INTELLECTUAL PRISONERS

Change can only come by using our powers of reason to thrash out ideas, and in the process, free our minds from fearing what white people will or will not let us do. Unless we can apply our minds to only take account of what we need, we will remain just another minority group instead of a potent nation.

Whenever Aborigines are asked what it is they want in the long run, an extraordinary range of answers are given. To be equal, land rights, self determination, to be Australian, sovereignty, are among the many responses. Of course, not all of these are inconsistent. But they do show a lack of common direction of thought among Aborigines. Until we agree on what we are aiming for, our energies will be unavoidably fractured, often heading all over the place. The quicker we agree about our destiny, the quicker we are likely to achieve it.

We have a serious and urgent need to discuss what it is we want. Will land rights in itself solve our problems if police still gaol our people? How can we be equal while being denied our heritage, which includes our right to land? Can we achieve sovereignty if we remain funded by government? These are only a few of the unanswered issues.

The APG is responsible for helping to develop discussion on these matters throughout the Aboriginal communities. It has been able to provide workshops and other meetings, and will continue to do so. Everyone is welcome at these meetings.

The APG has exposed the views of politicians, academics and others who have had their say over what is good for Aborigines, by assessing where those views would take us. We cannot be blind to what is behind the views put forward by whites.

White politicians, including the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Robert Tichner, have bluntly indicated that Aborigines must accept white superiority in this country. For them, the Aboriginal demands must be for nothing more than equality with whites, and so long as Aborigines agree not to challenge the seemingly divine right of whites to dominate this country, then these politicians are as one with Aborigines in the struggle. They in fact portray themselves in this light.

Then again, some of our own leaders have failed to spell out what their complaints are aimed toward. How often have those of us who have faithfully attended national meetings seen leaders talk of Aboriginal independence and self government with real conviction, only to read the next day in the media that the very same leaders have pledged their loyalty to being "an Australian" and given their commitment to a "one nation, one people" concept. This leadership has never quite worked out its ultimate destiny for Aborigines.

Often the Aboriginal movement has been too strong in rhetoric and a little lean in thinking through the issues. There is a real place for rhetoric in our struggle, provided it challenges the white superiority view. We do need to do more than mouth slogans, though.

Our people must be allowed to go beyond struggling just for better conditions. The right to control ourselves on our own land without interference from others is a basic human right. To be, and to act as, a nation of people independent of whites ought not be a controversial issue but an entitlement. To impose our own laws in our own communities; to raise our own finances from our own portions of this continent; to have our own diplomats and passports and our own Olympic team is our right as a nation of people. Those rights are, or should be, the aim of our movement.

It is high time somebody did lay down for debate an alternative to the familiar sell-outs being offered to Aborigines.

The APG stands for the right of Aboriginal people to have the ultimate say over their destiny. The Provisional Government proposes a model for the Aboriginal nation - a nation exercising total jurisdiction over its communities to the exclusion of all others. A nation whose land base is at least all crown lands, so called. A nation able to raise its own economy and provide for its people.

This cannot occur overnight, but it could be in place within 25 years. That would be dependent on three developments:

1. Through developing within the Aboriginal communities a thorough understanding of how the Aboriginal government will work, how real it can be, and what it would mean in practice. This can only be achieved through meeting after meeting after meeting.

 

2. Once the Aboriginal community has had chance to think seriously about it, a referendum of Aboriginal people should be held. The question would be - Aboriginal independence, yes or no.

 

3. Presuming a majority vote in favour of independence, then a timetable agreed upon between the white government and the Aboriginal people could be laid down. The timetable would basically cover the transfer of control over Aboriginal people back to Aboriginal people.

The practical benefits under an Aboriginal government which are not available under a white government include:

1. No Aboriginal person would pay rent. Each Aboriginal family would be provided with housing of their choice. They would have to maintain it.

2. Every Aboriginal person not able to work or find work will be maintained by the government.

3. There would be free medical service with free access to specialist medical facilities not available within the local services.

4. Complete control over local communities would be put back in the hands of local people.

5. Aboriginal communities would be strongly encouraged

to maintain their strong links with their heritage and culture.

July, 1992