Australian Left Review No.60 July 1977

8/11/2019 Australian Left Review No.60 July 1977

1/40

U 'b

AustralianLeft ReviewN b . 6 0 J u l y 1 9 7 7


2/40

Australian LeftWe apologise for the fact that no issue ofALR was published in the month of June.

I n t h i s i s s u e . . .We publish t wo articles on the condit ions

of Austral ia's blacks and their treat ment bywhit es. One is bY War wi ck IMeilley, a form er

union organiser in the Northern Territory. Itoutl ines the econom ic exploitation of blacksby white-controlled businesses such aspastoral companies and discusses theatti tudes of trade unions, also white-control led, t o t his super-exploitation.

The other article discusses black landrights, wit h special attention to the impact ofuranium mining, and mining generally, onthe struggle between blacks and whiteeconomic interests over rights to tradit ionaltribal land. The article is reprinted fromChain Reaction, j o u r n a l o f t h e

environmental group Friends of the Earth.The editorial col lective f elt that the article issuch a good coverage of a subject littfeunderstood on the white left as to justi fyreprinting it here.

Ron Witton. senior lecturer in AmericanStudies and Sociology at Fl inders Universit yin Adelaide, analyses some of the politicaland social implications for Austral ia of thecurrent spate of revelations about CIAacti vity in Austral ia. He believes that theserevelations and ot her fact ors should lead usto consider 'what role the Americans may

have had in Australia's internal politicaldevelopment'.

Colombian writer Gabriel Marquez givesan 'inside' account of Cuban mil i taryactivit ies in Angola. Wit h t he Western press'hypocrit ical polemics against ' interference'being the only source of inf ormati on to datefo r Austral ians, this fascinating story tel ls i tf rom the other side.

The three reviews include one of t he le wdraft program of the Communist Party ofGreat Bri ta in wri t ten by a member of thatpart y current ly l iving in Australi a. The issues

, raised of socialist str ategy in advancedcapital ist societies are of interest tosocialists in all such countries. We hope infuture to promote an in-depth debate onthese questions, including reprinting offurt her material f rom overseas sources.

ReviewNo. 60

J u l y 1 9 7 7C IA R e v e l a t i o n s ............................................. 1

Ron Witton

A borig in aland ................................................. 6John Andrews, Pat Mullins Don Siemens,Mark Carter, Lyndon Shea

Exploitation o f Black Workers ................ 20Warwick Neilly

Cubans in Angola ......................................... 27Gabriel Marquez

Reviews ........................................................... 33

Editorial Collective: Brian Aarons, KatheBoehringer, Gloria Garton, Terry OShaughnessy,Mavis Robertson, Eric Aaron*.

Layout: Patricia Healy.

Subscription s: $6.00 per year (10 issues). Surfaceor airmail postage to be added to overseas subs.

Students, apprentices, pensioners: $4.00 per year.

Single copies: 50$.

Australian Left R eview , B ox A247,Sydney South P.O., Sydney. 2000.

Printed and published by Red Pen Publications Pty. Ltd.,4 Dixon St., Sydney.


3/40

1

R E V E L A T I O N S ;S O M E I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R A U S T R A L I A NP O L I T I C S A N D S O C I E T Y r o n w i t t o n

The article presented here is an expanded version of a talk given by Dr. Witton on theABC B roadbandprogram on May 9, 1977.

Dr. Witton is senior lecturer in American Studies and Sociology at Flinders University,Sth. Australia, and is co-editor (with Mike Richards) of a forthcoming study of USinfluence in Australia entitledThe Am erican Connexion.

already seen the publication o f an importantarid stimulating book on Australian society.The book, Ruling Class, Ruling Culture(Cambridge University Press) was writtenby Bob Connell, the newly appointedProfessor of Sociology at Macquarie

University. There are few people who haveConnells wide-ranging knowledge andsensitivityJfimake sense of the manner inwhich capitalism has developed in Australia

One of the major effects of the recentrevelations about CIA involvement in thenternal domestic politics of Australia is thatt demands that we all think about the waysn which our society, its politics and its

culture, may have been affected by the

Americans and by their allies on the rightwing o f Australias political spectrum.

Let me try to show what I mean. 1977 has


4/40

2 AUSTRALIAN LEFT REVIEW No. 60 - JULY 1977

and to establish the way that Australia'sruling class maintains its control overAustralian society, culture and politics. Inthe conclusion o f the book, Connell discussestwo historical moments in Australian postwar history when the rightwing forces ofAustralia engaged in massive mobilisationto trounce the forces of reform and change.The first o f these was during the anti-banknationalisation campaign of 1947-1949which culminated in the dramatic electoraldefeat of Labor. As Connell points out:

In the late 1940s a conservative politicalmobilisation occurred on a scale unprecedented since the first world war.A co-ordinated, expensive and dramaticpropaganda campaign was launchedagainst the Labor government by thebusiness and political leculership of theruling class. In 1949 the conservative

parties swept back to federal office where, with a temporary interruption bythe Whitlam government, they haveremained ever since. In the 1950s and1960s the remaining State Labor

governments were picked off one by one:for a short period at the end o f the 1960sthere was no Labor gov ernm ent anywhere in Australia, a situation that

had not been known for ha lf a century.(p.208).

Connells observations, I believe, force usto reconsider what role the Americans mayhave had in Australias internal politicaldevelopment. He points out that the electoralcampaign of 1966 was in many ways assignificant as that of 1949 in its capacity todestroy the electoral hopes of Labor and ofthe left. The 1966 campaign was, of course,fought mainly around the issue of Viet Nam

and was one in which the Americangovernment had a vital interest

Well, given this observation, whatrelevance do the recent CIA revelationshave? First, we must realise that if, as theformer top-level CIA officer Marchetticlaims, there were at least 20 or 30 deepcover or clandestine CIA operativesworking in Australia during the latter half ofthe sixties and into the seventies (The Sun,May 4, 1977), then it would be naive to

imagine that they would not work with theright against the left in Australia.

Moreover, the successive electoraldefeats o f Labor during the second ha lf of the

sixties indicate that if these were achievedwith the assistance of the CIA, then the CIAhad probably learnt much from theiractivities' throughout the world where theoverthrow of governments and funding ofrightwing political parties had becomestandard fare. However, this period inAustralia has particular relevance for otherreasons. We already had a large number ofU S m i l i t a r y , i n t e l l i g e n c e a n dcommunications bases on our soil and 196668 was a crucial time for the construction ofthe vital Pine Gap installation. It was finallycompleted about 1969 or 1970 and the nowconfirmed CIA officer (and friend of DougAnthony), Richard Lee Stallings was thenthe officer in charge of the Pine Gapinstallation.

At the same time Australia was a major, ifsomewhat symbolic, ally of the US in VietNam. Of course, other things werehappening at that time as well. In the latesixties, Australia saw a massive inflow of

American investment This was highlightedat that time by a top level US investmentconference sponsored in Australia by theStanford Universitys highly influentialStanford Research Institute, or SRI. The SRIcarries out top level, often highly classified

and intelligence related, research for thePentagon and the American intelligencecommunity, as well as for Americancorporations.

This conference in Sydney was attendedby some o f the top US corporate leadership;businessmen whose gigantic multinationalcorporations dispose o f annual funds far inexcess of many national budgets of thirdworld nations and whose multinationalcorporations often provide cover to CIA

agents working abroad. People like this donot descend on a country lightly and it issignificant that they chose the late sixtiesfor their conference. About the same time, theLiberal-Country Party cabinet actually hada closed session meeting with top levelexecutives o f another body representing thehighest iey fila uf US mmnrflte power. Thisbody, Business International, is anAmerican corporate organisation which hasthe resources and co-ordination at itsdisposal to organise US corporate support

for, or destabilisation against, governmentsthroughout the world. The fact that anational cabinet would meet it in closedsession indicates a considerable degree of


5/40

THE CIA RE VELATIONS 3

close co-operation between the two.

Also in the late sixties we had at least onevery suspicious labor conference. It wass p o n s o r e d b y t he I n t e r n a t i o n a lConfederation of Petroleum and Chemical

Workers, a body which has since beenunmasked as but one of the internationalabor organisations which have used CIA

funds to promote rightwing trade unionnfluence in countries such as Australia.

This conference was held at the University ofNSW and no doubt at the time may haveseemed innocent enough, although thestrong role of rightwing Australian tradeunions in the conference should surely havealerted many people to the fact that

neutrality o f the conference seemed dubiousat least. However, if people such as Mr.Edward St. John, QC, can find only nowSydney Sun, May 4, 1977) that a body such

as the International Commission of Juristshas been manipulated through CIA funding,how many other people and organisationswill need to examine the role they may haveplayed, wittingly or unwittingly, infurthering the interests of the US inAustralia and throughout the world? Hencethe interest in Sir John Kerrs associationwith LAW ASIA, another organisation thatused CIA funds. Often these connections arefound out through mere chance. Forexample, in the early 'seventies, I myselfheard that there were plans to set up inAustralia a rightwing organisation to becalled Peace with Freedom. At the time, Irecalled that I had heard the name beforeand, sure enough, by fossicking around a bit,I found that the US magazine Rampartshad, in the late sixties, written an article

which mentioned that the CIA had fundedan organisation by that exact name inAfrica. It is just too much to believe that thisname was picked out quite at random byrightwing Australians.

However, to return to the observations ofBob Connell mentioned earlier, we must nowbegin to investigate the way in which eventshat have thus far been viewed as almostolely within the Australian political arena

may have been either set up, manipulated or

used by the US and its intelligencerganisations. For example, with therevelations o f Marchetti and Boyce, theactions of rightwing trade unions in theErmolenko affair in Perth gain newignificance. What about the whole cold-war

era that was ushered in, as Connell pointsout, by a massive campaign against Laborand the left? What about the Petrov trial?What about the Communist Dissolutionreferendum in the early fifties? How muchwere these events orchestrated fromWashington? We know that people like

Dulles visited Australia during that period.What plans were hatched during such visits?How many lower level CIA officers andoperatives moved around Australiainfluencing Australian events? InBroadband on May 2, 1977, Mark Aaronswas able to reveal the crude opinions o f CIAoperative and trade union leader HarryGoldberg following his I960 visit to

Australia because Goldberg was stupidenough to lose a copy of his report which then

found its way into the hands of theAustralian trade union movement. (SeeTribune, May 11, 1977.) How many otherreports have gone to the US unrevealed andh a v e h e l p e d f o r m u l a t e p l a n s o fmanipulation and control in Australia?

Let us just consider the reports of the nowproven CIA labor attaches that have workedout of the Melbourne US consulate. What sortof work is being carried out at this verymoment by the present US Labor Attache

Arthur Purcell who has worked for the US inareas such as Latin America? Former CIAofficer Philip Ageein his book ontheCIA haslaid bare the dirty tricks that CIA agentshave played in Latin America, particularlywith union leaders. We do not, of course,


6/40


know whether Purcell is actually CIA or not,though it would be hard to understand whywe should have a succession o f CIA officersin that post and then suddenly not have one.But in any case, it would be hard to believe

that the function of the post has changed orthat the post acts any differently inAustralia than in Latin America, except ofcourse that funds are presumably not usedhere for assassination of leftwing leaders asin Latin America. Rather, the post probablyuses more subtle and appropriate tactics.Thoughts such as these make the reports such as that referred to by John Hurst in theNation Review of May 5-11, 1977 ofpossible CIA blackmail, both political andsexual, of Australian labor leaders, highly

relevant.A w h ole new d im en sion to our

understanding of CIA activities in Australiacame with Humphrey McQueens excellentlydocumented account of the funding of theCongress for Cultural Freedom, also inNation Review (May 5-11, 1977). That somany of our literary, academic and culturalelite could be implicated from just this oneorganisation makes one begin to wonderwhat would be the result of having further

files from the myriad of moderately well-funded rightwing organisations that haveappeared, sometimes just temporarily, on theAustralian scene. It is unlikely we are evergoing to have the wealth of detail such asthat unearthed on the Congress for CulturalFreedom by the ever vigilant HumphreyMcQueen. Nevertheless, it is of equalimportance to identify the effect that thefunding of rightwing cultural and politicalcommentators have have had on Australiansocial thought.

The files used by McQueen reveal howeasily the CIA and its rightwing friends hadaccess to organs of influential Australianopinion, such as the Current Affairs Bulletinand other journals, as well as to universitiesand bodies such as the Institute ofInternational Affairs, the Institute ofPolitical Science in Australia, and the WEA.As well, we have been shown in this stunningreview by McQueen the way that pressurewas put on Australian daily newspapers

when occasionally they erred and actuallyhad leftwingers or liberals review books.Moreover, Anne Summers and Paul Kellysobservation in the Na tiona l T im es (May 914, 1977) that there would appear to be an

almost total news clampdown on the reallysensational revelations o f the last fortnight -with the startling exception of the SydneySun - confirms ones general feeling, backedup by McQueens evidence, that the

Australian press is a close and loyal ally tothe American corporate takeover ofAustralias economy and culture.

So, what views in, and of, Australia mightbe seen as those which have either comefrom, or are reinforced by, the CIA and itsfriends in Australia? At a crude level, theseviews would obviously include views such asthe following:

* That unions are to blame for Australiaseconomic ills, rather than the view that, as

we become more and more integrated into theworld capitalist system, we will be more andmore at the mercy of economic forces overwhich we have no control.

That Australians have no economicinitiative and that we should be grateful toAmerican corporations for coming to investhere, rather than the view that theAmericans have succeeded in taking overalmost every profitable sector of oureconomy and are ripping off the Australian

economy and people at an almost obscenerate. And so on ....

There are even more subtle views that havebeen promoted in Australia and it is here thatthe CIAs friends in the Congress forCultural Freedom, and in our universities,have played a particular role. These viewswould include, for example, the following:that Australian culture is parochial andsterile and that the only way we can developculturally is to open our culture and society to

international forces, and particularly to theso-called vibrant culture of the US in thesame way as our economy needs to be opened up . This results in a generaldowngrading of the status and value ofAustralian poets, novelists, musicians andartists, and a celebration of every visitingcelebrity brought out - perhaps we can guessnow by whom - from the US. This means thatwe see, for example, the often nonsensicalmodern art and sculpture displays regularlysponsored in Australia by the New York

Museum of Modem Art, and stand in awebefore the social products o f another societyand culture. We send our best talent to theUS to become alienated from our society andthey come back as men and women of the


7/40

THE CIA REVELATIONS 5

world, but not of Australia. How often do wesee Australian plays, and particularly onesof critical social comment, on the stages ofour leading theatre companies, compared toforeign, particularly American, plays? Dueto the smothering effect of the US filmindustry, distributing through US-ownedcinema chains, we are only now seeing theincredible talent of our own film makers whohave languished for years with only the workof making TV advertisements (usually forAmerican products) to keep them fromcompletely losing their talent. And evennow, we find that Australian films must looktowards the eventual American marketbefore they can find backers (oftenAmerican). And to add insult to injury, the

films occasionally have to tolerate Americanlead actors, such as Richard Chamberlain ofthe TV doctor series fame.

To mention television makes oneimmediately think not only o f the dismal farewe adults face each evening, but also of ourchildren who daily view the cultural trash ofanother country while US companiesb o m b a r d t h e m w i t h s i c k e n i n gadvertisements. The same cultural invasionhas, of course, also occurred in the book

industry. We have seen the virtual collapse,and US takeover, of the Australianpublishing industry and the cold warwarriors of such bodies as the Congress forCultural Freedom have rationalised this bypointing out the cultural superiority ofinternational (mainly American) writers andinternational (mainly American) ideas. Inthe future, we are likely to hear less and lessof Australia in books and novels unless theideas are acceptable to the US publishinghouses or deal with what they see as non-

parochial subjects in order that there will bea market for them in the US and throughoutthe US empire of communications.

It is thus in the realm of ideology, of howwe view ourselves, our culture, our history,our politics and, most importantly, ourfuture, that the Americans, through the CIAand through those who see themselves as theguardians of the American way of life inAustralia, will continue to try to control us.It is indeed a tribute to Australian culture

that so much exciting cultural and socialcreativity is still occurring in Australia.However, we must, with the recentrevelations, be aware that our cultural andsocial existence is at present being contested

and that the struggle to gain nationalautonomy will be a long and hard one. It isthe revelations o f the recent period that forma watershed in o u t political history. Despitethe protestations and stonewalling of theright, there is indeed machinery in existencein Australia to maintain the USs economicand cultural domination of our lives andtheres no doubt that our own intelligencecommunity works c lose ly with the

Americans to maintain this domination inwhich Australias own ruling class plays avital role.

The relevance of this to the mobilisationagainst the Whitlam government evenbefore it got to power (D issen t, Melbourne,No. 29,1972, The US and Australia), as wellas when it was ousted (Sun, May 9, 1977),deserves considerable examination. It is mybelief that more and more Australians will bemoved to help expose the Cl A and its allies inAustralia and to begin to create anAustralian culture and politics that willovercome the barriers that have beenconsciously constructed to thwart ourautonomous national development.

However, the struggle will be a long andhard one. The gigantic US corporations thatare here mean business, just as they did inChile. And we have twice as much USinvestment in Australia than did Chile.What can these companies do? Well, forexample, in Chile ITT financed and assistedmuch of the CIAs activities. In Australiawhy wouldnt it do the same to safeguard itsinvestment? Thus, in Australia, ITT,through its ownership (among other things)of STC, controls a part of Australiastelecommunications industry, obviously a

vital asset in terms of intelligencemonitoring and surveillance. It would benaive and absurd to maintain that acorporation threatened by similar forces tothose that opposed it in Chile would not useits powerful position in its own interest.Moreover, bodies such as the AmericanChamber of Commerce in Australia play arole in co-ordinating the activities of thesegiant multinationals.

But their task is far less easy than it was in

the sixties and it is my belief that their taskwill become an increasingly difficult one.The revelations of the recent past and theincreasing popular interest in them both hereand abroad, confirm this fact.


8/40

A B O R I G I N A L A N D

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 came into force on January

26 o f this year, Australia Day - a day commemorating the first fle et s arrival at Botany Bay in 1788 when, under white law, the whole continent suddenly ceased to belong to theAborigines and instead became Crown Land.

The article takes a detailed Look at the provisions o f this Act and at the Aboriginal LandRights issue as a whole. It pays particular attention to how the Act affects Aboriginalclaims to the land on which uranium has been found in Arnhem Land. The effect of

proposed uranium mining on Aborigines is a question which has largely been ignored.It will be obvious to readers that the article was written before publication o f the Second

Report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Commission.

The Aborigines came to this continentfrom the north upwards of 30,000 years ago.Living solely by food gathering and huntingthey established a sustainable way of life inc l o s e h a r m o n y w i t h t h e n a t u r a lenvironment. They lived well in goodseasons; they suffered in bad years.

First and foremost, the Aborigines linkwith their land is a spiritual one. As ViStanton movingly described to the Ranger

Inquiry in Darwin last year: She (the Earth)is the source of our true beings, our soul andour life .... from her we have our traditionaldreaming places, our most sacred areas andthe keeping places of our lore.

The commonest form of earth link isbetween a clanand a particular area of land.(2) Membership of the clan is usuallydetermined by patrilineal descent - that is, achild automatically becomes a member of thefathers clan. Aborigines regard the linkbetween a clan and its land as being timeless

a link between those living now, theirancestors and their Dreamtime spirit beings.

This spiritual link involves both rights andduties: The rights are to the unrestricted useof its natural products; the duties are of aceremonial kind - to tend the land by theperformance of ritual dances, songs andceremonies at the proper times and places.(3)


9/40

ABORIGINALAND . 7

Groups which live and hunt together,however, are made up of people from anumber of different clanB, since marriagecannot take place between man and womanfrom the same clan.

It has been estimated that about 300,000Aborigines were living on this continentwhen Europeans first arrived in 1788. Rightup until their first contact with white settlers,Aborigines lived in a manner closely similarto that of their earliest ancestors. Whathappened when the white people came wassuccinctly described by Woodward in theSecond Report of the Aboriginal Land RightsCommission set up by the Whitlamgovernment in February 1973(4):

At the beginning of the year 1788 the

whole of Australia was occupied by theAboriginal people o f this country. It wasdivided between groups in a way thatwas understood and respected by all.

Over the last 186 years, white settlersand' their descendants have graduallytaken over the occupation o f most of the

fertile or otherwise useful parts o f thecountry. In doing so, they have shown

scant regard for any rights in the land,legal or moral, o f the Aboriginal people.

There are now about one hundred whitecitizens of Australia for every one

Aboriginal or part-Aboriginal (i.e. thereare approximately 160,000 people ofAboriginal descent).

These basic facts and the humantragedy they represent are, I believe, nots u f f i c i en t l y understood by the Australian community.

ABORIGINALS AND MINING

Old attitudes die hard and the colonisationof Aboriginal land, such as there isremaining, continues to the present day. Themost recent wave of invaders has swelledover the past 25 years, as mining companieshave penetrated previously remote regions,mainly in the Northern Territory andQueensland, in search o f the mineral ores forsupplying metals to the worlds expandingindustrial economies. This wave nowthreatens to reach a new peak with thediscovery in the Alligator Rivers region ofthe NT of vast uranium deposits, on landclaimed by Aborigines and only a short

distance from an existing Aboriginalsettlement, Oenpelli.

For an understanding of the origins o f theAboriginal Land Rights movement, thereaction of Aborigines to the Land Bights(NT) Bill passed by the Fraser government inDecember 1976, and also their determinedstance against uranium mining, it'sessential first to review some examples ofwhat mining ventures have done toAboriginal communities in the past.

Bauxite Mining on Cape York Peninsula

The West side of Cape York Peninsulacontains the largest known deposits of high-grade bauxite in the world. Here also thereused to be three Presbyterian missions and

Aboriginal Reserves: in the north, Mapoon,then Weipa and Aurukun in the south (seemap). The missions had been founded at theend of the last century in an attempt tocontrol the conflict between Aboriginalpeople and white settlers. The cattlemen,Jardine and Kennedy, had killed 250 peoplefrom the Batavia River (inland, south-east ofMapoon) alone.

The missionaries set out quite deliberatelyto civilise the Aboriginal people. They did

not succeed as efficiently as it might appear,for it was as late as 1957 that the last of theAboriginal groups living near Aurukun wassettled at the mission.

By the 1950s the bauxite deposits in thisarea began to be attractive to mininginterests. 1957 saw the Comalco Act, givingcontrol to the company over more than 5,000sq. km. of reserve land on the west coast ofCape York - from 60 km north of Mapoon tothe Aurukun settlement. In 1965 Alcan got a

lease r>n 1300 sq. km. of the Mapoon peoplesland. (5)

Weipa.

After much negotiating between Comalco,the Presbyterian Church and the StateGovernment, the Weipa people were finallyallowed to remain near the mission site, on atiny 308-acre Weipa South reserve. They lostalmost all their land, for the dubious benefitof living near the Comalco mining town.Comalco has paid some $500,000 to finance

housing, electricity and so on for the Reserve,out of pre-tax profits of over $160 million to1974.

Lets look at the benefits that Comalco


10/40

8AUSTRALIAN LEFT REVIEW No. 60 - JULY 1977

have brought to Weipa. The main thingsclaimed to come out of Comalcos miningoperations were good housing, employmentand education.

Comalco provided only $300,000 for the

resettlement o f the Weipa people - enough for62 homes at $4,840 each. (At the same timeComalco was building white miners familyhouses at $28,000 each.) The money did notrun to wash basins, sinks or internalpainting, let alone laundries or sewerage.Most important of all, the Aborigines whohad built and owned their houses at theMission, now no longer owned the houses inwhich they lived.

Employment? Until recently, Comalco

never employed more than about 20Aboriginal people on a permanent basis.Rather the Company had at its disposal apool of reserve casual labor. Further,Comalco has avoided offering training topotential workers. Instead o f building a tradeschool as promised, a pre-school was builtwith government assistance.

In other words the Weipa community lostits land with no thought of royalties orcompensation to become a fringe settlement,

dependent on Comalco as much as on theQueensland Government. The process wasaptly described by Frank Stevens aspauperisation. (6)

Mapoon

The Weipa community were at least partlyrehoused by the company. Mapoon peoplehave lost their land, and were even forced byarmed Queensland police to leave theirhomes at the Mapoon settlement in 1963. The

police then burnt the peoples homes andbelongings. (7) There was no compensation,royalties or recognition of the Mapoonpeoples rights. The company even refused toaid the resettlement o f the Mapoon people atWeipa South, Thursday Island and Bamaga.

The people were forcibly evicted by acoalition o f interests: the mining companieswho needed as much control over the land aspossible (especially with the bay nearMapoon as a possible port site); the church

authorities who wanted to rationalise theiroperations, because they were unable tofinance Mapoon as a modem mission; andthe Queensland Government to whomMapoon was not only an embarrassment on

Comalco land but also did not fit in with theirassimilation policy.

A more recent development is that in 1974the Mapoon people decided to resort to directaction and moved back into Mapoon to re

establish their community there. (5)Aurukun

Aurukun in the south lost over 750 sq.km.of Aboriginal land to Comalco, the leaseextending all the way south to the missionsite. The mission was not directly affectedand no mining has taken place so far.Comalco is just starting to move onto

Aurukun land this year.

In late 1975, however, the Aurukun

community began to feel the power of themining companies. Just after the removal ofthe Whitlam government in November 1975,the Queensland Government rushed througha mining lease to Aurukun Associates - aconsortium o f Shell Oils subsidiary, Billiton,the European company Pechiney, and theUS land corporation, Tipperary.

The decision to grant the lease over 1800sq. km. o f Aboriginal Reserve land was takenin complete secrecy; not only were the

Aboriginal people not consulted, but thePresbyter ian Church and FederalGovernment were also kept entirely in thedark. Public protest and exposure forced theQueensland Government to allow thecompanies to negotiate with the Aurukunpeople - negotiations which they have shownlittle sign o f taking seriously. The companieshave what they want: a legal hold over thebauxite fields. Now they can afford to wait.

In short the bauxite mining companiesentry to Cape York Peninsula has meant anew stage in the colonisation of theAboriginal people. The m issions andreserves settled the people, setting out todestroy their original economy and culture.But now the mining companies are takingthe land to which the people belong * they aretaking away their potential economicindependence, their future as well as theirpast.

N abalco on th e G ove Penin sula

On 30 May 1969 the Commonwealth ofAustralia granted a lease to Nabalco Pty.Ltd. (70% owned by Swiss Alumina Aust.Ltd., 30% by an Australian company, GoveAlumina) for the mining o f bauxite on more


11/40

ABOR1GIN A LAND 0

than 20,000 hectares of land on the GovePeninsula, the traditional land of theYirrkala Aboriginal people (see map). Therewas also provision for building a miningown, Nhulunbuy, nearby.

The mining company and the Governmentregarded white people at the Yirrkalamission as representatives of the Yirrkalapeople, and proceeded to appropriate, byegislation, of course, the land they wanted,

without consent o f the Abor ig inalcommunity(8) . The mission put inrepresentations on behalf of the Aboriginesopposing the development, but these had noeffect and Nabalcos mining operationsbegan.

However, the Yirrkala people did not giveup that easily, and looked to the law forprotection. In 1971 a number of their peoplebrought a court case against Nabalco andthe Commonwealth, seeking a declarationfrom the court that the Yirrk ala peopleshould be entitled to occupy and enjoy theirraditional land free from interference, and

also that they had rights to the bauxite andother minerals in that land.(9).

Their legal counsel tried to bring out anddust off the doctrine o f native title' from theattic of British Common Law to prove theirclaim. Judge Blackburn, however, rejectedthe arguments, finding in Australia a longsuccession of legislative and executive actsdesigned to facilitate the settlement anddevelopment o f the country, not expressly bywhite men, but without regard for anycommunal native title. (10)

Gordon Briscoe, an Aborigine who

estified at the Ranger Inquiry, describesBlackburns judgment against the Yirrkalapeople as a humiliation , and says it willgo down in Aboriginal folk-law as the dayhat indicates that the law is a 'whiteaw.(11)

It is interesting to note that senior counselfor the Yirrkala people in this legal battlewas A.E. Woodward, who was later to headL a b o r s A b o r i g i n a l L a n d R ig h t sCommission.

Given the go-ahead by the judgmentNabalco proceeded with its bauxite miningand set up a plant for refining the raw ore toalumina. The population of Nhulunbuy hasgrown to about 3,500 people. Meanwhile, asBriscoe has said,(12) comparing thepromises of the uranium mining companiesnow with those earlier promises of Nabalco:The same arguments were put forward thenthat mining will bring employment androyalties (to the local Aborigines). All that

has happened is that the culture has beendestroyed by population pressures,alcoholism and loss of control by tribalelders . Woodward in his second report onLand Rights in 1974 noted that Nabalcoapparently as a matter of policy, employsand trains practically no Aborigines (13).

And it is not just that mining has had sucha devastating effect on the Yirrkala people,as if that was not enough. It has also had aterribly destructive effect on the local ecology

of the area. In 1974, referring to the red-mudeffluent from the alumina plant, Woodwardstated that Already a substantial area ofswampland is covered by this materialwhich is obviously deadly to all livingthings . He further noted that Nabalco wasseeking further land for the disposal of thiswaste.(13)

The generation of this waste and pollutionfrom the Nabalco refinery also reboundsback on the Yirrkala people. Traditionallythey had been heavily dependent on the seaas a source of food, and a number of cases offish-poisoning at Yirrkala have beenreported.(14)

Wallaroo and Leonora

Similar tales of destruction can be toldabout other areas where the miners havemoved in to dig up Aboriginal land. GordonBriscoe described two more examples to the

Ranger Inquiry as follows:(15)

"A t Wallaroo (SA) copper mining has beenfundamental ly responsible for thedispossession and destruction of Aboriginallaw and the creation of a fringe society. The


12/40


people at Point Pearce (SA) have neverrecovered their dignity and pride. At Leonora(WA) similar patterns of social destructionhave arisen ... Because gold suffered morethan copper from world market pricefluctuation ... a ghost town is all that is left.

There a history o f brutal racism has left theprevious indigenous population squashedo n t o G o v e r n m e n t s e t t l e m e n t s ins u b s e r v i e n c e t o t h e N A T I O N A LINTEREST (his emphasis).

THE GURINDJI SHOW THE WAY

Two events in particular spurred Blacksthroughout Australia to combine in anational struggle for land rights.

In August 1966 about 170 Gurindji peoplewalked off Wave Hill Station, a Vesteyproperty in the NT, and set up camp at WattieCreek, in protest against their poor livingconditions and bad treatment on theStation.(16) (The Gurindji finally won theirfight in 1975 when they were handed a leasefor their tribal land by Gough Whitlam).

Secondly the loss of the Yirrkala peoplesc a s e a g a i n s t N a b a l c o a n d th e

Commonwealth in 1971 showed Aboriginesthroughout Australia that they would haveto extend their struggle for land rights intothe political arena if they were to stand anychance of realising their aims.

Consequently, in January 1972 theAboriginal Embassy was set up outsideParliament House in Canberra, one of theprincipal demands being for land rights.This bold action brought at least one quickresult, since on 9 February 1972 Mr. Whitlamsaid that if the ALP got into government itwould establish community ownership ofland in the Northern Territory byidentifiable (Aboriginal) communities ortribes . Thus when Labor came to office inNovember 1972, land rights was a key part oftheir legislative programme, and inFebruary 1973 it appointed Mr. JusticeWoodward as a single-person Commission toinquire into and report on:

The appropriate means to recognise andestablish the traditional rights and interestsof the Aborigines in and in relation to land,and to satisfy in other ways the reasonable aspirations of the Aborigines to rights in orin relation to the land". (17)

WOODWARD REPORTS

The first report of the WoodwardCommission was issued in July 1973. One ofits main functions was to suggest that theFederal Government set up two AboriginalLand Councils for the Northern Territory, aNorthern Land Council based in Darwin anda Central Land Council based in AliceSprings. Woodward suggested that theseLand Councils should be comprised of

Aborigin es representing the variousAboriginal communities in their respectiveareas, and that the Government should payfor independent legal advice for eachCouncil. The Councils were intended toencourage discussion o f the land rights issue

among Aborigines, to collect opinions fromthe various communities, and relay thisinformation to the Woodward Commission toassist it in the formulation of its final report.

These two Land Councils weresubsequently set up, and they havecontinued in existence as Aboriginal bodiespressing hard for action on land rights issuesever since, often to the embarrassment o f theFederal Government.

The Second Woodward Report, released inApril 1974, made the following principalrecommendations:

That all Aboriginal Reserve land in theNT be handed over freehold toAboriginal people.

That the title holders of the landtransferred should be Land Trustscomprised of Aborigines nominated bythe community council of the peopleliving on that land, and/or the Land

Council for that region. That vacant Crown land should be

handed over only if the Aboriginalpeople could prove traditional ownershipor if some Aboriginal communityrequired it to live on.

That land already alienated (i.e., owned,or rights to it owned) could be purchasedfor its traditional Aboriginal owners if itwas for sale.

That minerals in Aboriginal landremain the property o f the crown, but theLand Council for that region could, onbehalf of the traditional owners, refuseconsent for exploration and mining of


13/40

ABORIG IN ALAND 11

minerals, provided it did so beforeexploration started. This veto could onlybe overruled if both Houses ofParliament voted that it was in thenational interest that this mining

venture should proceed. That all royalties and payments in

connection with mining should be usedfor the benefit o f Aboriginal people, andbe divided up between Land Councils,the local communities involved and an

Aboriginal Benefits Trust Fund.

Most of these recommendations were wellreceived by Aborigines, but there was onearea in particular where there waswidespread dissatisfaction - that concerning

mineral rights,(18)

Realising that the new minerals rush byGovernments and mining companies posedperhaps the greatest threat to the futureexistence of Aboriginal communities in the

Territory, both the Northern Land Counciland Central Land Council placed strongubmissions before Woodward asking for anabsolute right to all minerals, including gasand oil, found in Aboriginal soil. The NLCfollowed this by saying: We believe that

any attempt to compromise in relation to thisquestion of mining or minerals may largelyundo the benefits of granting to themownership of their land"(19)

Of course, Woodward did compromise and

knocked back these requests. As a judgesteeped in the tradition of British law,according to which all minerals in landwhich comes under the Crowns jurisdictionremain the property of the crown, he couldpresumably accept no other option - eventhough the Aboriginals occupation of theirland for upwards of 30,000 years before thewhite people came, and the fact that miningventures are so destructive o f their land andculture, surely established grounds for a

break with tradition in this case.To Woodwards credit, however, he clearly

intended that the Government should onlyover-rule an Aboriginal veto on a miningventure in extreme circumstances. He statesin his Second Report(20): (Aborigines)views could be over-ridden if the Governmentof the day were to resolve that the nationalinterest requires it. In this context I use theword required deliberately so that such anissue would not be determined on a mere

balance of convenience or desirability butonly as a matter of necessity .

So in the present case of uranium miningin Arnhem Land, where there is certainly nonecessity for mining to go ahead (and evenmonetary benefits would only amount to0.5% of national income at best(21)) then wewould interprret Woodward as meaning that,if the Aborigines said no to mining, then theGovernment would have no grounds forover-ruling their veto. (But as we shall see

later, the Aborigines won't even be given thechance to exercise a veto on uranium mining,which makes this finding somewhatacademic!)

The trouble is we have to interpretWoodward on this highly contentiousquestion o f what is in the national interest.If he really wanted to protect Aboriginesfrom mining developments he should havespelt out in much greater detail what hemeant by the term. Because, as we have seen

with both the Woodward Reports and the FoxReport, as soon as the report of aCommission is released it becomes apolitical document, to be cut, stretched andtwisted to whatever shape the variousparties desire.. With a Liberal/National

Ju s r / c e H E H L T N

j t t e FuTuRe

L I FE //


14/40

12 AU STRALIAN LEFT REVIE W No. 60 - JU LY 1977

BA^MTE t t l h UHt r

nlnulunbuijN f b A l . r o

f c A W E lW W &

mwron wivkwv

awuo cww*> oomioK-cws BtLumnPEiHiNtY

MAN WEiE p.mMHg'sott tijUivtt( . . H P .

5ILVE*..LEAP.WMOMIN1N&

WsrroloMim'tJAMWW

mjtijjkalhtwri

t W I KAWUSN UWMUh

Akr i^* l i tK l tmetv t i

BLACK MARKS FOR MINERSL o c a t m n o f r e so u r ce s a nd

A b o r i g i n a l c o m m u n i t i e s a f f e c t ed .


15/40

ABORIGINALAND 13

Country Party Party in power, and theAustralian and foreign mining interestsgroup, the Australian Mining IndustryCouncil, working away behind the scenes,national interest can all too soon be

reshaped into 'multinational interest.Another weakness o f the Aboriginal veto

over mining as proposed by Woodward wasthat it had to be exercised when anexploration lease was being sought, or notat all; thus A bor iginal consent toexploration for minerals entailed a consentto any mining which eventuated later,provided the mining proposed was insubstantial accordance with the proposalssubmitted to the Aborigines before

exploration.As Geoff Eames, solicitor to the Central

Land Council has noted(22): ... veryconsiderable difficulties ... will faceAborigines to reach an agreement at theexploration stage which provides for all thepossibilities which may occur afterexploration has been completed . After all, ifa mininng company knows all about what itis planning to do before exploration, whybother to explore? Unfortunately this

weakness, and the others mentioned, inWoodwards original recommendations havebeen carried over into all the land rightslegislation proposed since.

LAND RIGHTS LEGISLATION

N e a r l y a l l o f W o o d w a r d srecommendations were incorporated into theAboriginal Land (Northem Territory) Bill1975 presented to Parliament by the tnenLabor Government on 5 November 1975. TheBill had a very short life since the LaborGovernment were removed from office onlysix days later.

The Labor Land Rights Bill was opposedby the Liberal/Country parties and whenthey came into office they set aboutamending it. When they presented their ownBill to Parliament in June 1976, the Bill wasdescribed as a sell-out by Land Rightsgroups throughout the country. Under thisnew Bill, Land Councils, which had proven

such effective advocates of the Aboriginalcause in the past, were to be stripped ofpractically all their powers and finance; theCountry party dominated NT LegislativeAssembly was to be given the power to make

laws concerning Aboriginal land and rightof Aborigines to enter pastoral properties;and most alarmingly, the Federal Ministerresponsible for Aboriginal Affairs couldhim /herself over-rule an Aboriginal veto on

a mining venture in the national interestwithout even airing the matter inParliament.

Only now, however, is the true measure ofthis Bill becoming apparent. Indeed, it didr e t u r n t o m o s t o f W o o d w a r d srecommendations, as they are outlinedearlier in this article. Land Councils wereretained, though doubts about their fundingremain; the NT Legislative Assemblyspowers over Aboriginal land were cut back

somewhat compared with the f irs tLiberal/NCP Bill; and the Aboriginal vetoover mining returned to its Woodward form -i.e., over-ruling in the national interest wassubject to disallowance by either House ofParliament.

But as argued earlier, the Aboriginalveto over mining suggested by Woodwardhad serious weaknesses as it was. And just incase these werent enough, some o f the lateamendments to the December 1976 Bill

ensured that the Aborigines had no p ow ero f v eto at a ll over practically all the majormining, and oil and gas, ventures at presentcontemplated on land claimed (or which willbe) by Aborigines in the Territory. We willdeal with the uranium mining caseseparately; first o f all, though, let us look atall the other proposed developments.

ROLLING IN THROUGH THEDOORS

One sub-clause 40(5), in the Land RightsAct provides a convenient loophole throughwhich any company that has already beengranted a lease for oil or gas exploration onland claimed by Aborigines can now goahead with any further developmentswithout Aboriginal consent. This means thatthe oil and gas deposits at Mereenie whichMagellan Pettroleum Pty. Ltd. are seeking toexploit, and the deposit on Aboriginal land atPalm Valley discovered by Palm Valley Oil

and Gas, can both go ahead whatever is saidby the Aboriginals claiming this land.

Another sub-clause, 10(3), under whichany mining lease granted before the date ofcommencement of the Act or in pursuance


16/40


17/40

ABORIGIN ALAND 15

Ranger

The Ranger project itself, managed byRanger Uranium Mines, is specificallyexempted from any Aboriginal veto by subclause 40(6) of the Land Rights Act. From the

miners point o f view this is just as well sincethe 25 descendants o f the original owners ofthis area have a very strong claim to thisland which Mr. Justice Fox will find hard todeny. (27)

The traditional owners are particularlyconcerned that two sacred sites on thenearby Mt. Brockman escarpment will bedesecrated or physically damaged byblasting at the mine, if the Ranger projectgoes ahead.

The sites are Djidbidjidbi, a sacredpresence taking the form of a big qua.*tziteboulder on the rubble slopes; andDadbe, theRainbow Snake, a deep rock hole withpermanent water on which blue water liliesfloat, on top o f the escarpment at the north -west tip. (28) The Aborigines say that ifDadbe or Djidbidjidbi is desecrated so thewhole country will be wiped out. Currentlythere is a token fence across the track leadingto the sites on Mt. Brockman but when the

Ranger Inquiry visited the area it wasdiscovered that someone had run rightthrough the fence with a truck. (28)

Jabiluka and Koongara

The neighboring deposit, Jabiluka, forwhich Pancontinental Mining Ltd. holds theexploration licence, is not subject toAboriginal veto because the companyapplied for mineral leases before June 4,1976, and this is thus exempted by sub-clause

40(3) of the Act. Noranda Australia whichholds the exploration licence for theKoongara deposit could presumably havetaken the same course of action, but ourinformation at the time of going to presssuggests that this company was not quickenough off the mark to exploit the veto-exemption the government was offering.

Nabarlek

Queensland Mines at Nabarlek, however,

did get their mineral-lease application inbefore the June 4, 1976 deadline.^ and istherefore exempted from any Aboriginal veto

another blow to the traditional owners ofNabarlek who have been battling against

the company since it first discovereduranium there in 1970. (29)

Queensland Mines was o ff to an especiallybad start here. Early on, when prospecting,one of their drilling teams sank an

exploration hole within the area of the GaboDjang (Green Ant) sacred site, withoutconsent of the Aboriginal owners at theOenpelli Settlement. This was regarded asan act of desecration. To the Oenpelli people,the green ant nests in the large boulders atthis site are sacred, and they believe that ifthe ant eggs are broken by human action,dire consequences will come to allpeople.

When Queensland Mines sought furtherleases in the area, the Oenpelli people

objected, but finally compromised on an areaof possible mining which they believedprotected the Gabo Djang site. Later, in 1972,however, they discovered that the companyhad misled them in its description of thelocation of the ore body, and they withdrewtheir approval. (30)

Woodward in his second report describedthe next development as follows: On 26 July1973, Queensland Mines made the

Aborigines an offer which lean only describeas contemptuous, which amounted toarranging the sale to them of 173,040 sharesin the company at the then full market price of $1.70 per share. The offer was rejected bythe Nabarlek Aborigines."(31) In February1974 the company made another offerincluding a lump sum payment of $600,000,but this was also rejected.

Woodward went on to say that ".... it is tomy mind unthinkable that a completely new

schem e of Aboriginal land rights should

begin with the imposition of an open cutmine right alongside a sacred site."(32) andhe recommended that Queensland Minesshould not be permitted to develop mineraldeposits in the Nabarlek area withoutAboriginal consent.(33)

We feel it is significant here thatWoodward did not add the rider - unlessthew Government decides that the nationalinterest requires it. We trust that the FoxCommission feels bound by this unequivocal

recommendation of an earlier RoyalCommission.

In May t974 Queensland Mines began anadver t i s ing campaign in nat iona l


18/40

16 AU STRALIAN LEFT REVIE W No. 60 - JULY 1977

newspapers designed to discredit theOenpelli people and force them to withdrawtheir opposition to mining The text of onelarge ad in The A ustra lia n (May 13.16, 74)read: "50,000 Australians (Qld. MinesShareholders) demand equality with

Aborigines. The uranium cannot be minedbecause a small group o f Aborigines now saythey don t want it mined.... Has someone toldthem they might get the land and theuranium and be able to sell to the highestbidder?"

Under this and other pressure, theNabarlek Aborigines eventually didconsent with Queensland Mines about thedevelopment of the Nabarlek ore body. Butthis consent must be seen in the light of

recent statements by the Oenpelli people that Abor ig ines have recognised theinevitability o f mining . (34) In other words,even if they said no, they know that miningwould go ahead anyway. As Mr. S.Maralngurra said during a recent OenpelliCouncil discussion: "balanda (white men)

push, push, push - soon pubs everywhere andthey will kill the race - look at the

Larrykeahs, Darwin is their country andthey are living on the tip. (34)

Basic Opposition to Mining

Both the Northern Land Council (NLC)and the Oenpelli Council expressed theirbasic opposition to uranium mining in theirfinal submissions to the Ranger Inquiry. (36)

They fear the destruction o f their land whichwill result from mining, and the likelydesecration of their sacred sites. In addition,they fear the effects on the local Aborigines mainly the 600 people at the Oenpellisettlement - of such a vast miningdevelopment on their doorstep. The proposedmining town with a population of more than15,000 would be less than 60 km. fromOenpelli; some mines would be even nearer.

Silas Roberts, Chairman of the NLC, said

of this town; It will do nothing for us, onlyhurt us. Drink arid men looking for girls andeverything. We want to keep this city a longway from our land and particularly our

sacred sites, (37)

However, in the final parts of theirsubmissions to Ranger, both the NLC andthe Oenpelli Council show clearly theybelieve mining will take place whatever theydo, and they outline suggestions for reducingits impact on Aborigines and their land.

Unfortunately , these compromise proposals are likely to be seized upon by theFox Commission as a way aroundAboriginal opposition.

In short, about all the Aboriginal LandRights (NT) Act 1976 will do for Aboriginesso far as uranium is concerned is toguarantee them compensation - monetarycompensation, of course. To this SilasRoberts of the NLC has the poignant answer:

"It is only when we lose our land and ourculture that we have a greater need formoney."(38)

A B O R I G I N E S A N D

ALTERNATIVES

Even if the Land Rights Act is in realityanother sell-out, there is a very positivedevelopment emerging mainly as a result ofAborigines struggle for land rights - arediscovery by Aborigines of their identityand a regaining of their confidence. This wasillustrated recently at a National LandRights Conference in Sydney when the


19/40

ABORIGIN ALAND 17

following statement by Wesley WagnerLanhupuy from Arnhem Land wasacknowledged with unanimous applause:

"I accept Aboriginal as meaning theoriginal people o f Australia who have been

separated into those at the top and thosedown here by the whites when they firstarrived. It doesnt matter if you are half,three-quarters, quarter or full-blood in theamount of your Aboriginal blood, even if youhave some small amount o f Aboriginal bloodin you, we of the NT accept you asAboriginal. Aborigines whether URBAN orTRIBAL- who have a spiritual awareness o fthemselves as Aborigines and identifythemselves as Aborigines are Aborigines.

There is also the growing demand amongAborigines for self-determination - the rightto determine their own future. And here thereis a confluence o f interest with all those whitealternativists who are seeking ana l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e m a t e r i a l i s t i cenvironmentally-destructive Australian

society of today. We too are seeking adevolution of centralised political power sothat smaller regions and the communitieswithin them can have a much more direct sayin the running of their own affairs -economically and politically. In this searchwe have much to learn from Aborigines, whohave been friends of this earth for muchlonger than we have.

John AndrewsPat MullinsDon SiemensMark CarterLyndon Shea

The article is republished fromthe Friends o f the Earths magazineChainR e a c t i o n , Vol.2, No.4, 1977. Weacknowledge, with thanks, their permissionto reprint it in this issue ofAu stralian L eftReview.

CLASS ANALYSIS CONFERENCE 1977

Plans are underway to hold a third conference on class analysis in Sydney from 28-30October 1977, on the general theme o f ....

THE CURRENT RULING CLASS OFFENSIVE

Five areas have been proposed for the conference program of plenary and workshopsessions.

1. The ruling class offensive in its historical context.2. The class relations o f Australian capitalism,3. Australia and world capitalism.4. The agents of social change.5. Ideology, cultural dominance, and the media.

In the months preceding the conference, working groups will be structuring the conferenceprogram in these areas.

If you are interested in working with any o f these groups or in offering a paper please make

contact with:Colin Gray and Baiba Irving, 10 Burton St., Glebe, 2037. 660.1461.Terry Smith, 33 Elliot St.. Balmain, 2041. 827.2?64.Warwick Richards, 205 Young St., Annandale, 2038. 660.5379.


20/40


NOTES

AND

SOURCES

1. Chain Reaction, 2 (2( , 1976, p. 19.2. Ab original L and Rights C omm ission,

First Report, July 1973, Aust. Govt.

Publishing Service, Canberra, p.6.3. Ref, 2, p.7.4. Ref. 2, p.9.5. M apoo n Boo ks. !, 2, and 3 . International

Development Action, 1976. Availablefrom IDA, 73 Lt George St, Fitzroy, Vic.

3065.6. The Politics o f Pauperisation, Frank

Stevens (reprinted by Australian Union of

Students; also available through IDA see ref. 5).

7. See Official S tatem en t by the thenMinister for Aboriginal Affairs, SenatorJ. L, Cavanagh, Brisbane, 31 October

1974.8. Ab original Land Rights Com mission, Se-

cond Report, April 1974, Aust. Govt,Publishing Service, Canberra, p.119.

9. P roperty Law Case s an d M ate rials .Sackville and Naeve, 2nd Edition, 1974,

"M ilirrpum and Others v Nabalco PtyLtd and the Commonwealth of Austral ia(19 71), pp. 13751.

10. Ref. 9, p . 148.

11. Subm ission to R ang er Inqu iry, M arch1976, by Gordon Briscoe, Adviser toCentral Austral ian Aboriginal Congress.Alice Springs, N.T.. p.7.

12. Ref. II, p.17.

13. Ref. 8, p .121.14. Black New s Service, B risbane, Vol. 2, No .

I, p.17, Feb. 1976.15. Re f. II , pp . 1718.

16. Unluckv flustraiians, Frank Hardy,Nel so n, 1968.

17. Ref. 2, p.iii.

18. Liberal Country Party Amendments toAboriginal Land Rights (N.T.) Bill 1976,G e o f f E a m e s , S o l i c i to r , C e n t r a lAboriginal Land Council, Alice Springs,25 November 1976, p.6.

19. Ref. 8, p. 104.20. Ref. 8, p . 108.

21. Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry

First Report, Aust. Govt. Publishing Ser-vice, Canberra, 1976, p.83.

22. Ref. 18, p.6.23. Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Ter-

ritory) Act, p.7, Clause 10 (3).24. The National Times, 1621, August 1976,

gives the full story.25. Ref. 18, p.6.26. Land R ig h ts N ew s, J a n u a ry 1 9 7 7 .

Available from P.O. Box 3046, Darwin,N T 5794.

27. According to Dr N. Peterson, Dept ofP r e h i s to r y , A N U , w h o s e r v e d asWoodwards Research Officer.

28. M ountain of awe is Da dbe s sacredhome", Tony Thomas, The Age, 23

Novem ber 1976, give s m ore deta il s and achilling description of what happenedwhen a white man in the company of twoAboriginals tried to visit these sites on 9May 1972.

29. See R ef. 8, pp. 1224 for the f acts of thisconfrontation.

30. Chain Reaction , Summ er 1975. p .16.31. Re f. 8, p. 123, p ar a 680.32. Ref. 8, p. 124, pa ra 685.33. Re f. 8, p. 128, N o. x xii.34. Oenpelli Coun cil, F inal S ubmission to

Ranger Inquiry, 1976, p.8.35. Ref. 34, p.7.36. Northern Land Council, Final Submis-

sion to Ranger Inquiry, 1976, p.l. AlsoRef. 34, p.7.

37. Ref. 36, p.26.

38. R ef. 36. p .13.

communist partypublications ....

OIL ! Gre a s i n g t h e M u l t i n a t i o n a l Pa l m -

by Eric Aarons. Price - 10c.

H O W T O F I G H T F R A S E R

by Eric Aarons. Price - 20c.

JO I N H A N D S

A CPA womens journal. Published

approx. twice yearly. 50eTRIBUNE . . . . Australias communistweekly. News, commentary, analysisof political, economic, industrial and

progressive movement events anddevelopments. Price - 20c. OutWednesdays.

These pub l i ca t ions a re a l l ava i lab le a t

l e f t b o o k sh o p s (se e a d ve r t i se me n t b a ck

co ver ) . The y can a lso be ob t a ined by

w r i t i n g t o 4 D i x o n S t . , S y d n e y . 2 0 0 0 .

Fu r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e C P A a nd

i ts po l ic ies can a lso be obta i ned at th is

address.


21/40

RESOURCE LISTN O R TH Q ' L A N D M E SS A GE S TI C K

Nth G 'l and Land f l i ght s Comm i t t ee

P 0 Sox 1429

Cai rns , Old . 487 0

Subscript ion: $5 00Newsle t te r pubhshed b i m on th ly , conta ins news on

land struggles >n Nt h O land , local new s.-poet ry,

racism

TH E M A P O O N S TO R Y

I D A

73 Li t t le Gj orge Street

F i t ? r oy , V i c . 3065 .

Pace 54.60 for the set of three {90 cents extra f or

postage) or can be bo ught indiv idua l ly.

Three books g iv ing a comprehens ive and in -depth

coverage of t he Mapo on pe opl es story and the

behawiout of the i nvaders; The Min ing Comp anies , the

Church and the Government .

A B O R I G I N A L A N D I S L A N D E R F OR U M

G-P.O- Box M931

Perth. W A. 6001

S u b s c r i p t i o n : $ 5 . 0 0

Mo nth ly newspaper wi t h a good coverage o f na t iona l

Abor i gina l issues.

C A M P A I G N A G A I N S T R A C I A L E X P L O I TA T I O N

N E W S L E TTE R

C A R E. Box 178

Wembley Post Of f ice , W A. 6014

News and in format ion about Abor ig ina l issues in

W A tnc iudes also mater ia l about o th er count r ies ,

espec ia l ly Southern A f r ica and Tim or .

A B O R I G I N A L A N D I S L A N D E R I D E N T I TY

Abor ig ina l Pub l ica t ions Foundat ion

In ternat iona l House

Shop 9, 2 I rwin Street

Perth, W.A. 6000.

S u b s c r i p t i o n : $ 3 . 0 0 .

This glossy mo nt hl y conta ins stor ies, poems and

photos as wel l as let ters and ar t ic les on Abor iginal

issues .

A B O R I G I N A L H U M A N R E L A TI O N S N EW S

LE T T E R

C/ D Ric Johnstone

P O. B ox 429

St. Mary's, N.S.W. 2760.

S u b s c r i p t i o n : w r i t e f o r d e ta i ls .

Occas iona l magaz ine f rom Nor th ern N.S .W cover ing

a wide range of Abor iginal subjects.

B O O M E R A N G B U L L E T I N

C/ Mike Clark

P O Box 114

A lber ton, S .A . 5014.

S u b s c r i p t i o n : s e n d d o n a t i o n .

Newslet ter wtth local and general news on events and

issues concerning Abor iginals in S.A.

K Q O R I B I N A

B lack W omen s Ac t i on Commi t t ee

P O Box 141Redfern. N S.W. 2016

Subscript ion S5.00 / indiv iduals}; $7.00 (organisa-

tions)

Mo nth ly newspaper cover ing nat iona l and loca l

Sydney events and issues.

euNJi

C/ Gwa lwa Da r amk i

P O B ox J7 5 f

D d / w m N . T 5 7 9 4 .

S u b s c r i p t i o n w r i t e f o r d e ta i ls .

The Gwalwa Daran ik i Assoc ia t ion is a group o f Ab or i

gines from several t r ibes wh o are f ig ht i ng for thei r

r ights and the*r land around Da rw in Buni> is the con

tmu inq s t o r y o f t ha t f i gh i

LAND RIGHTS NEWS

Nor the r n Land Counc i l

P O. Box 3046

Dar w in , N T , 5794

S u b s c r i p t i o n : b y d o n a t i o n .

Regular publ icat ion on the latest news relat ing to

Land Rights in the Nor th ern Ter r i to ry - fo r the loca l

Abor ig ina l peop le and the i r suppor ters .

C E N T R A L A U S T R A L I A L A N D R I G H T S N EW S

Cent ra l Land Counc i l

P O. B o x 1960

A l ice Spr ings, N .T 6750.

S u b s c r i p t io n : b y d o n a t i o n .

Local- and nat ional news on the Land Rights move

ment . fo r loca l Abor iq ina l peop le

W E H A V E B U G GE R A L L ! - TH E K U L A L U K

S T O R Y

Black Resource Centre

P.O Box 345

Nor th Br isbane, Old . 4000.

P r ic e $ 1 . 0 0

The s tory o f the Lar raka is and Gwa lwa Daran ik i ' s

'Jruggle for their land

TH E Q U E E N S L A N D A B O R I G I N E S A C T A N DR E G U L A T I O N S 1 97 1

P.O. Box 345

Nor th Br isbane. Qld . 4000

o r

P.O. Box 27

Car l t on . V i c . 3053

P r i c e : $ 1 . 0 0 .

Wri t te n b y the B lack Resource Cent re Co l lec t ive ,

1976 - So tha t anyone can read and unders tand

these Acts.

B L A C K L I B E R A TI O N


P.O. Box 345

Nor th Br isbane, Qld . 4000

D is t r i b u t ed f r ee .

Broadsheet on the struggles tor land and for f iee dom

of Aust ra l ian b lacks Occas iona l .

B L A C K N E W S SE R V I C E


P.O; Box 345

, Nor t h B i rsbane, Qld . 400 0

S u b s c r i p t io n : $ 1 0 . 0 0

Regular and comple te .coverage o f Abor ig ina l a f fa i rs

m Aust ra l ia ; A lso news in so l idar i ty wi th Ind ians and

Afr ican struggles

R A M P A G E

C/ Bi l l Rosser

S tuden t Un ion

Univers i ty o f Queens landDouglas Campus

Townsv i l le , Qld

S u b s c r i p t i o n 0 0 .

Abor ig ina l wr i t ings, a r t ic les , s tories and poet ry Th is

w i l t p r obab l y be t he pub l i ca t i on o f t he A bo r i g ina l

and Tor res St ra i t I s landers Stude nt Un ion.


22/40

20

w a r w i c k n e i l l y

E X P L O I T A T I O N O F

B L A C K W O R K E R SThe following article has been adapted from a paper given by Warwick Neilly, former

organiser of the North Australian Workers Union, in the Trade Unions and Co-operativesCourse at the NSW Trade Union Training Centre.

by Prime Minister Fisher, they took fullcontrol and appointed an administrator in1911. Labors aim was to develop the landwith many small landholders who would livein the NT, and a team of experts was sent to

Darwin under the leadership o f one. Dr. J.A.Gilruth.In 1912 one of the first things they

attempted was to develop the idea of agovernment-owned abattoir in Darwin.When this idea was floated, Vesteysretaliated, suggesting they build an abattoirto do the work and there would be no need toestablish a government-owned outfit.

The following year, Labor was defeatedand Vesteys private deal went ahead.

Vesteys expansion in the slaughteringbusiness was paralleled by their rapid landgains. Between 1914 and 1916, Vesteysobte'red 36,000 square miles of land in theNT.

The first major industry to start up in theNorthern Territory was, of course, the beefindustry. It was only in later years that theother major industry - mining - began to takeits place.

The beef industry began in earnest a fewyears before the First World War and the keycompany was Vesteys, who became themajor operators in the NT at a time whenthere was big competition in the world overbeef markets. The British companies, ofwhich Vesteys was one, were in competitionwith the American companies and theywanted big areas of land for producing beef.The NT was a natural for this and theymoved in heavily with big properties and

abattoirs.

At about the same time, the Federalgovernment was taking an interest in thearea and under a Labor government headed


23/40

EXPLOITATION OF BLACK WORKERS 21

During these years the Northern TerritoryWorkers Union was formed and there begana history of struggle for at least one section ofthe workforce.

The founders of the NTWU included

a c t i v i s t s f r o m t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a lWorkingmen o f the World, or Wobblies ,who did a lot of the early work. They werealso active in southern parts of Australia andhad as their main task the creation of whatthey called One Big Union. The One BigUnion eventually became the AustralianWorkers Union and, in many ways, theNTWU was similar to the AWU.

With the defeat of Labor in 1912 and nodoubt under its own steam, the local

administration in the NT became more andmore conservative. They became more andmore friendly to interests such as Vesteysand more oppressive to the generalpopulation, both black and white. Part of thisoppression was to try to stop thedevelopment of union solidarity in the north.

There was a concentration o f power in thehands of a few individuals. For example, oneman, a Mr. Carey, was given the jobs ofDirector of Lands, and Agriculture, and

Chief Protector o f Aborigines. He was also,believe it or not, the Censor of all outgoingand incoming mail.

The two key jobs o f Director of Lands andChief Protector of Aborigines meant he wasin a powerful position to do what he liked inthe allocation of land and control ofAboriginal people

The development of Darwin as anadministrative centre was built on these two

key functions: control of Aboriginal peopleand land allocation to business interests.

This was the situation during the waryears. But in 1917, Mr. Carey wentrightoverthe heads o f the employers and started workwith Vesteys. He no doubt left behind in theadministration a group who would do hiswork.

During this time the hostility of workerswas so great that it was reported by one o f theleaders of the NTWU, Harold Nelson, that

practically all wage earners had joined theunion, in Darwin at least. Because of this, theunion movement was able to infiltrate intoareas previously kept closed by theemployers and administrators.

The crunch came when Harold Nelson gothold of a letter written by Carey detailing aplan by Vesteys to take over a large pastoralholding which had a lease expiring in 1918. Afigure o f 20,000 ($40,000) was mentioned as

the price the Administrator wanted to carryout the operation. This was the work inwhich Carey was involved.

Of course the trade unions blew it wideopen. Carey protested that his mail had beenstolen, but Nelson replied that the union hadhad its mail stolen for several years byCarey. A meeting of union members called onall those involved in the Administration andVesteys to resign and for the election of anew Administrator.

The next day a general strike was declaredand a meeting held in the Administratorsresidence. A rebellion had begun in Darwinover collusion between the Administratorand Vesteys.

The Administrator was still Dr. Gilruthwho made his escape on the HMAS

Melbourne which had been instructed toproceed to Darwin by Prime MinisterHughes. But while theMelbournewaB therethe crew mixed with locals in the pubs and

became sympathetic to the cause. Thecaptain ordered them back to the ship andtheMelbourneleft in a hurry. They left Careyand some others stranded. A few days laterthey were taken away by a Burns Philpsteamer after threats of being thrown intothe sea by the locals.

A subsequent Royal Commission forgavethe local residents, saying they had beenunder extreme pressure at the time from thelocal administrators.

These were the beginnings of the labormovement in the Northern Territory, but thecentral issue to be looked at is the treatmentof Aboriginal people in the industrial sceneas they were, and still are, the bulk of theworkforce in the cattle industry.

It is a fact of history that the initialmilitancy did not flow on to the organisationof Aboriginal people into unions.

Their conditions have always been badand the reasons for this can be placed underthree main headings: .

* The desire o f employers in the industry tomake the greatest possible profit and expand


24/40

22 AU STRALIAN LEFT REVIE W No. 60 - JU LY 1977

as much as possible, along with their racistattitudes;

* Government or administrative efforts todirectly assist the employers;

* The inability of unions to work againstthis because of the racist attitudes of theirmembers and officials. These prevailed inthe community generally.

In 1970 I spent a couple of months with theGurindji people at Wattie Creek. While thereI talked with an Aborigine named PincherNumiari who was one of the leaders of theWave Hill station strike against Vesteys in1966 - the longest strike in Australia s historywhich led to the land claim at Dagarugu, or

Wattie Creek.He told me he had been bom at Wave Hill

and that he had worked as a stock campringer. He said I bin work for Vesteys allmy life when I was young till I get married, inWave Hill station. I bin start of f in old stationfirst. Old Wave Hill, not that place wherethey bin walk o f f .... I seen very bad, treatemlike a dog when I was a kid.

Asked about things that had happenedand things done by the station manager, hewent on, A lot of wrong. I saw them fellaswalking here before, early days, all them oldpeople here. They used to clean him road, nograder. This country, they used to cart himup bag of flour. Bag o f corned meat. One boxmatches. No more, see. They bin walk onfoot, dont matter how many miles on foot.

All this country they bin clean him up, youknow.

.... Men, and women, all the children wasthere .... They bin all gone foot walk. Cleanhim out. Clean the stone, chuck the stoneaway. Next time they carry the rock on theneck and hand in chain .... Walk em footwalk, you know. Carry them brand onshoulder.

He said this had been done by the stationmanager. .... If he cant doi t.y ou sposedto,sometime he take em over there. Shot himone bloke down over there.

Bin going back to station in the night. Tostation in the night that Borwee, one boy. Iwas a kid then. They put the cattle in the

Aboriginal stockmen on strike at Waue Hill station.


25/40


cattle camp. Had a lunch. Then go out get hiehorse and go out and cut them bullock out,you know. An then he pushed em fellas, allthose boys: You mob go to cattle over there.And they all bin go to cattle camp all themfellas, all them boys. Then, I dont know howmany, might be two, might be three whitebloke, one fella. They take him to river thereand tie him around to chain and shot himthere. And get fire and burn im up.

Oh, yes. Bit o f a cruel before, early day.Anything happen, they just took them overthe creek there and shot them.

Conditions w ere cruel to use Pincherswords and they remain cruel even today, invarying degrees.

The colonisation of Australia meant thattraditional Aboriginal society was shattered.Their economic activities and nomadic lifewere brought to an end as settlers claimedland for cultivation and sheep and cattleraising. In the sparsely settled northern andcentral region of Australia, once theresistance o f Aboriginal people had been putdown, their labor potential became great.

The lack of white workers and the fact thatAboriginal people could no longer work at

their traditional economic activites meantthat Aboriginal labor camps becameessential parts of the cattle station economy.A number of people have pointed out thatthis relationship is no different from that inSouth Africa. In Australia, as with SouthAfrica, this system of labor exploitation waswithout any real rewards for the workers.

Conditions on cattle stations have beendescribed by many observers.

In 1946 Vesteys called in Professor Bemdtof Sydney University to investigateconditions of employment at their Wave HillStation, Vesteys were having troublekeeping labor and they wanted an expertopinion on how to stop this. Berndts reportbecame famous for what it exposed.

He found that a depressing situationexisted with people housed in crudely builtshacks of old bagging and iron. They wererarely waterproof and broke up in a strongwind.

He also found that simple things like a safewater supply were refused; that police wereknown as neck chainers and carried outphysical violence against the Aboriginal

people. Young children were used under thetheory of catch them young and trainthem . Wage payments were often avoidedand were not even paid under the WardsEmployment Regulations. Medical attentionwas poor or non-existent. Food was bread,beef and tea three times a day. Prostitutionwas forced on the women to earn extramoney and rape occurred under physicalthreat from white workers. Old age meantliving on rations worse than others in thecommunity.

Bemdt said that to solve the problem oflosing labor that living conditions should beimproved and wages paid.

The companys reply to the money

question was: Money seems to be the root ofall evil . They rejected his other suggestions.That was in 1946 - what about today?

A report on living conditions on cattlestations was commissioned by GordonBryant in 1973 when he was Minister forAboriginal Affairs. This report, comparedwith Bemdts 1946 report, revealed that ontwo stations near Alice Springs, Utopia andAlcoota, conditions were the same.

1900 - 1946 - 1973 - no real change!

This summarises the approach o f the vastmajority of employers in the industry. Theywanted to expand their land holdingsquickly and maximise profit. They did thisthrough defeating the Aboriginal people,exploiting their labor and providing norewards. The exploitation of Aboriginalpeople is an indication o f how the Australianeconomy worked in the past, and still workstoday.

The treatment described was paralleled by

government activity through its variousagencies - the police and welfare, inparticular.

Welfares role is more insidious and moredifficult to understand than that o f the policewho were, in the past, seen as neckchainers".

Under the heading of protectionistpolicies , the various government agenciesreinforced and gave legal status toexploitation.

In Queensland there is the infamousAboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders Act,and in th? Northern Territory we had theWards Employment Ordinance.


26/40

24 AUSTRALIAN LEFT REVIE W No. 60 - JU LY 1977

Under the NT Ordinances, the weeklywage for Aboriginal male workers was set at5 shillings (or 50 cents) a week in 1933, Thiswas for work in agriculture, pastoral work,surface mining, transport, timber cutting

and domestic work. By comparison the basicaward rate for white male workers was 2.8.0(or $4.80) at the same time. The Ordinancealso made some provisions for food, tobaccoand clothing. What did this mean?

It meant that employers were able to paynothing at all if they wanted to, or pay out 50cents a week and everything would be legal.This was the function o f government at thattime: it gave the legal OK to employerspolicies. Sub-standard wages and conditions

of employment were legalised through theOrdinances and administered by the Welfareagencies.

The 50 cents did not change for 16 years! In1949 it was increased to 1.00 (or $2.00) a weekfor male Aboriginal workers, but only if theyhad three years experience. Drovers werepaid a little more but had a 7-day week, 16hours a day job. Aboriginal women workerswere paid 7/6 a week if the wife of a maleemployee, others were paid 10/-, or $1 a week.

In 1957 the top rate was lifted to 2.8.3 (or$4.83) with a 15/- clothing allowance.

Finally, in 1965 a decision was made to payequal wages in the cattle industry in thcrNTbut the new rates did not apply until 1968,

only nine years ago. Even then theConciliation and Arbitration Commissionput the notorious slow worker clause intothe award which allows employers to setlower rates if they wish.

The equal wage case in 1965 also sawwomen excluded from the operation of theaward. This, despite the fact that they hadbeen included in the old regulations. Womenwork as domestics - cleaning white workersquarters, cooking for the boss family, etc.

It means that Aboriginal women are stillexcluded (unless they are cooks in thegeneral mess) from award coverage andthere has been a lack of concern by theunions involved to correct the position.Currently, in the NT, this responsibility lieswith the Federated Miscellaneous WorkersUnion but, in the past, the approach has beenthat the work women do on the stations is nota part of the cattle industry. There are strongindications that this is not correct. The

Aboriginal "housing" at Vesteys "C hevron" at Mistake Creek.


27/40


NT) Award. This had been done byCommissioner Portue in 1951 when theNAWU argued that they be included underhe award. They were not necessarily

arguing equal pay.

In 1965*66 the Arbitration Commissionould not do this and had to grant the

applicants equal wages. That they did not lett operate until 1968 is an example of theconservative influence of the ArbitrationCommission on industrial life in Australia.

An example of the unions role in the pastwas that in 1923 the NTWU as it was thenknown, moved to prohibit Aborigines fromhe cattle industry. The Arbitration

Commission did not allow this, realising that

employers needed the labor. But lets not pathe Commission on the back the decisionwas for the employers.

So, when we examine the wages struggle inhe Northern Territory and consider the role

of unions in relation to a key part of theworkforce, the unions effort has beenminimal and, in fact, anti-Aboriginal.However, I want to make it clear that thefuture lies with the broad labor movement

and efforts must be made to bring theproblems of Aboriginal people in this societynto the struggles o f the labor movement.

The question o f union membership here isrucial. It is no use having an award, fornstance, if a union does not enforce its

conditions. Unions have failed in this regardn the past.

A report on the situation in Wee Waa,NSW, for instance, by Norman FosterDepartment of Labor and Immigration) in

1973, found that depressed wages existed dueo the Australian Workers' Union (AWU)not

enforcing the application o f the award.

It was my observation in the NT thatAboriginal people have a high appreciationof the value of unions and are only too willingo join and get the real protection unions can

offer.

There must be an ACTU-sponsored driveo clean up unorganised Aboriginal labor as

a first step. Unfortunately, when we look athistory again, there have been problems ineveh getting this type of activity off theground.

In 1972-73 some officials o f the Federated

Miscellaneous Workers Union (FMWU)approached Gordon Bryant for assistance inorganising Aboriginal workers in theNorthern Territory. (The FMWU hadrecently absorbed the North AustralianWorkers Union.)

Clyde Cameron intervened as Minister forLabor and Immigration and opposed Bryantdoing anything practical.

The drive to unionise Aboriginal laborshould occur in the context of a total socialaction program adopted by the labormovement to include health, welfare, landrights, housing, economic aid and educationfor Aboriginal people.

The Aboriginal question in trade union

history is, in many ways, the guts of thathistory. A history must deal with people, andthe people of Northern Australia werepredominantly Aboriginal until the last 2030 years. The key industry, the pastoralindustry, of that period was built on theirblood and sweat. Not many of us in otherparts of Australia really understand this.But it is up to us to work to change thatsituation.

Union organisation in Northern Australia

will become increasingly important to allAustralian people. With the decline ofAustralian m anufa cturin g industries,largely located in the southern States, andincreased interest in mining in the north, thestakes for Australias future are high.

Mining and similar industries are notlabor intensive, but are highly profitable andthis demands a new approach by unions.

With increasing unemployment created bybusiness interests shifting their money intomining, perhaps we should begin to demandthat some of the huge mining profits be spentin other areas of Australia to help provide

jobs.

If union activity is left to traditionalareas o f wages and conditions on site formembers working there, the rest of Australiawill be ignored.

Unions must, of course, continue tostruggle - and struggle hard - for the wages

and working conditions of their members.But there are broader issues confrontingAustralia today and in the future. It is in thehands o f "the labor movem ent to dosomething about these issues.


28/40


Arbitration Commission has not had a caseput to it on this question and it should bedone without delay.

I remember having a discussion with a

woman in Katherine before the season hadfully started up last year. She was with herhusband who told me that he was thinking ofnot going back to the station because he wasnot getting enough money that year, and foryears before. His wife was even more bitterbecause the employer had offered her $15,00a week (an increase of $5.00) to get them to goback and work -

Documents

Australian Left Review No.60 July 1977