Workshop 2000: Aboriginal Policy: Failure, Reappraisal and Reform

Some Thoughts on Why Australian Aborigines Have Remained on the Fringes of Mainstream Australian Society

Pastor Paul Albrecht

I have entitled my paper: 'Some thoughts on why Australian Aborigines have remained on the fringes of Mainstream Australian society.' I have deliberately said 'some thoughts,' as this is a vast subject. All I can realistically hope to do in the time available, is point in directions where I think at least some of the answers are to be found.

The current definition of an Aborigine is a person:

1.who is descended from the original Australian inhabitants;

2.who identifies as an Aborigine; and

3.who is accepted as an Aborigine by his/her group.

This is a very broad definition. Firstly, it covers people who still know their indigenous language and much of their culture, and whose lives, to a large degree, are shaped by their culture. Secondly, it also covers people who have lost their indigenous language and most of their culture, but without having substantially replaced what they have lost with the values and forms of social organisation of Mainstream Australian society. Thirdly, and finally, it also covers those people whose genealogy includes Aboriginal forbears, but who often look like Australians who make up Mainstream Australian society, and who have adopted the values, life style and forms of social organisation of Mainstream Australian society.

The first of these groups ie., those whose lives are still shaped, to a large degree, by their indigenous culture, are the people who continue to figure so prominently in the printed and electronic media, with their shocking health statistics, shorter life span, inadequate housing, poorer educational qualifications, high unemployment, etc.

The second of these groups ie., those who have lost their indigenous language and most of their culture but without substituting the values of Mainstream Australian society, also figure prominently as seriously disadvantaged.

The third of these groups ie., those largely indistinguishable from Mainstream Australian society, do not share the social disadvantage of the first two groups. They have become part of the Australian economy and have adopted the values and life style of Mainstream Australian society. Their social circumstances are much the same as those applying in Mainstream Australian society.

In my paper, I want to focus on the first of these groups ie., those whose lives are still shaped, to a large degree, by their Aboriginal culture. I am excluding the second group. While their social problems approximate those of the first group, the aetiology underlying these problems are different to that of the more traditional Aborigines, and therefore any ameliorative programs will also have to be different. The third group ie., those largely indistinguishable from Mainstream Australian society, does not require special comment.

It is from this latter group that the 'Aboriginal Industry' draws its Aboriginal members. And it is from this group that the 'Aboriginal Activists' have emerged, as well as the Aboriginal 'Chattering Class'. Like the late Dr. Charles Perkins, they have helped raise awareness of Aboriginal social disadvantage in the Australian community. However, having lost their indigenous language and culture, their remedies for ameliorating Aboriginal disadvantage are no different to those put forward by Mainstream Australian society.

A growing body of reports and studies eg., Reeves' Review of the NT Land Right Act; Richard Trudgen's Why Warriors Lie Down and Die; indicate that these remedies have been singularly unsuccessful in removing Aboriginal social disadvantage.

Throughout its history, but particularly in the latter part of the 20th century, Australia has assimilated, or absorbed, millions of immigrants from many different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. In Magill, the suburb where my wife and I live in Adelaide, our neighbours on the western side, are of Sikh origin. He always wears his turban, and on special occasions she wears traditional Indian/Sikh dress. The family on the other side, across the road, are of Chinese origin. The widow who used to live directly opposite us was of German origin. Next to where she lived is a family of Egyptian origin. And next to them is a family of Chinese origin. There are also 'Australian' families around about. By 'Australian,' I mean families where the husband and wife were born in Australia. But there are no Aborigines in our vicinity.

We had some additions made to our house after we moved in. The fellow who did the design work, and the prime contractor were Australians. Of the sub-contractors, the carpenter was an Australian. The concreters, however, were Greek immigrants. The painter was an Italian immigrant. And the electrician was a Polish immigrant. I say they were immigrants because their knowledge of the English language, as well as their accents, indicated they had been born outside of Australian. Again there were no Aborigines among the subcontractors.

As I said, Australia has managed to assimilate or absorb people from a diverse range of cultures and ethnic backgrounds. This is not to suggest that no indigestible lumps remain. Yet while this process has been going on, most of Australia's Indigenous people have remained on the fringe, a situation which has remained virtually unchanged from the time of the first settlement in Botany Bay until the present.

There are those who say this marginalisation has resulted from the racial prejudice that Mainstream Australians had, and still have, for Aborigines. That some Mainstream Australians were/are prejudiced against Aborigines is an undeniable fact, but hardly counts as the reason for their marginalisation. Most non-English immigrants who have come to Australia suffered prejudice of one kind or another. One need only think of the 'Wogs' and 'Refo's' and 'Dagoes' and 'Geeks' and 'Slanty Eyes', not to mention the 'Bloody Pommies'. However, the vast majority have become a part of Mainstream Australian society and share in its standard of living.

Or take the Germans who were among the first immigrants to settle in South Australia. They were subject to a great deal of prejudice, especially during the two world wars, and in subsequent years. But they too became a part of Mainstream Australian society, sharing in its standard of living.

Others maintain that Aborigines have remained on the fringes of Mainstream Australian society, because they were forcibly dispossessed of their land. It is a fact of history that as the European settlement of Australia took place, some would say conquest, the Indigenous land-owning groups were often forcibly dispossessed of their land. This not only deprived them of their means of livelihood, but also cut them off from the source from which they drew their understanding and meaning of life. These dispossessed groups were then forced to either live as unwelcome guests on the property of other groups, and/or move into centres of White settlement. Here they became fringe dwellers.

However, it is also a fact of history that many Aborigines living in the northern parts of South Australia and in parts of Central Australia, voluntarily walked off their land into centres of White Settlement. While these people did not suffer the trauma of forcible dispossession, they too became fringe dwellers, living on the margins of Mainstream Australian society.

In 1998, John Reeves Q.C. issued his report into the operation of the Northern Territory Land Rights Act. I do not wish to comment on his report or recommendation, except to draw attention to this one fact. The NT Land Rights Act has been in operation since 1976. Since then some 50% of the Northern Territory has become Aboriginal Land, or is in the process of becoming Aboriginal land. Yet, Reeves' findings were that the grant/return of land per se had done nothing to improve the Aborigines' socio/economic/health indices.

Similarly, the grant/return of land per se has done nothing to decrease substance abuse, especially petrol-sniffing, among young people, or generally improve Aboriginal health. In fact, petrol-sniffing seems to be worse in communities situated on Aboriginal Land.

Nor has the grant/return of land helped Aborigines make a living, either in traditional or modern terms, off the land that has been returned to them. With few exceptions, most continue to live off welfare. It would therefore seem that while dispossession had a traumatic effect on those dispossessed and could be put forward as a reason for their marginalisation, yet the ones who walked off their land became equally marginalised. Furthermore the return of land has not altered this situation. It would therefore seem that factors other than dispossession have been at work in their marginalisation.

Others contend that Aborigines have remained on the fringes of Australian society because they didn't have a say in their own affairs. Since the early '70s, the Commonwealth Government's Aboriginal policy has been one of Aboriginal self management. This does not appear to have changed the Aborigines' marginal position vis-à-vis Mainstream Australian society either.

In fact the Commonwealth Government recently took back from ATSIC, the peak Aboriginal body it had established to give Aborigines a say in things affecting them, the health function they had vested in it, because under ATSIC the delivery of services had deteriorated significantly. I understand that it was only political pressure which stopped the Government from taking back other functions it had given ATSIC.

It seems to me that current methods of assisting Aborigines to manage their own affairs are singularly unsuccessful in helping them to ameliorate their depressed social situation.

Education is supposed to be an Aboriginal priority. Yet truancy in the Northern Territory runs at about 50%. Education standards, too, appear to be slipping ever further, as attempts are made to 'aboriginalise' education.

Rents (Royalties) paid to Aborigines and Aboriginal organisations were intended, not only as compensation for mining on their land, but to improve their standard of living. Mainstream Australian society is constantly reminded that Aborigines, among other things, need better housing. As far as I know, none of the royalty monies received are channelled into housing. They appear to be spent on alcohol and vehicles.

The latest reason being put forward to explain why Aborigines continue living on the fringes of Mainstream Australian society, is the lack of reconciliation between Aborigines and Mainstream Australian society, and the fact that the Prime Minister will not use the five letter word SORRY. Others maintain that it is the lack of a treaty. Anyone believing the latter should have no difficulty believing that pigs fly!

Its my contention that the fundamental reason why Australia has managed to assimilate, or absorb, millions of people from many different ethnic and cultural backgrounds is because these people were able to plug into the Australian economy, even when they could not speak English. It may have been at an unconscious level, but they knew how a modern economy works, and how to be a part of it. And so through joining in and becoming a part of the Australian economy, they also became a part of Mainstream Australian society.

It is at the economic level that the settlers who came to Australia, and the Indigenous people never understood each other, and still don't understand each other. The Indigenous people's understanding of economy, rooted as it is in their Weltanschauung, is at the traditional extreme of a traditional--modern continuum.

Australia's Indigenous people, despite their many languages and differences, shared a common Weltanschauung. While their creation stories varied from clan to clan, yet the motifs of these stories were the same. They concerned spirit beings who shaped the earth, created its flora and fauna, and gave men the blueprint by which they should live. These same spirit beings, both the good and the evil, still permeate nature (animism), and can be manipulated by men through appropriate ritual, for good and evil purposes. This was the paradigm through which Australia's Indigenous people interpreted reality. Now I want to put a little flesh on this paradigm, using the Arrarnta perspective, and point out some of the implications relevant to the question we are looking at.

According to Arrarnta, the earth and sky were eternal, but featureless. Below the crust of the featureless earth, slept the spirit beings which emerged at `the beginning of time', and moved about shaping the earth's mountains and creeks, and creating the earth's flora and fauna and human beings. At the conclusion of their creative activity, they returned to the places from which they had emerged, or turned into rocks, trees or Tjurrunga. (Tjurrunga is an Arrarnta word. Depending on the context, tjurrunga can refer to the wooden or stone slabs, which represent the spirit beings/totems; or to the stories and songs associated with a particular spirit being/totem; or to the ground paintings associated with the ceremonies and rituals performed in honour of the ancestral spirit beings/totems.)

'Sacred sites', (or what we have called 'sacred sites', Arrarnta makamaka ie., taboo places might be more correct,) are places where these spirit beings emerged from the earth, or returned to the earth, or natural features associated with their activity, or places where their tjurrunga are currently stored. Some of these taboo sites are also associated with various sicknesses and/or sinister activities.

Spencer and Gillan gave to the period of time when the spirits beings were active shaping the earth, and creating the flora and fauna, the term 'Dreamtime'. Aboriginal languages have no special word for this period. Spencer and Gillan got this word from the Arrarnta `Altjirrarama' = to dream. It would seem that the root meaning of the Arrarnta word altjirra is eternal, eternity. So to dream means one's kurrurna (soul?) leaves one's body and crosses over into the eternal realm, which exists in parallel with time. The word altjirra is also used for totem.

Life cells (embryos?) lie along the trails where these spirit beings originally travelled. It is these life cells that enter women and become re-incarnated in their children. It is these life cells that determine the totems of the children. Children's totems are not determined by the parents' totems. It is this belief which creates the linkage between an Aboriginal person, his totem, and his land.

The creative words uttered, intoned, or chanted by these spirit beings in the course of their creative activity, have been handed down and are known by the fully initiated men of the totem concerned, and are used by them to create more of their own species. They believe they do this when they use the right words, within the right ritual, at the right and appropriate place.

The men of the various totems all had a responsibility to perform their creative ceremonies, for the benefit of all the groups. In this way, the orderly and fruitful functioning of the universe was maintained, with each totemic group performing its ceremonies for the benefit of all groups.

Apart from these creative words, the spirit beings have also given their totemic reincarnations malevolent words which can be used to harm people, as well as benevolent words which can be used to heal people.

The blueprint for Aboriginal social organisation, and all social action and interaction was laid down by the spirit beings at the beginning of time. The Arrarnta see this blueprint for life as contained in their tjurrunga. And so in a very real sense, the tjurrunga can be referred to as their `constitutional documents'. (Other linguistic groups have their own names for what the Arrarnta call tjurrunga.) Since they were given by the ancestral beings, they cannot be altered by humans. Consensus among Aborigines is only possible on the basis of these `constitutional documents'. Decisions relating to artefacts and activities not covered in the tjurrunga do not have the force of `law' in Aboriginal societies. Hence Aboriginal groups find it hard, for example, to deal with matters such as the use of alcohol, since alcohol is not covered by the tjurrunga, and therefore not covered by `their law.'

By necessity the above has been brief. I have only highlighted aspects which I considered germane to the topic under consideration. For now I want to focus on just one aspect of this Weltanschauung and its implications.

The Indigenous people saw ritual as the means by which they produced what they needed. They then collected and hunted what they had created and produced through ritual. In economic terms correct ritual produces wealth. When it is suggested to Aborigines that the wealth (standard of living) enjoyed by Mainstream Australians is the result of work (effort), this is seen as an inadequate answer. They view what we call work in the same way as they viewed hunting and gathering ie., collecting what had previously been created, in this case by Whitemen/Government through their secret rituals. This should not surprise us. Aborigines are merely doing what we, people everywhere do: interpret the world and what is happening through their own cultural glasses.

Early missionaries may not have known or understood the Aboriginal Weltanschauung or its implications, but they did understand that if the Aboriginal people were to have any future in Australia, they would have to change from being collectors to becoming producers. This was also clearly recognised by the Government policy of Assimilation.

Aborigines did not, and do not, understand the workings of the Australian economy. In part this can be seen from their own indigenous languages, and from their usage of English words to describe what we call work. The Arrarnta language didn't have a word for work, in the sense that we use the word, and I would say neither did other indigenous languages. In saying this I am extrapolating from the Arrarnta and Western Desert languages. The Western Arrarnta have a word urrkapuma, which, as a result of contact, is now sometimes used by the Arrarnta for what we call work. Although it is no longer possible to substantiate this absolutely, originally the word was used primarily, perhaps even exclusively, for activity associated with ceremonial and ritual activity, in Arrarnta tjurrungaka urrkaputjika lit. `to work for tjurrunga'.

The verb urrkapuma is an intransitive verb. All other verbs associated with hunting and gathering activity, eg., looking for game, cooking game, digging vegetable foods, or erecting a windbreak etc., are transitive verbs. Because of this lack of a word corresponding to our use of the word work, translators of the Scriptures into Pintupi/Loritja, for example, have used the English word `work' when needed, with the relevant Pintupi/Loritja suffix.

My contention that indigenous languages had no word to describe work in our sense of the word, is further borne out by the English word most used by Central Australian Aborigines to describe what we call work. The usual answer I have received when asking Aborigines, 'What have you been doing?' is 'I have been helping so-and-so,' or 'the Mission,' or 'the Government,' or 'Land Council,' or who or whatever. The English word help is used, not because the English word work is not known, but because the English word help more accurately describes how the person concerned sees what he has been doing.

The Aborigine sees himself as having assisted the Mission, the Pastoralist, the Land Council or whoever in his/its activity. In Western Arrarnta the word is tangitjala nama. In the past when Aborigines helped each other in an activity, it was because of kin obligations, and then it was literally done to help the other person, and not as a means of earning economic rewards, which is how we understand work. However, such help did place the person helped under an obligation to help the one who had helped him, as, when and where he might request it.

So when an Aborigine 'works' for a person or organisation outside his kinship structure, he brings to his job his cultural understanding of 'help', with its in-built notion of mutual/reciprocal obligation, operating within a kinship framework. All this is encompassed in the term tangitjala nama. I cannot go into this here, but it has far-reaching implications for Aboriginal involvement in the economy, since it places working for someone on a basis of personal relationship, rather than a contract.

However, the term urrkapuma as applied to tjurrunga does carry with it the concept of working (effort) for reward. As men 'worked' at their ritual (tjurrungaka urrkapuka) there was a future economic reward in form of vegetable foods to eat, and game to catch. But it is important to remember it is ritual 'work' which produces rewards. I am further convinced of this understanding by the fact that the Arrarnta refer to their tjurrunga as their Aboriginal bank. From their observations, white fellows have their wealth (money) in a bank. Aborigines have theirs in their tjurrunga.

The English term that Central Australian Aborigines use when speaking about activity associated with tjurrunga eg., 'Red Ochre ceremony' 'Man Making ceremony' 'Increase of Species ceremony' 'Rain Making ceremony', is also very interesting. It is the word 'business'.

Involving Aborigines in the Australian economy is usually seen in terms of teaching them skills which they can use to participate in the economy. My observations made over a long period of time lead me to the conclusion that skills are not the problem. Aborigines learn skills as quickly as anybody. In fact they often learn skills more quickly because mimicking is the cultural method of learning. The problem is the Aboriginal Weltanschauung. It doesn't provide the Aborigines with either the motivation or the matrix needed to function in the Australian economy. I will give some examples to illustrate this.

My father, when he was Superintendent of the Hermannsburg Mission, spent a great deal of time and energy to provide meaningful employment for the local Aboriginal population, as a means of turning hunter gathers into producers. After lands to the west of the Hermannsburg lease had been declared Aboriginal Reserves, my father had the idea of establishing Aboriginal men as pastoralists on parts of the Reserve. To that end the Mission advanced selected men breeding stock, horses etc., rations until such time as they could support themselves from cattle sales. The understanding was that once they were established, they would pay back the loan from the Mission. When the scheme was first mooted, there were far more men who wanted to become independent pastoralists than the Mission's resources could support. To their credit, all the men who had been accepted for the scheme ultimately paid back their advances. However, the scheme folded, but not from lack of skills, for all the men were accomplished stockmen, and they had adequate back-up resources. The scheme folded for cultural reasons. Among other things, there were no cultural values to support the consistent work (effort) needed to make a go of cattle raising.

Or to give another example. My father had started a tannery at Hermannsburg, again with the objective of providing employment. The tannery was profitable while the Mission was able to buy kangaroo skins. These were tanned by the men, and the women would then take the furs to make rugs, moccasins etc. Later, after my father's retirement, the Government, under pressure from the conservationists, was persuaded that kangaroos were becoming an endangered species, and so no more licences were issued to shoot kangaroos. So there were no more kangaroo fur skins for tanning and rug making. The Mission found it could not compete in the market with its bullock leather, largely because it could not guarantee regular supply. After discussion with the tannery workers, the Mission agreed to help them start a cottage industry focusing on leather artefacts eg., purses, belts, etc.

The cottage industry was duly established with every reason to assume it would be a successful economic enterprise. There was an operating tannery, with the necessary equipment and machinery. There were men who knew the tanning business having worked in it for many years. A grant from the then Office of Aboriginal Affairs had enabled a person skilled in making leather artefacts to be brought to Hermannsburg to teach the necessary skills. These were quickly learnt. An exhibition of work had established that there would be a market for the output. The Government had also given a grant to enable the workers to be paid a wage until the business was self supporting. However, the business folded, not because of a lack of skills, but largely because there were no cultural values to support consistent effort in this context.

One final example. Aborigines have no difficulty learning to count money, add a profit margin to the cost price of an item, give change, work a cash register, etc. Yet, they inevitably fail as store assistants or managers, for cultural reasons. They are unable to deal with the demands of their kinship system.

For Aborigines to move from their position at the margin of Mainstream Australian society, they need to participate in the Australian economy, rather than hunting and gathering at its fringes, as they are doing at the moment. There are no alternatives to this. If they continue to live off welfare, they will remain marginal. Only when they are participating in the economy, will they also have the freedom to pursue cultural differences, as other ethnic groups in Australia do.

Except for Aborigines who have adopted the values and life style of Mainstream Australian society, the teaching of skills per se has not brought Aborigines into the Australian economy as participants. And to continue down the path of simply teaching skills as we do at present, will only exacerbate the situation. What is needed is to enter into dialogue with Aboriginal societies at the ideological level, in order to dispel misconceptions about Australian society, and explain the workings of the Australian economy in cultural/ideological terms they can understand.

The same applies in the health area. Money, health clinics, Aboriginal-run health services, Aboriginal health workers, availability of medicines---none of these have fundamentally changed the Aboriginal morbidity and mortality statistics. Again, what is needed is to enter into dialogue with Aboriginal societies at the ideological level to dispel misconceptions and explain our medicines in cultural/ideological terms that they can understood.

Problems exist in the health area in terms of the different aetiological perceptions of illnesses. For example, is diarrhoea the result of bad hygiene, germs etc, or the result of flies having had contact with a diarrhoea site, and then having landed on a child causing it to have diarrhoea?

Problems exist in the health area in terms of what is culturally approved behaviour. Take the example of a woman who presents at a health clinic with her child who has discharging ears. The sister cleans the ears and puts some healing drops in the ear. She then gives the mother some drops and cotton buds and tells her to treat the ears three times a day. The first time the mother sets about doing this, the child puts on a turn. The other Aboriginal women all disapprove of what the mother is doing, because a mother's job is to comfort a child, not to distress it. So the mother desists because of cultural disapproval. In the meantime the child's ears get worse.

Or to give another example. In the early years of the Institute of Aboriginal Development (IAD) in Alice Springs, a trained Sister was engaged by the Institute to help Aboriginal mothers with their children's nutrition. In one instance, a group of mothers was brought into the residential facility, and taught how to prepare nutritional meals around a camp fire, using such cooking vessels as would be readily available in an Aboriginal camp. There was no problem in teaching them to prepare a nutritious stew, for example. Buy then it was found that the question of the children's nutrition lay on a different level. Having prepared the stew and cooked it, the mothers sat around talking and then began eating the stew, while their children were off playing. No attempt was made to call the children to come and have something to eat. The mothers kept eating, and by the time the children returned, the stew was all gone. So what did the children get to eat? Some bread and biscuits!

It wasn't that the mothers were unconcerned about the welfare of their children. It's just that culturally Aboriginal mothers demand feed their children. No doubt in the old days as children foraged with their mothers, this was the ideal system. In the current environment, it meant that even if nutritious meals were prepared, children would not necessarily benefit.

To sum up. If Aborigines want to improve their marginal position and enjoy the same standard of living as that enjoyed by Mainstream Australians, they will have to participate in the Australian economy, rather than hunting and gathering off it via the welfare system and rents (royalty monies). Furthermore, they will need to deal with the cultural factors which lie behind their depressing morbidity and mortality statistics.

And if Mainstream Australia is genuine in its desire to assist Aborigines to improve their marginal position and enjoy the same standard of living as it does, then it will have to abandon many of its present Aboriginal policies eg., self-management using its forms of social organisation, training an elite as the means of bringing about social change in Aboriginal societies, relying on skills as the primary means of giving Aborigines entry into the economy. Instead it will have to enter into dialogue with legitimate Aboriginal leaders at an ideological level, both as a means of engaging Aboriginal societies in a meaningful look at their current social problems and their possible solutions; and also as a means of clearing up misunderstandings and explaining the workings of the Australian economy in culturally appropriate terms. This same approach will have to flow over into programs aimed at improving Aboriginal health.

In order for this dialogue at an ideological level to take place, and have a realistic chance of success, at least two prerequisites need to be met.

First, and most important, is the recognition of Aboriginal legal systems. By recognition I am not suggesting de jure recognition of 'Aboriginal Law' as contained in their tjurrunga, ie., `constitutional documents'. This would lead to a second legal system operating in parallel with the Australian legal system. This would be a disaster both for Australia and its Indigenous people!

Rather, by recognition I mean an acceptance, and accommodation, by Australian Governments of Aboriginal legal systems which do not conflict with Australian law. For example, the operation of Aboriginal land owning and management systems on Aboriginal land, and Aboriginal forms of social organisation.

Within the parameters of this paper, I can only sketch the broad outline of how this might be done. It is generally acknowledged, even while poorly understood, that land is of fundamental importance to Aboriginal societies. In recognition of this fact, the NT has a Land Rights Act and, as far as I know, all States have some form of Aboriginal Land Rights. However, none of these Acts actually grant Aborigines, who by tradition have rights to discrete tracts of land, title to their lands. At best they are 'Claytons' Acts.

The easiest and most effective way of giving recognition to many Aboriginal legal systems, is to grant individual title to clans whose lands are situated on Aboriginal Land, and who can define the boundaries of their land to the satisfaction of their Aboriginal neighbours. This can be done quite easily within the parameters of Australian law. And the effects, I believe, of this simple action would be quite dramatic for Aborigines whose lives are still largely shaped by their culture. I will list some of these, not necessarily in order of importance.

The process of defining the boundaries of their traditional lands, and then giving Australian title to the owners of these lands, would send a powerful message to all Aborigines whose lives are still largely determined by their culture. It would let them know that Australia was recognising their legal system, and was prepared to respect their system, provided it did not contravene Australian law.

The process of defining boundaries and receiving Australian title to traditional land, would also return to legitimate leaders the status and authority that is rightly theirs.

The recognition of the legitimate leaders would have the effect of freeing the leaders to look at the many social issues confronting their people, and empowering them to act on their behalf.

Governments, as well as the many agencies working with Aborigines, would find that they could talk and discuss matters with the people who have a right to speak on behalf of their group, and, when needed, make decisions on behalf of their group/family.

The second prerequisite to dialoguing with Aboriginal societies at an ideological level, is for those who are going to do the dialoguing to learn the appropriate Aboriginal language and become au fait with the Aboriginal Weltanschauung. It is impossible to dialogue with Aborigines at an ideological level without the knowledge of their language, and systems.

By necessity the above has been brief, but I hope the general direction of what I am recommending is clear.