Aboriginal affairs: Monologue or dialogue?

Abstract

On January 26 2002, the thirtieth anniversary of the creation of the first Aboriginal tent embassy was celebrated. In 1972 the tent embassy emerged from the Black Power movement as a manifestation of the call for recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty and the right to self-determination. These claims have been raised continually by some prominent Aboriginal activists, but the main answer given by the government has been the creation of Aboriginal policies and sections for Aboriginal people within the Australian political system. The government, by different means, has brought Aboriginal activists within the system and has diverted attention from their aspirations. What I would like to point out in this article is that the government has answered claims for a dialogue with an imposed monologue. I would also like to stress that some activists have found ways to take advantage of the circumstances imposed upon them and have developed a dialogue from within governmental institutions. I do not pretend to give a full description of the different means used by Aboriginal people to gain recognition of their rights; I aim only to give an account of some strategies utilised by Indigenous Australians in their fight against political marginalisation. In 1972, the first response of the government to Aboriginal political claims was radical: the police simply expelled the Aboriginal embassy from the lawn of what is now old Parliament House. This action generated much publicity for the Aboriginal cause. The following answers to Indigenous political claims were more moderate and, above all, less visible. In 1973, the Whitlam government used some of the rhetoric of the embassy protests when introducing what was called the selfdetermination policy. Prime minister Whitlam declared: ‘The basic object of my Government’s policy is to restore to the Aboriginal people of Australia their power of self-determination in economic, social and political affairs’.1 The selfdetermination policy was in fact self-management; far from what was asked for by Aboriginal activists, as it meant only greater participation in Aboriginal policy as defined by the government and not what is meant by the international definition of self-determination, which is the right to exercise a free political choice.