In June, the Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced a “second intervention” to follow the Government’s Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER).

This is the response from Aboriginal leaders in the Northern Territory to this announcement:

The Government and the people of Australia are only able to achieve true reconciliation with Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory if the environment for negotiation is changed and justice, that was so brutally removed by the Intervention, is restored.  Only through respectful dialogue and working together can we call Australia a nation based on the principles of democracy.

Future negotiations will rely upon:

1. The Aboriginal people in the 73 prescribed communities of the Northern Territory do not welcome any further consultation with the Government until it acknowledges the failures ofthe current Intervention.

2. The Aboriginal people of the Northern Territorywill only endorse a new initiative by the Government to improve the lives of Aboriginal people if the Government first establishes a diplomatic and respectful dialogue, negotiation and relationship with the traditional lawmen and lawwomen in the communities to be affected. These are the people that are seen as the true leaders by their communities, who are charged with maintaining ceremony, language, law and order. They must be properly consulted before any new initiative can take place in their communities.

3. The name “Intervention” and “Emergency Response” must be removed from any future initiative, which should instead focus on the goals of Education and Empowerment of Aboriginal People in the Northern Territory. It must dispel the prejudice and racial discrimination of Aboriginal people that is embedded in the Intervention, and which has created deep emotional pain and shame amongst Aboriginal people.

4. Any initiative aimed at education and training must support the right of Aboriginal people to maintain their Indigenous languages, cultural practices and the capacity to live and work on country.

5. To effectively support appropriate and beneficial development in Aboriginal communities, the Government must replace Government Business Managers with mentors that support and facilitate education, capacity-building and locally-controlled development in Aboriginal communities.

This is the will of the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.

Released by: Rev Dr Djiniyini Gondarra OAM, clan leader of the Dhurili Nation

The Dhurili Nation, comprising the Datiwuy, Golumala, Marrakulu and Marrangu clans have previously confirmed to the Northern Land Council and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs that they are lawful traditional owners of some areas of land that are affected by a new mining lease and agreement with Rio Tinto Alcan in the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory.

“We feel very sad because our rights under Madayin Law have been pushed aside and much pain and division has been created. This shows that colonisation is still happening today creating disharmony, by people ignoring due process. Again the failures of the Australian Government and the NLC to work with Yolngu people through a proper process of law has created division between the clans of Arnhem Land. We will not be celebrating along with others the signing of this agreement” said Dr Gondarra.

The Northern Land Council and the Minister have allowed a new lease to be signed, despite the Dhurili Nation raising its concerns about a lack of lawful consultation and a failure to seek the consent of its members in line with the requirements of traditional Madayin law and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.

The Dhurili nation, part of the Yolngu people, were previously recognised as traditional owners of parts of the affected area. For reasons presently unknown to them, they were not properly consulted about the recent negotiations with Rio Tinto Alcan. As a result, the clans of the Dhurili Nation consider that their rights under Australian and traditional Aboriginal law have been breached and that they have been improperly excluded from the negotiation process.

The Dhurili Nation is considering challenging the actions of the Northern Land Council and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in the Courts.

Dated: 7 June 2011

Contact: Rev. Dr. Djiniyini Gondarra, OAM (on behalf of the Dhurili Nation)

‘Do you know of any good external language courses that are available?’

There are a couple of options to begin learning Yolŋu Matha, the language of north east Arnhem Land.

1. A series of distance education courses are available through Charles Darwin University (CDU).  If you are in Darwin these can also be studied internally, which is recommended. There are several  advantages of these courses.  As it is a university course, it is structured around recommended and required study, along with regular assessment, so it keeps you working. The course teaches much about culture as well as language, which makes it much richer and gives good context. The course is run by extremely knowledgable and passionate staff, who share many personal and traditional stories. Many people struggle with the work load, which does require alot of self learning in order to keep up. The early subjects  have assessments that are very much based on written work. This means that your time can easily get consumed in writting and reading the language, which is less effective for learning to speak and hear. However, the later subjects are more focused on conversational skills (not sure if these can be done externally). The staff are really helpful and if you put the work in you will get alot out of the course.
2. There are a number of self learning courses available through ARDS.  I recommend “Gupapuyngu Alphabet & Pronunciation” followed by, or in combination with the “Gupapuyngu Conversational Course” 1&2.  (ARDS has also begun to publish an identical course in Djambarrpuŋu a sister language).  It is important to understand the alphabet and pronunciation first and try to memorise the sounds, before moving to phrases. But as you get bored with pronunciation practice go to the first of the conversational courses, which have structured lessons and drills on CD for each lesson to test yourself and practice with. The down side to these courses is that you have to be disciplined with yourself to regularly spend time working through the lessons (and repeating them) when there is no one to examine you.    If you choose to do the CDU courses the “Alphabet and Pronunciation” book will help, and you should try to work through it before the course starts as there is little time alotted for learning the alphabet and their sounds.   The advantage of these self learning materials is that they focus on speaking and hearing and you will be off to a very good start to begin learning more by practicing and conversing with Yolngu people once you do enter Arnhem Land. A Gupupuy’ŋu Grammar book is also available, but you will only need this when you get to the stage of asking, ‘Now, how would I say …..” The gramma book has no audio and is best as a reference once you start to use the language with Yolngu people, or if you find yourself exceeding the expectations of the conversational courses (this book is part of the resources for the second CDU subject).

These options and resoures are complementary, so they do work together well to expand your learning options.  However, we  would not recomend attempting to do both the converstional course and the CDU couses at the same time unless you are devoting all your time to language learning while outside Arnhem Land.  It is important to devote time to practice with a native Yolŋu Matha speaker, if possible, even at the early stages of your learning. For example, you could make arrangements to talk by phone with good aquaintences you have made in Arnhem Land.

Good luck.  And please leave a comment if you know of other resources or have some useful insights from your experience with learning Yolŋu matha.

Prime Minister Rudd and cabinet opposite Yolŋu leaders, before the presentation of the Petition for rights

I was in Yirrkala on the 23rd July 2008 when the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his cabinet visited the community. Yirrkala is an Aboriginal Community near Nhulunbuy, a mining town in north east Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, Australia. It is populated by 13 or so different Yolŋu clans from the surrounding region as well as Balanda personnel. On this day about a dozen key Yolŋu Indigenous leaders presented to the Prime Minister a petition mounted on wood and surrounded by paintings and feathers. The petition requested that the Federal Government begin the process of negotiation with Aboriginal people in order to recognise and protect Aboriginal rights in the constitution. The petition specified these rights as:

• Their right to maintain the diversity of their ‘systems of life’ (eg. linguistic, cultural and legal practices – my interpretation),
• Their property rights to land and seas,
• Their right to use all the resources on their land for their economic development
• Their right to have control over their own lives.

Although there is much that could be discussed about what these rights might be and the legitimacy of such claims, I would like to consider the Prime Ministers response to this petition. Prime Minister Rudd recognised the importance of moving toward a process to recognise Indigenous rights, but identified this process as secondary to the process that the Government has defined as ‘closing the Gap’. The Prime Minister stated that their first priorty right now was to close the gap in education and health between wider Australia and Indigneous people.  Does the Prime Minister really know better than the Yolŋu leaders what is best for their people?  This demonstrates the arrogance and distance of Government from the Indigenous peoples real experience.  The Yolŋu leaders did not ask for housing, or even better education.  Their primary concern was their peoples rights.  Yet it seems that the Government believes it has the clear view on the matter, perhaps they have an Ivory tower, while the local leaders can only see what is happening on the ground?

From this gentle act of protest  we all should ask the question.  Is ‘closing the gap’ a process that can occur seperate to the real recognition and protection of Indigenous legal and human rights?  The real recognition of such rights must be part of  this process, as dis-empowerment, the devaluing of cultural knowledge and language,  and lack of control over their social space, their economy and their land is part of the real reasons that the ‘Gap’ still exists.

I will look at this question of the role of rights in effecting underlying cause another time.