[“Protection of Aborigines”, The Western Mail (Perth, WA), Thursday 21 April 1927, page 25]
PROTECTION OF ABORIGINES.
Proposed Model State.
New League’s Manifesto.
Supplementary to a petition, prepared by a body formed in South Australia, asking the Federal Government to create a model State in which there would be a measure of self-government for the natives, a manifesto has been drawn up detailing the arguments in favour of the proposal. The agitation is being engineered by a body known as the Aborigines Protection League, to which membership is being invited all over the Commonwealth per circular.
“It cannot be denied,” states the manifesto, “that generally speaking the condition of the aboriginals still left in Australia is very unsatisfactory, and it follows that our well meant and costly experiments in their interests have mostly been failures. Therefore it is our duty to try different methods until we get on to the right lines. There is evidence of shocking cruelty in isolated cases, but it is clear that white people generally have been desirous of fulfilling the trust imposed on them when they rightly came to share this glorious country with the original occupants. This is proved by the large number of Acts of Parliament passed in their interests and by the good work missionary societies have done. The great anxiety of the Federal Government in this direction was shown by Senator Pearce in his address before a church congress, when he explained the large number of regulations, that had been framed for the protection and benefit of the aboriginal races. And yet there are people who would put the blue pencil through those Acts of Parliament and the rules and regulations so far as they concern a further experiment which they propose should be made. They suggest that a large area of land—say Arnhem Land—should be handed back to the natives now on it, and that they be told it is to be their own country, to be managed by themselves, (with such assistance as is necessary) according to their own laws and customs but prohibiting cannibalism and cruel rites. In other words, a separate aboriginal State, with a provision in its Constitution for a severe penalty on any unauthorised white person entering it.
“Is such an experiment not worth trying? Do we not owe some such effort on our part to the natives? And may not the adoption of this proposal convert a liability into an asset by building up from the present remnant a fine native race to develop our northern inheritance, particularly the coastal regions, the climate of which is so much more trying to a white population than inland? In considering the matter it may be noted that not only east is east and west is west but also that north is north and south is south, and it is said that as to native tribes never the twain shall meet. The State must therefore be a model State and if successful others would surely follow, although from the evidence o the Revs. J. C. Tennison and J. S Needham it would appear that caste prejudice among the Australian aboriginal is not nearly so strong as with Indians. Many of the natives are quick to learn and the growth of a sense of nationhood would be a great incentive, but there should be no compulsion or attempt to move natives from the country in which they are living and which is their home—a word just as dear to them as it is to us. Christianisation and industry would proceed, hand in hand, voluntarily from within instead of from without, and with the assistance of agricultural teachers, medical officers, and missionaries progress after a time should be far beyond anything that could be fairly expected under present methods.
“The natives have their own religion and customs. To invite them to replace their religion by Christianity may safely be left to the self-sacrificing missionaries, to whom the work is a labour of love. Senator Pearce took great pains to explain the many ordinances and provisions for the care of the children—particularly half-castes—the control of whom has been taken over by the Federal Government. His earnest Christian solicitude was evident but the problem remains unsolved. When it is realised what the removal of these young people means, we shall find further argument for the creation of the proposed aboriginal State. They are taken from their country, their, home, their parents, from environments where they should have an opportunity of settling down und marrying and they are placed in strange surroundings, with people of alien habits and speech, ostracised from association on equal terms with white children, shut off from the hospitality of white people generally and not permitted to marry, and unable to share in national traditions which are held to be most powerful factors in creating character. Even with the greatest kindness from those in whose charge they are placed, what sense of loneliness of exile, even of slavery must they not constantly feel? And what temptations must beset them? Then what is to become of them if under these conditions they live until they are 21 and regain their liberty?
Mr Neville’s Views.
In a recent address before members of the Perth Women’s Service Guild, Mr. A. O. Neville, Chief Protector of Aborigines, said that the proposed model State was being urged by thc Aborigines’ Protection League of South Australia. The resolution, carried last year at the Science Congress in Perth, in favour of the creation of a large native reserve in the Northern Territory, was not, he said, the same thing as the South Australian proposal, but it appeared to have been regarded by the Federal authorities as such. The Minister for Home and Territories had replied to the resolution of the congress that he could not see any justification for the step proposed. Mr. Neville stressed the fact that tribes in Queensland were foreigners to tribes in, for example, Western Australia, as much as Australians were foreigners to Austrians. To put the whole of the natives in one area would mean a colossal upheaval in native customs and ways. He mentioned the differences in laws and languages, and said that the parallel sometimes drawn by the supporters of the proposal with the Red Indian reservations in America did not hold good, because of differences in the two races. He did not think it was possible to teach the natives to cultivate the land on their own. They were not cultivators. He could not give a single instance of success in the cases where natives had taken up blocks of land. They used the land as camping ground. The public conscience in Australia had awakened rather late. If it had done so 50 years ago it would have been different.
AB notes:
An extraordinary proposal from the recently formed Aborigines Protection League of South Australia!
This piece appears in the same edition of The Western Mail as Arthur Adams’ advocacy of segregation in testimony to the Royal Commission.
