people may be fooled sometimes but we will not all be fooled all the time.

It is important for our people to understand the deceit and deception that continue to be peddled by all political parties in Aboriginal affairs.

The following are passages of a federal cabinet's decision (Decision No. 314) dated Sydney, 2 July, 1968.

  1. The Cabinet referred firstly to the objective which its Aboriginal policy is to serve. It declared firmly that the ultimate objective would continue to be assimilation - a single Australian community.
  2. While recognising that it will take generations for the Aboriginals to become fully assimilated into the Australian community, the Cabinet's position is that it will hold patiently and purposefully to this aim. It will measure all any policy proposal against it and would want to avoid proposals which, by identifying Aboriginals as such and setting them permanently apart from other Australians, are likely to have the effect of acknowledging and establishing a policy of continuing separate development leading to an eventual racial problem.
  3. Within the foregoing, the Cabinet indicated that it is ready to contemplate support for transitional arrangements which would help Aboriginals to overcome social and other handicaps which now impede or stand in the way of, more rapid progress towards assimilation.

This policy was signed off on by the secretary to the cabinet, Mr. E.J. Bunting.

What we must all remember is that all successive governments have maintained a very tight stranglehold on all that we have attempted to achieve and they have done this through their grants and funding conditions when they have agreed to fund our organisations.

We have not been able to become self-determining and self sufficient. All programmes put in place to deliver services to our communities are socialist in their design and purpose, with the federal and state ministers for Aboriginal affairs being the gate keepers. Up front they put wall-to-wall semi-important black fullas only to demonstrate to the rest of the world that Australian governments are doing something about establishing an independent Aboriginal programme to bridge the gap between the two Australias.

De-colonisation has occurred in every previously colonised part of the developed world except Australia. Everywhere else people have fought for their right to retain their distinct identity, including their right to keep and speak their own languages, their culture and their own religious practices.

The repressive and discriminate laws that we are subject to here in Australia would not be tolerated anywhere else in the free world. But here in Australia the government has spin doctors operating full time to hide the true state of play in respect of Aboriginal people. They are paid big dollars to convince the white Australian public that what they do for Aborigines is in the interest of the Aboriginal people and that special measures are necessary.

The reason for the use of the words 'special measures' is to continue with their assimilation policy of 1968. We Aboriginal people cannot permit this to continue without a fight.

Nationalist movements all over the world have erupted because of the oppressive rules that governed people and their lives that are designed and maintained by the dominant society. China and Iran are just two examples of places whose people are trying to win their freedom. We are no different here in Australia.

Enough is enough and if governments don't want to talk to us then we will find a way to win our freedom to live as Aborigines, keeping our Dreaming, language, songs and culture alive for our future generations.

This is a right of all people, and it is our right to fight for our future.

Previous Press Release

Mr Michael Anderson's statement
Goodooga, northwest NSW, 5 December 09

All the recent talks on the internet of the need to be politically pro-active is inspiring and exciting. But challenging the political dominance of the dominant society is an admirable yet real objective that we as a people must plan for. The greatest hurdle that we face as a people is the need to politicize our youth.

As a people, though, we cannot and should not overlook our need to work through that which is hurting our people the most, poverty and hopelessness.

There are many elders, middle-aged and youth who would revel in political action. Those of us who have been out there fighting this fight at the bureaucratic and grassroots levels understand and know what it takes to make changes. Our enemy, this system, dominates and suppresses us and cleverly disguises the demon by arguing that they (the whites) need to bridge the gap for us!

What is this? The truth of the matter is they want us to assimilate, never mind our uniqueness as the oldest living culture on the earth. If we fail to stand and fight now, our children and their children will curse us because we will leave them a world without knowledge other than what white anthropologists have gathered. Our old ones told them some things but generally misled them into believing that what was told to them was all and the truth. We come from a secret society and to think that the old ones would give them knowledge of our secrets is to delude oneself.

We have an obligation to our children and our future generations to make a stand. Those who were born in the 30s, 40s and 50s lived and grew up amongst the last ceremonially educated. We lived the lives of imprisoned people confined to government-controlled mission stations without the right of freedom of movement and association. All materials provided to us were on loan only, including the clothes and blankets they gave us.

I plead that we unite in our endeavours. In the 1970's we succeeded because we believed in each other and we were committed to the cause. The time has come for us to take the fight to the dominant society again, otherwise we are finished as a distinctive race of people.

I call upon those who believe that the fight must be re-ignited to discuss a coming together early in the new year where we can talk of a new way. Let us not have the dominant society dictate to us what sort of and type of people they want to talk with about our future. No revolution ever came from the top down. We must take it from the bottom up to politicians and let them know that we are Aboriginal, Murris, Koories, Yolngu, Yumitji, Nyoongar, etc.

We must now set the agenda, not Kevin Rudd and Minister Macklin. It is our lives, our children and our future existence and we must make the decisions that will impact on us.

We need a date and a place to meet early in the new year. We need fighters and believers. We need committed people who do not want to promote self. If we believe, then we must dare to struggle as a people against all odds.

Our agenda is our right to exist as people on our terms. The right to own our culture and land; the right to profit from those lands; the right to adapt; the right to own our children; the right to teach our children our culture, the right to speak our languages; the right to teach our children an integrated educational system. This is not apartheid, this is survival.

The Catholics teach their children in Catholic schools; the Jews teach their children their culture and educate them in private schools; the Muslims can have their mosques; Scientology can be recognised as a religion under Australian and international law. SO CAN WE do all these things?

We have rights, let us exercise them.


Aboriginal struggle like those in China and Iran

Provisions as to races disqualified from voting.

. For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted.

Amending the Constitution
After the Referendum on 21 May 1977, the Constitution Alteration (Referendums) Act 1977 (enacted on 29 July 1977) made the following additions to Section 128:

128. This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:–

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

In this section, "Territory" means any territory referred to in section one hundred and twenty-two of this Constitution in respect of which there is in force a law allowing its representation in the House of Representatives.

Source: Constitution Alteration (Referendums) Act 1977 (No. 84 of 1977). (NAA: A1559/1, 84/1977)

by Patrick Byrt, Human Rights Convenor
Patrick Byrt

FYI - RE: Ray Jackson "the struggle of the basque people of spain" would be a better example, as would be the palestinians in the gaza strip. one could also add the struggle of the five northern
counties of ireland" Re: Aboriginal struggle like those in China and Iran:"

Ultimately the linchpin to this process of entrenched denial of Aboriginal
equity resides in the White Australia Policy foundation to the Australian Constitution and its institution in the six (6) Australian States (with their racist legislative powers under Section 25 of the ongoing racialist Australian Constitution), which empowers the Parliaments of the States to legislate to prevent the people of any race from voting for the Parliament of that State if so desired.

This then must raise whether the people of such a race in that State would have any right to vote for the Senate and/or their Federal Representative in the House of Representatives, owing to the interrelation in the constitution between the legal entitlements to the franchise for State and Federal Parliaments.

For instance, if a State used such a power against the Aboriginal race as it was intended to be used, would a person of that race in that State be entitled to stand for Federal Parliament as a Senator for that State or as a candidate to be a Federal Representative in a Federal seat there?

This is a political issue that an Aboriginal political movement for a national party might raise.

Such is the nature rather than the clear ambit of the power that resides in State Parliaments over Aboriginal people.

With such a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of Aboriginal people is it any wonder that there is a great fear in the Aboriginal people about what a State has the power to do to you all, which includes stripping Aboriginal people of their land rights.

This is a political issue that an Aboriginal political movement for a national party might raise.

The push for stripping away any residual rights of the Aboriginal people to the minerals beneath their lands was initiated nationally in South Australia by its "Reformist" Premier Don Dunstan, who got the SA Parliament to pass legislation during his period as Premier of Labor government to abrogate such rights in fee simple holders to own the minerals under the ground, which until then were in common law a part of the ownership of freehold land.

In terms of potential mining areas, this meant farmers in the main.

But the law did not make any exception for the Aboriginal Descendants who had inherited their land rights to their traditional lands from their ancestors.
This is a political issue that an Aboriginal political movement for a national party might raise.

Today in Australia there is no government policy committed to the land rights of the Aboriginal Descendants for ownership of the minerals beneath their lands, and there possibly would be an opportunity to raise this as a political issue, were all Aboriginal people to be less fearful of what White Australia Policy Founded State governments would resort to doing to their existing rights if they speak out using their rights and risk there being a "white" backlash against Aboriginal voices.

This is a political issue that an Aboriginal political movement for a national party might raise.

Although the crucial challenge to success of a loss of courage among those aspiring to gain rights, freedom and independence can be met by ensuring that an adequately ongoing encouragement is undertaken; despite the effectiveness of persistence as a tool against deterrence; no matter the up lift in inspiration that a determination to struggle for spiritual values brings; and contrary to the uplift in endurance that constant re-commitment provides; it is utterly and solely the legally entrenched social exclusion from an equal right to an equal participation in negotiation for the repeated renewal of the contested social order that alone is unsurpassably definitive of the unalterably debasing depth of the wretched ignominy that is grindingly imposed by racial intolerance as a daily fare of prejudice, racism and discrimination, by which racist government vaunts its daily victory over the dispossessed.

This is a political issue that an Aboriginal political movement for a national party might raise.

What needs to happen is for support to be generated in Reconciliation for raising a new public policy agenda item in the national discussion on rights about the issue that it is time in the name of Human Rights for a new sense of national justice about eradicating the ongoing and still powerful forces of the legally entrenched White Australia Policy Foundation to the Australia States and Commonwealth under the Australian Constitution that prevents the Australian population from undertake a national "coming to terms" over the unfinished business of Aboriginal land rights and self-determination based on Aboriginal rights to economic empowerment, by systemically prohibiting Aboriginal negotiation over the social order.

This is a political issue that an Aboriginal political movement for a national party might raise.

The right place to promote the national legal issues about this is from South Australia because of the land rights legal foundation to South Australia as raised for public debate and the national policy agenda in the new book: "Coming To Terms" on the 1836 Letters Patent in South Australia by prominently well qualified lawyers.

Coming to Terms
Click for larger view

This book is published in South Australia by Wakefield Press: www.wakefieldpress.com.

Coming to Terms Aboriginal Title in South Australia Edited by Shaun Berg Foreword by Geoffrey Robertson PB 592 PP 230 x 168 ISBN 9781862548671 $39.00.

95 History / Aboriginal Issues Wakefield Press.

Order Form Download

Click for larger view
» Print Verson pdf - 345kb

Coming to Terms challenges conventional thinking about Aboriginal title in South Australia. It does so by examining the legal consequences of provisions in the State's founding documents that reserve or protect Aboriginal rights to land.

Unless the actual legal precedents that are available to be used in South Australia to make the case for the protection by Magna Carta and the Proclamation of an English Government on 28 December 1836 for a new colony South Australia, of the land rights vested and recognised as such by the 1836 Letters Patent issued by William IV on 19 February 1836 in London to define the boundaries of South Australia are used in national debate and political discussion about the utter denial and unlawful failure of governments to defend Aboriginal rights, there is very much less prospect that an Aboriginal national political movement could raise a political battle over the racism of the White Australia Policy founded States, which would be able to gain traction in national political debate and therefore not be able to take off in the direction of contesting that denial to the Aboriginal people of their ongoing equity rights in the minerals being removed from their ancestral lands without getting the justified payment of any royalty to them for the wealth that is being made from their lands.

This is a political issue that an Aboriginal political movement for a national party might raise.

There is a good political argument to be raised that the Letters Patent that apply in South Australia are a development of the 1763 Royal Proclamation that was the law of the Empire on Aboriginal land rights which was behind the failure of the Batman Treaty with the traditional Wurundjeri Owners of the site of Melbourne in 1835.

It is this Royal proclamation which offers the Aboriginal people the moral if not legal or equitable basis to asserting their justification for a legislated exception being made by all the State Parliaments so that royalties are set aside from mining on Aboriginal lands for the express development of Aboriginal self-determination.

This is a political issue that an Aboriginal political movement for a national party might raise.

The Aboriginal Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement in South Australia has already made this case quite clear for South Australia that mining developments need to set aside payments for Aboriginal people into a development fund for the benefit of Aboriginal people across the State.

Also the Ngarrindjeri people are leading a struggle under the Aboriginal Alliance Coalition Movement for the implementation of the Letters Patent in South Australia.

This makes South Australia a good and fertile field for advancing the opportunity presented by the injustices Aboriginal people suffer on their own lands, to undertake a united national Aboriginal political movement based on the principles of the Letters Patent, and opposed directly to the continuation of the White Australia Policy Founded States having any race power any longer to control their populations by race based laws and policy.

This is a political issue that an Aboriginal political movement for a national party might raise.

It is a matter of having the organisation set up to link the dots between the denial of the equity rights of the Aboriginal people to receive royalty payments for minerals taken from their lands and the laws by which race based constitutional arrangements are kept in place to keep Aboriginal people from receiving land justice in their own lands, when the legal linchpin to this is the racist Section 25 of the Commonwealth Constitution.

The way forward is to bring together the movements for a Bill of Rights and for Reconciliation with an Aboriginal led movement for a national Aboriginal political party and the achievement of a Treaty including a national Bill of Rights, which abrogates Section 25 of the White Australia Policy Constitution and provides instead for Aboriginal parliamentary representation.

This is a political issue that an Aboriginal political movement for a national party might raise.

If this is acceptable to you brothers and sister then I suggest that you write to the Ngarrindjeri to seek to obtain the support of the Aboriginal Alliance Coalition Movement for creating a National Aboriginal political party structure to be established in South Australia based on pursuing the 1836 Letters Patent and having a national Aboriginal Political Movement formed in pursuit of Reconciliation with the policy objectives of eradicating the ongoing impacts of the White Australia Policy Founded State powers and replacing their political structure with the creation of Aboriginal political representative structures delivering land rights and self-determination for the development of Aboriginal lands and waters including mining royalty rights.

This is a political issue that an Aboriginal political movement for a national party might raise.

Ngarrindjeri people contacts are:
Ngarrindjeri Tendi Rupelle (the Chief leader of the Ngarrindjeri government {Tendi} and the Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority)
George Trevorrow - Phone 08 8575 6001.

www.coorongwildernesslodge.com Email kurangk@lm.net.au

Tom Trevorrow of the Ngarrindjeri Lands and Progress association - Phone: 08 8575 1557 - Contactable in the first instance via - www.ngarrindjeri.com

Ngarrindjeri Matt Rigney - Chairperson of the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations MLDRIN www.mldrin.org.au - Mobile: 0428 997 297 - former Greens SA candidate.

Murray Bridge Ngarrindjeri Victor Wilson of the Kalparrin Community at Murray Bridge - Victor Wilson c/- admin@kalparrin.com www.kalparrin.com Please get back to me with your consideration of this approach.

Kind regards,

Aboriginal struggle like those in China and Iran

Ray Jackson, President, Indigenous Social Justice Association

Ray JacksonRay Jackson

Ray was stolen from his Aboriginal mother at the age of two, and placed with a white family when aged about three. This history has instilled in Ray a firm commitment to justice for Aboriginal people, and opposition to all forms of oppression.

In 1987 Ray became active in Deaths in Custody issues, and was a coordinator of the Aboriginal Deaths In Custody Watch Committee from 1991 to 1997. In 1997 Ray became a founding member of the Indigenous Social Justice Association Inc, an unfunded organisation working within gaols, Juvenile Justice, police, Courts, Coronial matters, Family issues, Education, Health, etc.

Bio from ABC Indigenous

more words from michael but i do have some quibbles with this statement of his.

i do not for one moment consider the 1967 referendum to be the success that he claims it to be. the passing of the referendum by some 90% odd of those who voted at that time, and mainly by non-aboriginal voters as very few of our people would have voted, really done very little. we were now to be counted in the census and now had the right to drink in hotels federally. albeit that they remained mostly segregated. and as history has shown us, the right to drink has been more of a death sentence than a blessing.

the federal governments since that time have all negated their responsibilities in controlling our affairs and have left us to the racist state and territory policies that continue to this day. especially so in the nt whereby all governments should be charged with theft and fraud in their handling and distribution of federal funding for aboriginal affairs. yet the practice continues even under a krudd government.

i see no success at all. we are far worse off now than we were back in '67. whatever the stated aims of 1967 the only all-pervasive policy from all governments has been the total assimilation of our peoples. and the longer the assimilation battle is allowed to continue, the more we lose.

our culture, lore, law are weakening with each passing year. our bloodlines are becoming more diluted. our so-called land rights are a sick joke of access to our land only. not full ownership. no ownership of our resources.

when do we say that enough is enough. we must demand and fight for our rights. yet by doing nothing we acquiesce to our continued assimilation.

i question whether decolonisation has happened around the world. for sure it has happened in some places but even in the usa and canada first nations are struggling to be recognised as 'official' tribes. they are not recognised for land or other propriety rights.

the tribes of south america are even now being slaughtered and robbed of their lands and their way of life.

the maori are still struggling with the waitangi treaty. the governments are continually re-interpreting it almost on a daily basis. the sea and foreshore rights are now open to question. ancient tribes in taiwan and japan are still fighting for their traditional rights to be recognised.

colonisation ends only when two things occur. either total genocide or total assimilation. there is no third way.

sorry michael but i think your choice of china and iran as models of struggle for us to follow are far off the mark.

i would have thought that the struggle of the basque people of spain would be a better example, as would be the palestinians in the gaza strip. one could also add the struggle of the five northern counties of ireland.

i am most definitely not advocating senseless violence. what i am advocating is positive action.


ray jackson
indigenous social justice association

Comment viewing options

Enter the characters shown in the image.
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.