A presentation at the Quadrant seminar held in Sydney, 21 August 1999:
'Rousseau v Reality: Aborigines and Australian Civilisation'

Comments on the Reeves Report

Pastor Paul G. E. Albrecht AM

As background to my comments on the Reeves report, a few biographical details may be in place. I was born in Hermannsburg Central Australia, and spent the first thirteen years of my life there. Among other things, I learnt the Western Arrarnta language as I grew up. After completing my theological studies, I returned to Central Australia as a missionary in January 1957, and worked there until my retirement in February 1998. Consequently, I was in Central Australia in the years preceding the introduction of Aboriginal land rights, and in the years after the Act came into operation. After the Land Rights Bill had been tabled in Federal Parliament, I took an active part in meetings and discussions meant to explain the Bill to Aborigines. Later, in conjunction with colleagues of mine in the Finke River Mission, I assisted many senior Aboriginal men to convey their views on the Bill to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and to all other members of the Federal Parliament. Then after the passage of the Bill, I was able to observe the operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act from the date of its promulgation in 1976, until my retirement last year.

The Reeves' Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, is very comprehensive. The Report is over 600 pages long, and has appendices totalling a further 300--400 pages. I received a copy of the Report towards the end of last year, and read it with a great deal of interest. I was impressed with its scope, its thoroughness, its attention to detail, and the way in which the recommendations logically flowed from the findings. In all important details, its analysis of the benefits accruing from the legislation, as well as its negative impact, accorded with my own observations, and with what I had been told by senior Aboriginal men.

As I said the Report impressed me. And yet, at the same time it left me with a vague feeling of unease, which I couldn't quite define. A feeling that as good as the report was in laying bare the deficiencies of the current legislation, its recommendations couldn't achieve what their author intended. Anyway, being retired, I let the matter rest, and didn't attempt to ferret out the causes of my unease. However, the request to undertake a critique of the Report for this meeting, revived my first impressions, and forced me to confront my feeling of unease and see whether it had any substance.

As I was thinking about how I should proceed, two thoughts kept coming to mind. The first related to implications arising from Aboriginal principles of land and land ownership. As mentioned previously, I and colleagues of mine in the Finke River Mission, had helped explain the Land Rights Bill to senior Aboriginal men, and then helped them convey their views on the proposed legislation to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, as well as all other Federal Parliamentarians. Attached to the submissions these Aborigines had made, and these numbered over 300 pages, was a Summary Statement of the Objections the Traditional Aboriginal Land Owners had to the proposed Aboriginal Land Rights Legislation. This summary statement had been prepared by Senior Finke River Mission Staff, and after being vetted by the Aborigines who had made the submissions, was signed by the senior Finke River Mission staff, and attached to the submissions. Now, nothing that I had learnt from senior Aboriginal men from that time until my retirement, had changed or contradicted anything contained in that statement. So it seemed to me that the first question I should ask was this: Could the Reeves recommendations, if enacted, correct the problems the senior Aboriginal men had seen to exist in the Bill which later became the Act? If they didn't, then this could well be a cause of my unease.

The second related to the Aborigines' future. If they are going to improve their socioeconomic status in Australian society, then they have to plug into the Australian economy, at whatever level will meet their aspirations. This seemed axiomatic to me. The more material benefits they wanted, the higher the education and skill levels they would need in order to gain those benefits. So it seemed to me the second question I should ask was this: Could the Reeves' recommendations facilitate this process? If they didn't, then this could well be an additional cause of my unease.

It seems to me, if we have given Aborigines land simply so they have somewhere to exist while living off welfare payments and royalty monies, while they are vaguely engaged in something called self determination, (or is it self management?), then we haven't progressed beyond the old policy of `Smoothing the Dying Pillow'. The nihilistic philosophy I saw creeping in among Aboriginal youths in the latter years of my ministry in Central Australia, was quite alarming. Many could see no future for themselves, in either the traditional or modern world, and so, among other things, were quite deliberately drinking themselves to death.

Reeves has titled his Report: BUILDING ON LAND RIGHTS FOR THE NEXT GENERATION. If the land granted to Aborigines in the Northern Territory is really to become something on which they can build a better future for themselves, then the two questions I have raised seem to me to be crucial. In my critique of the Report I will concentrate on these.

I begin with the first question: Could the Reeves' recommendations, if enacted, correct the problems the senior Aboriginal men had seen to exist in the Bill which later became the Act? What follows is the major portion of the Summary Statement to which I have referred. I believe it is against the Aboriginal views expressed here that Reeves' recommendations need to be evaluated. I quote:

Every group of traditional Aboriginal landowners in Central Australia to whom the Aboriginal Land Rights Bill (Northern Territory) 1976 was verbally translated was surprised and angered to find that it did not meet their expectations. Ever since the Land Rights issue was first raised, not by themselves, but by people from other places, they had taken it for granted that "Land Rights" would mean the recognition by the Government of the existing traditional owners of land in accordance with the traditional Aboriginal system under which particular descent groups of people belong to particular tracts of land. They can understand and appreciate the good intentions of the Government in granting Aborigines title to their land in a way that would be fair to all Aborigines, traditional as well as non-traditional. However, they cannot accept the proposed legislation since it is based on white Australian concepts that do not in any way accord with traditional Aboriginal concepts of land ownership. They can see that the "Bill" could make sense in white Australian terms and that the many safeguards that have been incorporated into it would operate as real safeguards in white Australian society. However, in terms of their own principles of land-ownership, which still operates very strongly, they see the "Bill" as being unfair to traditional landowners in that they are not given sufficient recognition and do not have their authority sufficiently acknowledged and protected. In fact, they feel that this proposed legislation would not give back control of their land but would, in effect, take it away from them and give it to somebody else. The Aboriginal organisations that the "Bill" proposes to establish, particularly the Land Trusts and Land Council, are seen as being quite inappropriate and unworkable in traditional Aboriginal terms. They assert that the proposed legislation, if enacted, will produce deep resentment on the part of the traditional land-owners, tension and conflict between Aborigines themselves as well as between Aborigines and white Australians. The serious consequences of the above mentioned resentment, tension, and conflict, can be appreciated more fully when the submissions of the various Aborigines are read.

Some basic principles in relation to traditional land ownership

Traditional land ownership in Central Australia cannot be understood except in relation to principles of kinship on the one hand and tjurrunga on the other. The most important kin grouping in relation to land ownership is the patrilineal descent group, made up of people descended from a common male ancestor through the male line. Each patrilineal descent group belongs to a particular tract of land and its members are called Pmarakurtwia (people belonging to the land, land owners) for that particular area of land. A clearly defined system of leadership, and one recognised leader, exist within each of these groups. The female descendants from the male line are part of the patrilineal land-owning group, but only fully initiated males are taught the secret knowledge relating to the land and its tjurrunga. The children from the females in the group belong to different land-owning groups, following descent through their respective male lines. However, male descendants from women belonging to the land-owning group are Kurtungurla (custodians or managers of the tjurrunga, and so also of the land) for that group. People have links with other tracts of land through other descent lines (e.g., mother's mother or father's mother), but it is only in relation to father's and father's father's country, that traditional ownership rightly exists.

Inextricably linked with each particular tract of land are particular tjurrunga. They are linked in such a way that ownership of the tjurrunga necessarily means ownership of the land and visa versa. The tjurrunga are not merely the sacred objects but are also, more importantly, the sites, myths, songs, designs and ceremonies connected with particular totemic ancestors whose travels, actions, and places of abode are related in the myths and song-cycles. The travel routes followed by the totemic ancestors and recorded in the tjurrunga, pass through successive tracts of land owned by various distinct land-owning groups. The points at which the tjurrunga pass from one tract of country to another are recorded in the tjurrunga as pmara arrkngarta (boundary points), and in this way the areas of land are defined. The songs, myths and ceremonies within these areas are the exclusive property of the people of that land.

Aborigines assert that the principles applying to land and tjurrunga ownership are fundamental to Aboriginal "law" and are rigorously adhered to still today. The penalties for infringement in relation to land and tjurrunga are very severe, including the death penalty. Only actual landowners, together with their Kurtungurla (custodians or managers) are regarded as having legitimate authority and control in relation to their particular tract of land and the tjurrunga associated with it. Any failure to acknowledge this authority, or any attempt to supplant it, is regarded as a serious offence, and if persisted in can become a capital offence.

Implications in relation to the proposed legislation

Aboriginal land-owners already possess "title" to their land, in traditional terms, through the joint principles of descent and tjurrunga. This "title" can be held only by the Pmarakurtwia (actual land-owners) together with their Kurtungurla (custodians or managers), and cannot possibly be held, even on their behalf, by any one else. It is for this reason that the concept of a Land Trust holding title to land on behalf of land-owning groups is regarded as being impossible in traditional terms. It is also highly dangerous, since this is seen as a major infringement of the traditional land-owners rights, possibly resulting in the application of the death penalty.

For similar reasons the concept of a Land Council is completely unacceptable. Nobody but the Pmarakurtwia (actual land-owner), together with his Kurtungurla (custodian or manager) can legitimately speak for himself and his group about matters relating to his land. The non-recognition or bypassing of the sole authority of the actual land-owners in these matters is again regarded as a very serious infringement of Aboriginal "law".

Another major aspect of the "Bill" which has created resentment among traditional landowners are the provisions relating to mining on Aboriginal land. It is regarded as quite wrong that anyone other than the actual land-owners negotiate possible mining operations on their land. This section of the "Bill" has particular significance to traditional Aborigines because they see the minerals as having been deposited by the tjurrunga. They, therefore, consider that a fair proportion of royalties should be paid directly to the land-owning group. Within these groups, strong principles exist for the proper distribution of any monies received. They consider that, according to the proposed legislation, actual landowners are not necessarily assured of receiving any part of the royalties.

Aboriginal Expectations

The Aborigines consider that the only proper Land Rights legislation will be legislation that recognises the principles of traditional Aboriginal land ownership and the absolute claim of traditional land-owning groups to hold "title" to their own land and to exercise over it.

They do not want other Aborigines holding title to their land on their behalf, nor do they want other Aborigines speaking and negotiating in relation to their land on their behalf. They want to hold the title to their own land "in their own hands". They wish to speak for themselves directly with Government and negotiate on their own behalf in matters relating to their land.

Traditional Aborigines are aware that they, being bound by Aboriginal "law", are in a different position from non-traditional Aborigines who are not bound by this "law". They consider that any Land Rights legislation will have to make special provision for both the traditional and non-traditional Aborigines if each group is to feel that their expectations have been satisfactorily met. [Finke River Mission; 1975--1976]

From the above it is quite clear that one of the major fears the senior Aboriginal men had, was that the Bill, if enacted, would effectively rob them of control over their land. The Reeves Report leaves us in no doubt that this is what has happened. I quote only the final paragraph from some two pages of the Report which summarise Reeves' findings in relation to this matter:

From the level of complaints received during this Review, and from my knowledge and observations of the workings of the Act, I have to agree with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's view that the Act has not been effective in providing Aboriginal people with effective control over activities on their land. [Reeves 1998:65]

In an endeavour to rectify this fault and give Aborigines more effective control over what happens on their land, Reeves, inter alia, recommends the following:

A system of representative regional land councils should be established based on the eighteen existing Land Council regions (including the two small Land Council areas).

These Regional Land Councils (RLCs) should be autonomous, subject to the system of supervision and accountability detailed in chapter 27. Each RLC should be required to make decisions in the best interests of the Aboriginal people of its region and should be entitled to adopt the decision making process that it considers best reflects Aboriginal traditional processes in its region. [Reeves 1998:213]

There is no doubt in my mind, that what Reeves is recommending, is superior to what is presently operating. The (RLCs) would break the autocratic power presently exercised by the two large Land Councils, and return decision making to a more regional level. It should be no surprise to anyone, that the two large Land Councils have, and will continue to, oppose this recommendation. And so will the Labour Party, because the two large Land Councils, with their Labour orientation, have acted as a de facto opposition to the CLP in the Northern Territory. In 25 years of NT self government, Labour has never won an election in the NT. To have its influence in the Land Councils diminished, would be a further blow to Labour's electoral prospects.

However, the question I posed earlier still needs to be answered: Could the Reeves' recommendations, if enacted, correct the problems the senior Aboriginal men had seen to exist in the Bill which later became the Act? Would these recommendations, if acted upon, actually give Aboriginal people entitled by their "law" to have control over discrete parcels of land, more effective control over what they see as their land?

It is here that I have serious doubts. Personally, I was once committed to councils---councils which were freely elected by Aborigines, and free to operate as they themselves determined. I saw this as the best way of giving Aborigines a real say in what they wanted to do, the way they wanted to do it, and at the pace they wanted to do it.

Experience taught me that it isn't. Councils are a modern social construction, not a traditional one. And Aboriginal Australian have a traditional social structure. As such councils do not provide them with an effective means of decision making or control. Nor does it provide them with a system whereby those making decisions on their behalf can be held accountable for their decisions.

Aboriginal Australian decision making processes are imbedded in their own cultural systems. And accountability is also reckoned via these systems. Aborigines whose lives are still largely shaped and underpinned by the values which give rise to these systems, cannot realistically be expected to operate on the basis of processes belonging to another cultural system. Reversing the situation might make this clear. I don't think we Australians would be very effective in carrying out our business affairs, if we had to manage them according to Aboriginal Australian rules of decision making and accountability. Yet, in reverse, that is what we are forcing Aborigines to do by causing them to work through councils, that is, social units constructed around a function, while they themselves otherwise live in, and are committed to, a system where social and economic functions are carried out through their kinship network. It is worth remembering that a person socialised into one culture, will find it nigh impossible to operate in another.

Hence Aborigines, who are still captive to their traditional values and social structures, find that they cannot successfully operate a council structure. Furthermore, when they are required to do so by government, they find they have no way of controlling those they have had to vote into positions of authority. Nor are they able to hold them accountable.

The concept of councils ie., social units created around functions, are a modern idea, and not a part of traditional cultures. Hence it is quite possible that Aboriginal Australians who have lost their culture, and adopted modern Australian values, will be able to operate councils.

The problems we have made for Aboriginal Australians, as well as for ourselves, with the Land Rights Legislation, stem from various factors, of which I will only mention two.

Firstly, we have not been prepared to allow Aboriginal Australians own land on their own terms, and under laws which apply to other Australians. It's almost as if we didn't trust them with their own land. So we created a new form of title, which gives them the use of the land, but not ownership, as we, or they, normally understand ownership.

Under the Act, Aboriginal lands are not held privately by traditional Aboriginal owners, or other individuals, but by Land Trusts collectively, for the wider Aboriginal community entitled to use and occupy Aboriginal land." [Reeves 1998: Synopsis I]

For me, the real irony of the Land Rights legislation, is that Australia's first communal land was granted, not by a Labour Government with its socialist antecedents, but by a Coalition Government committed to private property and private ownership of land.

Secondly, we don't seem to have understood how Aborigines held/hold title to their land. While I was impressed with the wide range of anthropological literature on land ownership that Reeves consulted, [Reeves 1998; Chapter 7, pages 119-148]; I was surprised that he made no mention of the work of TGH Strehlow. Considering the amount of research Strehlow undertook in Central Australia, I would have thought his findings would at least have merited comment with that of other anthropologists.

I said, we do not seem to have understood how Aborigines held/hold title to their land. Let me elucidate from our findings based on actually having mapped discrete parcels of Aboriginal land, on what was previously the Hermannsburg Mission Lease. Prior to the introduction of the Land Rights legislation, senior staff at Hermannsburg had mapped the Hermannsburg lease, as well as other parcels of land, at the request of the traditional owners concerned. All the boundaries of the various discrete parcels of land on the lease were determined to the complete satisfaction all concerned, using the rules applying to patrilineal descent, and tjurrunga ownership. Any disputes which arose, were all resolved by recourse to the tjurrunga. Furthermore, it was clearly pointed out to staff that when the right person(s) was/were in possession of the tjurrunga ie., the right person(s) held the title to the land, then the rights of all others who have an interest in that parcel of land was safeguarded.

When looking at some of TGH Strehlow's maps relating to the estates of various nyinhanganhanga on the Hermannsburg Lease at that time of his [Strehlow's] writing, and comparing these with the current estates, it is obvious that there have been changes to these estates over time. Equally obviously, I would think, considering the peaceful manner with which all agreed to the present boundaries, tjurrunga [in our terms: land titles] would appear to have changed hands in a manner consistent with Aboriginal principles, otherwise boundaries would have been in dispute. However, there were no unresolved boundary disputes.

Our experience shows that 1.it is possible to map discrete parcels of land; 2.it is possible to identify the senior men who have the responsibility for their land; and 3.there appear to be mechanisms in Aboriginal "law" which allow for land to change hands.

The whole question of ownership and how it is to be recognised, is of fundamental importance. Aborigines with whom we discussed the Bill back in 1976 were adamant that appropriate recognition could only come via direct title from Government, not via conglomerate Land Trusts. For Aborigines this isn't simply an academic question. Among other things, the whole matter of authority is tied-up with land. Land and authority go together. However, when title is not clear, or not appropriately recognised, neither is the authority that goes with the land. The whole matter of putting discrete parcels of land into one land trust, muddies the waters. And then making Land Trusts subject to Land Council directives, completely undermines the Aboriginal system.

In an endeavour to be fair to the Federal Parliament which passed the Land Right Legislation back in 1967, it probably held the view that the legislation in no way disturbed these traditional Aboriginal arrangements. It merely erected a carapace allowing Aborigines to continue operating according to their "law", but now with the added protection of Australian law. Furthermore, that the Act protected traditional owners from exploitation, and provided them with a legal mechanism for dealing with the White world eg., mining companies, through the establishment of Land Councils. However, as Reeves reports:

[While]The Act and associated Northern Territory legislation have been very effective in granting traditional Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory for the benefit of Aboriginal people... [they have been] less effective in providing Aboriginal people with effective control over activities on their traditional land." [Reeves 1998:76]

Before returning to make some suggestions concerning the appropriate recognition of traditional Aboriginal land owners and their land, I want to consider the second question I had posed earlier, because the problems posed by the two questions overlap, as do the solutions. I had said: If Aborigines were going to improve their socio-economic status, then they would have to plug into the Australian economy, at whatever level would meet their aspirations. The more material benefits they wanted, the higher the education and skill levels they would need in order to gain those benefits. So it seemed to me the second question I needed to ask was this: Could the Reeves' recommendations facilitate this process?

In his report, Reeves indicates quite clearly that while the grant of land had had some immediate social benefits for Aborigines eg., providing them with secure land tenure; the grant of land per se, held no answers for the economic future of the Aboriginal people. I quote extensively from his CONCLUSIONS on the SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL TERRITORIANS.

It is likely that the Land Rights Act has underpinned and strengthened a sense of Aboriginal cultural identity and has fostered respect for traditional Aboriginal values. However, for Aboriginal individuals, families and people in the Northern Territory, whether they live in urban or rural areas, employment levels and income continue to lag behind general Northern Territory standards. Furthermore, the rapid increase of the Northern Territory's Aboriginal population means that thousands of additional young Aboriginal people will be entering the Northern Territory's labour market over the next two decades.

An operational target against which to judge the success of programs for assisting Aboriginal Territorians to become economically stronger and more self-determining is whether they can achieve a growth in `mainstream' jobs sufficient to absorb this growth in the number of Aboriginal Territorians seeking work. Meeting this target will be an enormous task.

The Review visited a large number of Aboriginal communities, many of which had very limited economic resources. Under current conditions and approaches to Aboriginal economic and social advancement, I can see little prospect for a better future for many of these remote communities...

If more rapid social and economic progress is to occur, more representative, responsive and effective Aboriginal institutions of governance must be put in place to support Aboriginal Territorian's employment prospects, in partnership with the Northern Territory and Commonwealth Governments and other Territorians...

What is needed, particularly, is a stronger and more sustained effort from Aboriginal Territorians, governments, and the broader community, to raise the education and skills of Aboriginal Territorians and to form strong, genuine partnerships. (Reeves 1998:92)

In the final paragraph just quoted, Reeves makes the crucial point that if Aborigines are going to improve their socio-economic status, then there is the need "to raise the education and skills of Aboriginal Territorians". Unless Aborigines have the skills to plug into the Australian economy at the level which will provide them with the material benefits they want, they will not only continue to remain marginalised, but they will never be able to determine their own future the way other Australians do.

This was a fact recognised by the previous Assimilation Policy, namely, that Aborigines had no future apart from other Australians, and this in essence meant them having the skills to enter the Australian economy. The problem with the Assimilation Policy was not the policy objective, i.e., seeking to give Aborigines the educational and other skills to survive in modern Australia, but its methodology which relied overly on social engineering. Unfortunately, when the Assimilation Policy was abandoned, so were its objectives. These objectives, however, remain valid.

Can the Reeves recommendations help facilitate this process? Reeves' key recommendation reads:

A new central body, the Northern Territory Aboriginal Council (NTAC) is proposed. Its main function will be to achieve socio-economic advancement of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. It will apply the monies presently received under the Land Rights Act to these purposes, but it can only effectively achieve this outcome if it forms a genuine productive partnership with the Northern Territory and Commonwealth Governments, and individuals and organisations from the broader Northern Territory community. [Reeves 1998: Synopsis III]

Given the Aboriginal realities clustered around kinship, tjurrunga and land, I cannot see such a council having any success in facilitating, much less achieving, Aboriginal socio-economic advancement. It seems to me we are stuck with the idea of councils, because we neither understand, nor accept the group/individual dialectic operating at all levels of Aboriginal societies. Land, for example, is at the same time individually owned, and yet communal. The individual, for example, has more freedom than our society allows us, but at the same time has greater demands placed on him to conform, than our society places on us.

For Traditional Aborigines (TAs) councils simply don't work. Show me one that supposedly "works" and I will show you either a Non Traditional Aborigine (NTA) or an Australian running the show behind the scenes. Councils are a modern concept which fit with modern patterns of social organisation. They do not fit with traditional patterns of social organisation. They may well work as vehicles which facilitate socio-economic advancement for (NTAs), but they do not work for (TAs). There is no doubt that current Government initiatives to assist Aborigines to advance socially and economically, have had success with (NTAs), but there has been little, if any, change in the social indices of (TAs). I think (NTAs), with their different value structure, will continue to improve their socio-economic status in Australian society, as they have been for quite sometime, irrespective of Government policies. However, the (TAs) are likely to remain marginalised, even to slip further behind in the socio-economic indices, unless the people themselves are really motivated to work at changing their situation.

From my experience, many senior Aboriginal men and women are deeply troubled by what is happening to their "families", ie., people for whom they have a responsibility. They are particularly troubled by the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, but feel powerless to do anything about this abuse. So the fundamental question we need to ask is this: From their point of view, what can Governments do that would help them to help their "families"?

What follows are some suggestions which over the longer term could help the more traditional senior Aboriginal men and women help their "families" improve their socio-economic situation. Underlying these suggestions is my view that in the final analysis, "social change is worked by the efforts of individuals functioning in various capacities as innovators, advocates or adaptors" (La Piere), and not by social engineering or imposition.

I have gained the very clear impression from discussions with senior Aboriginal men who carry the responsibility for their "families'" well being, that the one fact which more than any other has impeded their ability to act in the interests of their "families", is that they, and the positions they hold in their "families", are not recognised appropriately. [I have put families into quotation marks so that we do not confuse them with our nuclear families. My use of the word family here means the total group of people for which an Aboriginal person is by tradition responsible.]

A problem we have created for senior Aborigines, is that we think the systems we have introduced to give Aborigines a voice in determining how things should be done, are neutral. We think that the legal carapaces we erect will leave Aboriginal systems free to operate. They don't. Its as simple as that.

I remember going to Jay Creek one Sunday morning soon after the former Reserve had become Aboriginal Land, and the Title handed to the Land Trust. I met and talked with the senior kurtungurla for the area whom I knew well. At the time, he also had an added responsibility for the land, because the pmarakurtwia for the area were still boys. Now this kurtungurla was also a member of the Land Trust. He was holding a copy of the Trust Deed in his hand when he said to me, "When am I going to get my land?" For him nothing had changed. What would have reenforced this feeling, was that all funding for the settlement, all discussions regarding the development of the Settlement, took place with the Settlement council---of which he was not a member!

I still remember the comments of some senior Aboriginal men at Hermannsburg, after our attempt to return authority to the people living there via democratically elected council, had back fired on us. They told us, "You rubbished us!" They had been present and taken a part in all the discussions that lead up to the formation of the councils. They had voiced no disagreement, and yet they later said we had rubbished them. Why? Time does not permit me to go into detail. In essence they felt rubbished because we had not recognised their position vis-a-vis their own group and other groups. In other words we had not recognised the Aboriginal system to which they were committed. If we had recognised the system, we would not even have suggested the formation of a council.

As we learnt from senior Aboriginal men, after our failed attempt to return decision making and authority to Aborigines via democratically elected councils, to amalgamate discrete parcels of land into single land trusts, to give any authority over Aboriginal land to another Aborigine(s) eg.,

Land Council, is to not only rubbish the traditional bosses, but to give the thumbs down to the whole Aboriginal system.

How then does one give recognition? Briefly, by learning the Aboriginal system of social organisation, social control, land ownership, land management etc., and then, by demonstrating this by acting in conformity with the knowledge gained. To say you understand, and then act contrary to the knowledge given, is to say you reject it.

I remember when we discussed the concept of councils with the people of Hermannsburg, I kept thinking to myself, the Aboriginal systems of social organisation etc., are very complicated. It is not necessary for me to know them. They know them, and provided I don't stipulate how the councils should function, conduct their business, or anything else, then the existing Aboriginal ways of doing things, will be able to function. In essence the council structure will simply be a carapace under which Aborigines will be able to do their own thing their own way. It doesn't work like that. There is no way that I know of where one can take an organisational artefact from one culture, and place it over another, with out distorting it.

A very simple, but very significant way in which we could give recognition to the Aboriginal system and its leadership, would be to devise an appropriate way of giving direct title to discrete parcels of Aboriginal Land to the people entitled by tradition to hold such title. This would very quickly do several important things:

1. It would give recognition to the Aboriginal system, and our commitment to work within the system.

2. It would identify the people with authority in the various Aboriginal groups.

3. It would identify the people with whom Government could, and ought to, talk about the social problems faced by Aboriginal people, and what might co-operatively be done about them.

4. It would put Government in touch with the people who have the authority in Aboriginal terms to implement changes they deem necessary. The people who in Aboriginal terms are responsible, and whom the people hold accountable for their acts. These people are not like the self appointed spokesmen who are presently on the various councils, and speak for no one but themselves.

5. Finally, by recognising the Aboriginal system, it will provide the security for Aboriginal "family" heads to also look at alternative structures which can either replace, or operate in tandem with their own. However, it seems to me, that the sine qua non of this happening, is the prior recognition of their system. It is this that frees them and gives them the security to look outside and to try different things without being threatened.

The other thing which needs to be done, is for Government to give up its laissez-faire approach to Aboriginal affairs. The current worship at the altar of Aboriginal self determination, or is it, self management(?), in the areas that otherwise are clearly accepted by Governments as their responsibility, is tantamount to doing a Pontius Pilate act. There are things that we can see more clearly than Aboriginal people i.e., their need to plug into the economic system if they are to change their socio-economic status and to have any future. Governments must address this as a matter of priority or things will simply continue to deteriorate.

As it is possible to create an environment which stymies change, so it is possible to create an environment conductive to change. The changes I have suggested above, could, over the longer term, help change the socio-economic situation of (TAs). I advisedly said "could" help change, because in the final analysis, beneficial changes in Aboriginal societies will only occur as these societies are motivated to undertake the kind of changes that are needed. The only real role for Government, but a very important one, is to help provide the environment which will encourage and stimulate such change.

As I said, the Reeves' review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, is a most impressive document. Reeves has clearly identified problems which exist in the current Act. He has also clearly identified what is required to ameliorate the Aborigines' poor socioeconomic status. My misgivings relate to methodology. Can the creation of a Northern Territory Aboriginal Council (NTAC), and the dissolution of the two large Land Councils (leaving the two smaller ones intact) and creating into 16 Regional Land Councils (RLCs), over come the problems he has identified? Will the new structures, in partnership with the Territory and Commonwealth Governments, be able to provide the necessary education and skills which Aborigines need to enter the Australian economy? These, as Reeves recognises, are the sine qua non for an improved Aboriginal socio-economic status. I don't believe they can achieve their purpose. In the final analysis, these councils will be no more successful than the present councils, because it is the council structure itself which is the problem. Councils are foreign to the Aboriginal way of doing things. They do not accord with the Aboriginal systems.

However, Reeves' terms of reference did not allow him to make the recommendation which I consider fundamental for any change in the socio-economic status of (TAs), namely the grant of individual title to groups which can still demonstrate, in Aboriginal terms, their right to discrete parcels of Aboriginal Land. This would be one way of concretely recognising the Aboriginal system. Then using this as a base, work with Aborigines to tackle their massive social problems.

In the Adelaide "Advertiser" of 17/7/99 there appeared a letter signed by Malcolm Fraser, Ian Viner, Fred Chaney, Peter Baume and Ian Wilson, damning the Reeves' Review, and praising the Land Rights Legislation passed in 1976. As I read the letter and its expression of smugness and self satisfaction, the ditty of "Little Jack Horner" came to mind. I have rephrased it slightly: