Michael Anderson spokesman for the Gumilaroi nation of northwest NSW and southwest Queensland

Michael Anderson spokesman for the Gumilaroi nation of northwest NSW and southwest Queensland

Statement by Michael Anderson, leader of the Euahlayi tribe and spokesman for the Gumilaroi nation of northwest NSW and southwest Queensland

It is time for the federal government to inform the public of the number of prosecutions for child sex abuses made in the past two years of the Northern Territory Intervention program. The states need also to reflect on the number of convictions for this offence. 

Other statistics that must be shown are those associated with drunkenness, disorderly conduct and what that means in terms of the law. Further, the federal government statisticians need also to include statistics on the number of children being removed from their families under this Intervention program. 

It is important for the federal government to identify to the public how much land has been redeemed from Aboriginal people under the Intervention. Furthermore, would the federal government advise the public of how much land is being negotiated away for mining companies to have access to the mineral wealth? Is there a royalty factor associated with any land being given to mining companies – if so who gets this money? Will Aboriginal people have access to this money or does the federal government assume ownership and control it under a communist approach where the state issues out the funds for the purposes they approve? 

I am so sorry that our people are as passive as they are, for if this dictatorship happened to any other Aboriginal group in the world they would be up in arms fighting for their rights, on the streets and making a bloody big noise so that everyone all over the world would know about it. 

But then, the Intervention program has attached to it the terrorist chamber law where people can be picked up and imprisoned without any right to a lawyer for a month or more. The federal government’s dictatorship goes unquestioned. The mainstream media see no reason for talking directly to Aboriginal people. 

The problem in Aboriginal affairs in this country is not Aborigines, but the governments. All that is being proposed is governments meeting their own ambitions, never mind the Aboriginal people. Consultation appears to be outdated. The appointment of supporters of their governmental ideals is criminal especially when the opposite views are ignored. 

What do you call government appointees? If we were running an Aboriginal organisation and continued to appoint people who believe in your ideals and failed to recognise and blocked the opposition we would be jumped on by the feds themselves for nepotism and called corrupt. 

Can Aboriginal Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin inform the public why in two years the feds have failed to commence work on new houses that were promised to Aboriginal people? Why is preferential treatment only for the white bureaucrats’ housing? Can Minister Macklin inform the public whom the government has engaged to build these houses and how much is each house costing the public purse? Is this money coming from the housing funding promised for Aboriginal housing or are the bureaucrats’ housing costs additional to the Aboriginal housing budget? 

The federal government have an obligation to be transparent with their media-promoted programs of addressing the disadvantage gap. How many Aboriginal people are engaged in building these houses, including those being built for the white bureaucrats? 

I contend that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Ms Macklin are not being honest and transparent. The radical dictatorial approach to Aboriginal affairs should be constantly monitored in order for the public to measure outcomes. It is not as if the approaches that they are now pursuing have not already been done and failed. But, when it comes to Aborigines all sorts of social experiments are permissible because the cowards in the mainstream media dare not question the hidden agendas. Hitler would now do well here in Australia! 

4 replies »

  1. Michael,

    Thank you for demonstrating such qualities of leadership.

    The questions you are asking when answered honestly will reveal the true state of affairs impacting upon indigenous communities, devoid of the PR gloss and counter intervention of the many bodies that have emerged in the last 50 years that are appearing to have a very vested interested in the status quo for what its worth in terms of the mining dollar.

    What indigenous Australians have incurred from past history and current history in terms of the ‘Intervention’ is a disgrace that was well covered by John Pilger in the UK Guardian. I covered this in response to the not so well covered political actions of Jenny Macklin, in making drastic overtures for aboriginal land, and the motives are not so well disguised:

    Its a real shame that our ABC and monopolised media cant tell the truth. Thats no surprise in light of the fact that we are operating a fully corporatised government, something Australians need to start to understand. The interests vested are corporate and yet we are led to believe that government actions are on behalf of the people…what people and for what price…Ian Tang and the gambling Tycoon Stanley Ho have paid the ALP (et al) a high price, and until we resume democratic government a high price for any citizen with a simple dream for a sustainable life in a sustainable community, not under siege by a mining company issuing ‘Royalties’ as a sorry tax for the inconvenience of a life and future lost because some corporation and its shareholders have declared a bigger interest.

    It’s now coming down to the fundamentals of what we all regard as ‘law’ and how we are now learning about a different ‘lore’ which was originally about people and the land on which they lived, and in my books any law or lore which looks after people and their land is far better than any corporate law which is stealing resources, people and the future lives that need to be lived.

    I look forward to the answers and I also look forward to some dramatic changes in the way the original Australians are treated and a brand new template of economics and politics which puts people first and keeps the greed and stupidity of vested interests at bay.



    It seems as though land and the alleged protection of the original inhabitants of the land “and their rights” have always gone hand in hand…verbally.

    However in recent times it’s gone from protecting the interests of the natives, to protecting them from each other since alcohol was introduced into the equation, or was it worded “the right to drink our grog”.

    It seems the British trespassers actually recognised an operating land system back in the 1800’s but once familiarlity and greed took effect it was quickly overlooked. Perhaps this matter referenced below in “The Coming of the White Man” needs some revision by current would be politicians who don’t appear awefully well versed on their predecessors aparent illegal entry into this country.

    What is interesting here is that in South Australia, Terra Nullius didn’t appear to be ever an issue at all.

    And as for sex offenders it appears that the Canning Stock Route incidents (no doubt one of many) which occured during first contact is almost legendary to the point it’s become a tourist attraction.

    DAVID MARK: The Royal Commission exonerated Alfred Canning, but the evidence that it heard was a pointer to the future.

    As John Carty explains, the drovers who used the Canning Stock Route in the following decades had a dramatic impact on the Aboriginal people of the Western Desert.

    JOHN CARTY: Aboriginal people were murdered. We’ve heard stories of massacres, of cross-cultural conflict where drovers and local people came into conflict over something which remains sort of historically ambiguous, but people are suggesting that it was the rape of Aboriginal women, or the taking of people’s wives by drovers that was a cause of a lot of the spearings.

    Aboriginal Australians 1837-1858
    The Coming of the White Man

    The South Australian Colonisation Act, which was passed by the British Parliament in 1834, declared the lands of the new colony to be ” unoccupied”.

    The Act’s clear denial of the Aborigines’ rights to land met with considerable opposition from humanitarian circles in Great Britain, including Lord Glenelg, Sir George Grey and other influential men in the Colonial Office in London.

    The Colonial Office subsequently enshrined the principal of Aboriginal land rights by inserting in the Letters Patent, the document issued to the Colonization Commissioners early in 1836 to formally establish the colony of South Australia, a clause which recognized the prior rights of the Aborigines to the land and guaranteed that “any lands now actually occupied or enjoyed by [the] Natives’ would not be alienated.”

    After protracted negotiations with the Colonial Office, the Colonization Commissioners agreed to the appointment of a Protector to safeguard the Aborigines’ interests.

    Among his duties, the Protector was required to ensure that any land opened up for public sale had been voluntarily ceded and fairly purchased from the Aborigines.

    The Commissioners agreed to set aside 20% of the proceeds from all land sales in the colony to be used for the benefit of the Aborigines and also committed the South Australia Company to protecting “the natives in the unmolested exercise of their rights of property should such a right be found to exist”.

    In the new colony, these commitments were soon forgotten and all the lands were declared open for public sale.

    A few of the more enlightened colonists saw the Aborigines’ dispossession as unjust and public debate on the issue occasionally flared in the newspapers.

    Colonial officials, missionaries and others who had close contact with the Kaurna soon became aware that they did have a well-defined system of land ownership.

    In 1839, a year after taking up the position of Protector, Moorhouse wrote:
    We find – what the Europeans thought the Aborigines of Australia did not possess – territorial rights, families owning and holding certain districts of land which pass from fathers to sons, never to daughters, with as much regularity as property in our own country.

    The above description appears to have started out rather presumptiously in that, if I arrive at a new town and find an empty house then I can safely “assume” the house is there for the taking, invite my whole family to enter and even sell the jolly thing.

    It seems a whopping precedent has been set in the above assumptions regarding the occupancy of this land and who in fact has right of way. As for the protectors, well what are they protecting? Who called for help in 1800’s? The hypocrisy and self righteousness displayed here is simply astonishing and nothing short of a clever political play on insincere words.

  3. Imagine if this was happening the other way around. Although to a degree it seemed that much of the genocide is and has affected nearby white communities when we read about the sickness near the mining companies with all of their pollution coming into everyones homes and causing multiple sicknesses for them to deal with.

    I read the other day somewhere that a member of parliament said that this government was at war with the people of Australia. Will try to find it. After reading through this I can’t work out that we actually have a truly legal government operating here on behalf of the Poms.

    What I’m seeing is that the British King of day seemed like nothing short of a thief and hasn’t looked back, therefore subjecting us “now citizens” of this continent to criminal acts by defacto association. Because we have a mind of our own and a conscience we do not want to be part of this ongoing genocide, rape and pillage against these nice people.

    We must put this right without the do-gooder organisations seemingly set up by a government that we aren’t sure is even a real government. It says the South Australia Company… What does that mean?

    What is real here and what isn’t? There’s so much effort going into making a square peg fit into a round hole, it’s becoming centuries of criminal activities against peaceful people on their own land. We want OUT of this.

    Wikipedia say:

    1951 to 2000
    Universal acceptance of international laws, defining and forbidding genocide was achieved in 1948, with the promulgation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).

    The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)).

    After the minimum 20 countries became parties to the Convention, it came into force as international law on 12 January 1951. At that time however, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) were parties to the treaty, which caused the Convention to languish for over four decades.

    Australia 1900-1969
    Main articles: Stolen Generation and History wars
    Sir Ronald Wilson, former president of Australia’s Human Rights Commission thinks that Australia’s “Stolen Generation” — where from 1900 to 1970, 20,000 to 25,000 Aboriginal children were forcibly separated from their natural families (see the Bringing Them Home report)[121] — “It clearly was attempted genocide … [because it] was believed that the Aboriginal people would die out”.[122]


  4. Sex laws have been built on misconceptions and myth.
    The Supreme Court just ruled on sex offender laws where some factions of our government think by some inert reasoning that sex offender should be quarantined or executed. Video taken in another country shows where sex offenders were placed on a pole much like the Catholics use to use a pyramid shaped object and have them sit on it and spin, the pole travels through the body looking for the throat but if not found its ok because the sharpened end of the pole will come out somewhere to the delight of these very strange people who think such thoughts are a bit barbaric. The heritage of the act is in its self a brutal throwback to violent uneducated people who are so obsessed with any sex & the only way to deal with this kind of “hierarchy” of historic hysteria. A word taken from hysterectomy, hysteria is tied to castration, we are supposed to be the most advanced nation and we still have a death penalty when the rest of the world except for some nations we are still warring with/selling weapons too, while other nations went home our weapons dealers and torture lovers delighting in support for the death of people they don’t know or want to simply because they don’t know how to get money with out taking it from someone by force. Is that supposed to include mutilations? In my humble opinion this alone “is” terrorist activities as much as severed hands, ears, heads, or making a case with nothing more than an obsession justified by lies. The registry’s origin in the Jim Crow hang~um laws that brought disgrace to our nation allowing thieves and murderous societal bigots who have trashed any shot at making good of a program in its design to make money destroying our nation and its people. We can not survive using this behavior model because we are compounding the problem since the numbers are increasing to include the children they purport to protect.
    The doctoring, castration/hysterectomy/health care/physic care of people through sex laws that have damaged everyone it has touched. What about the people who are being used by the Medicare programs that requires these mutilations for both men and woman after they take their means of support? Digging around in someone’s genitalia because you want what a weaker nation? Can’t you see? You have created the model and it is worthless! Why don’t we just indiscriminately kill people we don’t know? That is statically the next sex offender, because over 90% of all new offences are committed by someone “not” on the sex offender registry and the numbers are increasing not decreasing so as a behavior model this is really worthless.
    So what is the use of such laws as the sex offender registry other than to terrorize people? With the murder of so many sex offenders and the continued disregard for life by the use of the registry it will be no time at all before the federal government will be held liable for their deaths through federal court.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s