STANLEY FRASER DAVEY.
S. F. Davey graduated from the College of the Bible, Glen Iris, in 1947. Returning to his home State he worked as the Western Australian Youth Director of Churches of Christ for two years. For six years he served the Ivanhoe Church as minister, and for three years was the secretary of the Victorian Churches of Christ Aborigines' Mission Committee. Mr. Davey has been the secretary of the Aborigines' Advancement League for five years (2½ years on a full time basis). He has been the Honorary General Secretary of the Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement since its inception in Adelaide in 1958. For the last 3½ years Mr. Davey has been a High School teacher with the Victorian Education Department.

      "In the view of all Australian governments, all aborigines and part-aborigines are expected eventually to attain the same manner of living as other Australians and to live as members of a single Australian community enjoying the same rights and privileges, accepting the same responsibilities, observing the same customs and influenced by the same beliefs, hopes and loyalties as other Australians."¹

      These were the terms used by the Federal and State Ministers responsible for native welfare, to define the meaning of the assimilation policy.

      Officially adopted as a statement of the objectives of Aboriginal welfare at a ministerial conference held in Canberra, in January, 1961, it expressed jointly the policy each government authority had been seeking to implement for differing periods of time extending from the 1940's. (It should be noted that Victorian legislation from 1886 and N.S.W. from 1909 had the same intention as the prevailing Acts of today. They provided for the dispersal of persons of mixed ancestry from the Reserves and Stations with the intention that' such persons would become "absorbed in the general community.")²

      The ideal of a heterogeneous society, "One People," has been widely acclaimed and generally accepted by most Australians. This is a logical policy for all who accept the assumption, "There can be no doubt that the only possible future for the very small minority of Aboriginal people in Australia today is to merge into and be received as full members of the great community of . . . European persons which surrounds them."³

      The responsibility for the care and protection of the original inhabitants has been in the hands of the ruling authority in each State since the commencement of European occupation of the continent.

      Four distinct policy changes may be distinguished in the history of administrative contact with Aborigines in each State:

      1. Some attempt by early governors to administer justice to Aboriginal inhabitants, on equal terms with the colonists under their charge.

      2. A "laissez-faire" extermination policy. As colonists received greater power of self-government the incidents of extermination by shooting or poisoning were either ignored or illegally assisted by government authorities.⁴ (No State is without its own gruesome record.) The ravages of new diseases and starvation through loss of hunting grounds were either entirely ignored or only token assistance was offered during this period.

      3. A policy of segregation, officially registered as "protection." Natives were herded onto reserves for their protection with a view to their impending disappearance being made in more or less comfort. Often behind the development of this policy were well meaning citizens seeking to offset the callousness of past neglect. In their ignorance of Aboriginal life they contributed further to the break up of tribal life and the demoralisation of the people.

      4. The Assimilation policy. In each stage

there were different emphases made by the separate State authorities. Variations in the implementation of particular policies have been more evident in the promotion of

      Special legislation and welfare assistance have been separately devised by the Commonwealth and State governments to bring about the assimilation of Australian Aborigines within their jurisdiction.

      Persons defined as "Aboriginal" subject to the different Acts, vary from "full blood" to "more than one quarter aboriginal blood" to a "person of Aboriginal descent." There is a similar width in the restrictions and benefits which may be applied to Aborigines from State to State. In Queensland restrictions are such that the Aborigine virtually lives in a "police state." In Victoria there are no restrictions to limit Aborigines (except on the one remaining government controlled reserve), which differ from those applying to all other citizens.

      Welfare assistance has been emphasised in all reports put forward by the government Aboriginal authorities. During the last five years, the amount of assistance has noticeably increased in all States. In different ways each Aboriginal department is carrying out a programme of re-housing, education and health. As inadequate as this assistance is (varying from State to State), no government is slow to create such a picture of good works sufficient to convince most enquirers, that not only is assimilation the best and only policy, but also it is being implemented generously and justly.

      It consequently comes as a surprise to find Aboriginal people and a growing number of European Australians opposed to the present policy.

      Objections to the present policy are based on:

      the inferior status forced upon Aboriginal people under special legislative restrictions;

      the threat to the existence of their identity as a race;

      the inability of the methods being used in the promotion of the policy to achieve its stated aims;

      its failure to maintain international standards in dealing with an indigenous minority.

      (In the light of these objections the policy will also be seen to be opposed to fundamental Christian principles which should be applied in the dealings of one race with another.)

A. Legislation And Inferior Status.

      The existence of restrictive discriminatory legislation applied specifically to Aborigines (often with the best of intentions by paternalistic legislators) has been a constant heavy yoke, weighing them down, preventing the people from sharing in the benefits and responsibilities of the rest of society. Humiliated and exploited by these laws created for his "protection and preservation" the Aborigine has been relegated to an inferior social and economic status.

      Following are some examples of such legislation--

      In Queensland: (i) A person with more than 25% of Aboriginal blood may be declared an Aboriginal subject to the benefits and restrictions of the "Aboriginals Preservation and Protection Acts, 1939 to 1946." The person appears to have no right of appeal against such a declaration which may be made at the discretion of the Director of Native Affairs. (ii) Under the provisions of the Acts the D.N.A. (Director of Native Affairs) may: a. "cause

any aboriginal . . . to be removed from any district to a reserve and kept there for such time as may be ordered by the Director . . ." "The Director may by writing under his hand cause any aboriginal on a reserve to be removed to another reserve and kept there." This is no archaic law which legislators have simply forgotten to remove from the statutes. It is acted upon by the D.N.A. Families are this day being held on Palm Island reserve and other government settlement. against their will, and without right of appeal against their incarceration.

      b. have control over all marriages. He may "consent or refuse consent to the marriage of any Aboriginal who is under the age of 21." (As one young Aboriginal school teacher from W.A., where a similar law applies, said, "When I decided to get married I told my mother and asked the Commissioner of Native Affairs.") "No marriage of an aboriginal with any person other than an aboriginal shall be celebrated without the permission in writing of the Director." A marriage between Aborigines may only be celebrated with the permission of the local "protector" who may be the local constable or the mission superintendent.

      (iii) Under the Acts, Aborigines are not paid their wages in full. All or part of the money is paid into a trust fund held on their behalf in Brisbane. No bank book is issued to the persons concerned. By explaining their requirements to the local protector (often the local police officer) they may draw up to £20. Any greater amount will be released to them only with the approval of the D.N.A. It is significant that the Aborigines refer to their account as being in "the police bank" and that to June 30th, 1960, £958,049/16/7 was held in the Savings Bank Accounts, in Brisbane.⁵

      (iv) On the government settlements and mission stations, Aborigines come under further restrictions. The D.N.A. is obliged to set up a court on each settlement--and a gaol. The superintendent or protector may become the accuser and judge, and has the power to sentence an Aboriginal to a maximum of 3 weeks' gaol. (One well authenticated story is told of an Aboriginal resident being sentenced to the maximum penalty for inadequately attending to disposal of garbage. This occurred in 1962.) The superintendent or projector has power to censor all mail to or from residents. He may demand an Aboriginal to hand over personal property and may take it from him legally by force if there is any resistance. On the settlement the Aboriginal must work up to 32 hours "when required to do so by the protector or superintendent," without remuneration.

      In the Northern Territory, less than 100 full blood of a population of some 15,000 full blood Aborigines have been excluded from the "Welfare Ordinance" which made them wards, subject to special legislation. Though performing tasks on equal footing with European Australians, wards with few exceptions are paid according to a minimum wage rate laid down by the Administration of the Northern Territory:

      The Director of Welfare may direct an employer to pay part of an Aboriginal's wage into a trust fund which "may be expended by the ward . . . if the Director or an authorised welfare officer approves of the expenditure."

      In all States the Aboriginal pastoral worker is excluded from the Commonwealth pastoral workers' award. Queensland and the Northern Territory have at least established a minimum wage which must be paid to Aboriginal employees. No such minimum applies in Western Australia and wages less than those paid in any other States are usual, particularly in the central and North West areas. Even where Aborigines are eligible for normal award wages in other industries, the payments of these awards are not policed, and there is evidence that department officers are not prepared to challenge employers or to take action against them on behalf of underpaid Aboriginal employees.⁶

      Under such circumstances is it to be wondered at that Aboriginal parents are unable to adequately provide for their families, and feel a constant pressure from their inferior legal, social and economic position?

      Throughout the greater part of the Commonwealth, legal and economic restrictions are applied to Aborigines as a race and are used as instruments of "assimilation" maintaining them in an inferior status.⁷

B. Threat to Racial Identity.

      Added to the humiliation of this inferior status is a growing resentment to the promotion of an assimilation policy which anticipates the scattering of the race amongst the white dominant population with a view to its ultimate absorption.

      Convinced of the inevitable doom of Aboriginal society, government authorities are endeavouring to hasten the process of absorption.

      Mr. Hasluck states:

"In the long run I think myself that he (the Aborigine) will also be biologically assimilated and become a part of the general infusion that makes up the Australian of the future . . ."⁸ And,

      "It appears there has to be a breakdown of the Aboriginal society and a loosening of the compulsions and emotional links with Aboriginal life before there is any real chance of entry into Australian society."⁹

      The Victorian Aborigines Welfare Report (1959) gave the same clear impression:

      "Some of the people now regarded as Aborigines could 'pass' as whites and become assimilated if they broke away from their old mode of living, associate, surroundings and behaviour."

      In the light of these statements, which can be taken as a true reflection of the underlying purpose in all States, and the actions taken to assure the scattering and slow but steady assimilation of their people, the Aboriginal fear of euthanasia (or is this "humane" genocide?) has a very real basis.

      The present policy of assimilation is seeking to solve the problem posed by the existence of this minority group by the process of elimination. Elimination by extermination in Nazi Germany, Czarist and Communist Russia has been condemned. Is it to be condoned in Australia because of a different method in achieving the objective?

C. Forced Assimilation Fails.

      Apart from the moral issue inherent in the policy it is further condemned by its inability to achieve its stated aims. Australian governments have persistently ignored the experiences of other nations with similar problems and the advice of their own Australian social anthropologists.

      The position of the American Indian in Canada and the United States is probably as close to the Australian Aboriginal situation as one is likely to find for comparative study.

      In 1954 a committee of 40 anthropologists prepared a statement relative to the policies and practices involving American Indians.

      Following is a paragraph from their conclusions:

      The group of anthropologists "was unanimously of the opinion that forced or coercive assimilation is self-defeating in practice, tending to antagonise and drive under ground in the Indian groups those leaders who might otherwise develop constructive and co-operative attitudes towards greater acceptance of non-Indian society. Also, the extent of coercion that would have to be applied in order to force assimilation--coercion sufficient to disperse the Indian communities--would not be permitted by the American public."¹⁰

      Professor Sol Tax of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago wrote,

"throughout all our history, States as well as Federal Government have been frustrated in their efforts to solve the problems of the American Indians. We have vacillated between (1) a policy of starving the Indians into throwing in the sponge and getting lost in the general population and (2) a kinder policy of helping them to get themselves ready to leave Indian ways and get lost in the general population. In either case they would be off our consciences, and finally out of our pocketbook. Both policies have failed . . . They do not want to get lost."¹¹

      Australian social anthropologists have been making similar statements concerning the effectiveness of the present assimilation policy as it is applied in Australia.

      Professor A. P. Elkin of the Sydney University, Vice-Chairman of the New South Wales Aborigines' Welfare Board, stated in a, paper given at the A.N.Z.A.A.S. Congress held in Perth, 1959:

      "Assimilation is going on but it is just a trickle. The main bulk is adopting voluntary segregation or withdrawal. They do not want assimilation in the form of dispersal amongst the white community . . . They want to keep their own identity. This trend is not new but has lately become vocal.

      "The policy of assimilation has been followed in New South Wales but despite attempts to place native families in homes amongst white families the natives returned to the warmth of group settlement."¹²

      Dr. D. F. Thomson of the Department of Anthropology of the Melbourne University, stated in a letter in the "Age" (23/5/63),

      "The policy of 'assimilation' which is being implemented in this State and elsewhere in the Commonwealth appears to be directed at the breaking down of the communal and family life of the Aborigines, and in Victoria, of dispersing them over the State . . . I believe that our paramount concern must be for the welfare of these people and that their dispersal throughout the State is not consistent with this objective."

      Mr. T. G. H. Strehlow, of the Adelaide University, who spent his childhood on Hermannsburg Mission in Central Australia, writes concerning the policy of complete displacement of Aboriginal culture with the European type of culture found in the white Australian communities:

      "It has been admitted that these drastic measures would lead to the catastrophic fragmentation of the old Aboriginal groupings; but the claim has been advanced that the resultant multifarious splinters would be ready for quick absorption by the white Australian community.

      "But discontented and shiftless native communities in many parts of Australia show that it is easier to dynamite into fragments the traditional foundations of a human society than to provide new ones . . .¹³

      This opposition is not unknown to politicians who create the legislation implementing these policies. Mr. Hasluck has claimed that the only opposition to the assimilation policy comes from anthropologists

and communists!¹⁴ Such attempts to discredit the opposition of qualified and experienced men and women as well as an ever increasing number of non-communist citizens is unworthy of a Minister whose sincerity in applying himself to this problem has been beyond question.

D. International Standards Ignored and Rejected.

      Two international documents presenting standards of conduct to be observed between individuals, nations and races are the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and the International Labour Organisation Convention 107 "Concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries." The first of these standards is well known to all Australians, the latter adopted by the International Labour Conference of 1957, has almost passed unnoticed in this country.

      Australia through the Commonwealth Government is a signatory of the Human Rights Charter with other members of the United Nations. About 1956 a survey carried out by Dr. Charles Duguid showed that Australian Aborigines were excluded from the provisions of no less than 19 of the 30 articles.¹⁵ A similar survey in 1963 would not produce a much better result. Consider:

      Article 3. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person."

      Article 9. "No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

      Article 13. (1) "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State."

      Article 23. (1) "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment . . ."

      (2) "Everyone, without discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work."

      The lesser known I.L.O. (International Labour Organisation) Convention 107 is an even more important guide to our relationship with the Aborigines which is rejected by the Commonwealth Liberal/Country Party Government.

      The I.L.O. is a Specialised Agency of the United Nations to which each member nation is entitled to send 4 delegates, 2 representing the government, 1 representing the employers and 1 the workers. The Commonwealth government has sent delegates to each General Annual Conference of the I.L.O. International minimum social and labour standards are drafted at these Conferences. Such standards are called Conventions. Once having been agreed to by a two-thirds vote by Conference they are then submitted to member countries for ratification. Alongside of these Conventions a less binding instrument known as "Recommendations" are also submitted, which member countries agree to bring to the attention of their particular national authority. 15 such "Recommendations" have been passed through the I.L.O. Conferences since 1957. Australian Government delegates have supported each one except that relative to Convention 107, namely

Recommendations 104.

      Both the I.L.O. Convention 107 and Recommendations 104 were a result of consultations between member nations having indigenous minorities and the investigations of an international committee of experts. They set out standards to be observed for the future planning to raise the status of members of tribal or semi-tribal populations whose social and economic conditions are less advanced than other sections of the national community. Extracts from this document are attached as an appendix.

      Australia opposed the adoption of the Recommendations 104 on the grounds that the wide range of subjects covered were outside the constitutional competence of the I.L.O. and that there were other

ways of "solving the problems facing indigenous populations."¹⁶ None of the 45 governments which had replied to the I.L.O. questionnaire raised either of these objections.

CONCLUSION.

      The process of assimilation whereby people of different races intermingle and become more and more closely identified with one another will continue in Australia with aborigines, migrants and Australian born Europeans, no matter what policy is adopted by Australian governments. The concern of this pamphlet has been to show that there are strong and real objections to an assimilation policy which assumes one of the races involved in the process has nothing to contribute to the national character and whose only hope is to "get lost" in the dominant community.

      At no stage has the Australian Aborigine had the opportunity to voice his opinion as to the policy he would like to see. He has been told where his best interests lie and any claim to the right to maintain his identity, his culture, his possession of tribal lands or to participate in decisions as to his future relationships with other Australians have been completely denied.

      A new approach to the policy of assimilation is called for based on respect for Aborigines as a people with minority group rights. They have shown an eagerness to become economically assimilated and to share in many other facets of our way of life. Some have desired and found complete identification. Others, probably the vast majority, wish to maintain values and relationships of their own. These values vary according to the particular stage of Europeanisation experienced by the people. They are not necessarily incompatible with our present way of life, indeed most could be an enriching influence.

      The Christian Church has a responsibility to re-assess present Government, policies and to give the lead to a new order in which the Aborigine is a sharing partner in the discovery of an answer to our mutual problems.

      ¹ "The Policy of Assimilation." Decisions of Commonwealth and State Ministers at the Native Welfare Conference, Canberra, January 26th and 27th, 1961. Page 1.
      ² I am indebted to Mrs. Diane Barwick, a Canadian Anthropologist, now studying with the Australian National University, Canberra, for pointing out this fact.
      ³ "Native Welfare in Australia", page 3, An address given by the Minister For Territories The Honourable Paul Hasluck M.P., to the Baptist Home Mission Rally, Sydney, 14th February, 1956.
      ⁴ Refer chapter 2 of "The Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders of Queensland", published by the Western Suburban Branch of the United Nations Association, Brisbane, for incidents of government assisted extermination.
      ⁵ One Aboriginal, known to the writer, after receiving an exemption from the provisions of the Act claimed that at least £300 paid into his trust fund by his employer was now unaccounted for when his savings were sent to him. Such complaints are common. The people have no way of checking their assessments against the alleged position of their accounts held by the D.N.A.
      Refer "Queensland Native Affairs Report, 1960" for figure quoted as the amount held in the trust fund in Brisbane.
      ⁶ On 3rd of April, 1962, 40 Aborigines of Nomads Pty. Ltd. (an Aboriginal mining co-operative near Roebourne) undertook an emergency job for another Roebourne Coy. (white) who offered the men liberal wages. When no wages at all were paid a protest was sent to the manager who refused to even consider award rates of pay for the work. The Department of Native Affairs officials when asked to take action on behalf of the Aborigines stated, "the Department would be unwilling to take action against the employer." Ultimately the Motor Transport Union took up the case and wages were paid--almost 10 months after the job had been completed.
      ⁷ Refer "The Policy of Assimilation", page 1--"any special measures taken for Aborigines and part-aborigines are regarded as temporary measures not based on colour but intended to meet their need for special care and assistance to protect them from any ill effects of sudden change . . ."
      It should be noted that (i.) legislation in W.A., S.A., N.S.W, and N.T. has undergone considerable liberalisation since 1961; (ii.) many restrictions effective in Queensland do not exist in other parts of Australia, but any Aboriginal crossing the border into that State may be immediately subject to them.
      ⁸ "The Future of The Australian Aborigines." An address given by the Minister For Territories, the Honorable Paul Hasluck, M.P., A.N.7.A.A.S. Conference, 22nd August, 1958.
      ⁹ "Some Problems of Assimilation." An address given by the Minister For Territories, the Honorable Paul Hasluck, M.P., A.N.Z.A.A.S. Conference, 28th August, 1959.
      ¹⁰ "The American Indian in Transition", from "American Anthropologist," vol. 56, p. 394, 1954.
      ¹¹ "Integration And The Indian: A Review", by Sol Tax, Wisconsin Magazine Of History, Winter 1957-8, p. 99.
      ¹² "The Western Australian." newspaper, 29/8/59.
      ¹³ "Nomads In No-Man's-Land", by T. G. H, Strehlow, p. 15.
      ¹⁴ Hansard, House of Representatives, 1st May, 1962.
      ¹⁵ "The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights As It Relates To Aborigines Of Australia," by Dr. C. Duguid.
      ¹⁶ Refer the "I.L.O. Conference Report VI (1) on Protection And Integration Of Indigenous And Other Tribal And Semi-Tribal Populations In Independent Countries." p. 5.

      Convention Concerning The Protection And Integration Of Indigenous And Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations In Independent Countries.

Article 2.

      1. Governments shall have the primary responsibility for developing coordinated and systematic act-on for the protection of the populations concerned and their progressive integration into the life of their respective countries.

      2. Such action shall include measures for--

      a. enabling the said populations to benefit on an equal footing from the rights and opportunities which national laws or regulations grant to other elements of the population;

      b. promoting the social, economic and cultural development of these populations and raising their standard of living

      c. creating possibilities of national integration to the exclusion of measures tending towards the artificial assimilation of these populations.

Article 4.

      In applying the provisions of this Convention relating to the integration of the population concerned--

      a. due account shall be taken of the cultural and religious values and of the forms of social control existing among these populations, and of the nature of the problems which face them both as groups and as individuals when they undergo social and economic change;

      b. the danger involved in disrupting the values and institutions of the said populations unless they can be replaced by appropriate substitutes which the groups concerned are willing to accept shall be recognised ;

Article 5.

      In applying the provisions of this Convention relating to protection and integration of the populations concerned, governments shall--

      a. seek the collaboration of these populations and of their representatives.

Article 11.

      The right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the populations concerned over the lands which these populations traditionally occupy shall be recognised.

Article 21.

      Measures shall be taken to ensure that members of the populations concerned have the opportunity to acquire educator at all levels on an equal footing with the rest of the national community.

Article 23.

      1. Children belonging to the populations concerned shall be taught to read and write in their mother tongue or, where this is not practicable, in the language most commonly used by the group to which they belong.

      2. Provision shall be made for a progressive transition from the mother tongue or the vernacular language to the national language or to one of the official languages of the country.