Self-endowed leadership or a title such as king or chief has achieved little within Indigenous Australian society. I have argued that ‘kingplates’ were normally sanctioned where the coloniser could obtain profit from interaction with the imposed title. On the other hand the warrior leaders, driven by revenge or need for survival, were victims of technological superiority of the British fighting forces. The spear and boomerang were no match for the rifle.^[74]

Aboriginal Australia has changed irreversibly since that leather boot of a British officer first crunched on Hawkesbury sandstone so many years ago. In this paper, case studies from the writer’s kin connections, and a notable leader from Central Australia provide a personal approach to history and to the concepts of knowledge that are linked to Aboriginal leadership. Historically, the interactions involved violence. In contemporary times, leaders who walk within the worlds of black and white and preserve their Aboriginality are strong role models, as shown by Mr Lingiari. The ability to transgress between the two worlds ensures that Indigenous Australians do not remain frozen within a single past timeframe.

This paper has given the reader an insight into the division that Indigenous leaders experience in the struggle to retain, respect and maintain Indigenous knowledge systems and overcome prejudice within an oppressive political environment, be it in 1788 or 1966. Mosquito, Pemulwuy and Windradyne tried to do so with guerrilla military tactics. Bungaree was the symbolic leader with kingship bestowed on him by a Governor who did not understand the structures of Indigenous cultures. His was a title of convenience. Mr Lingiari, with his noble yet modest defiance and charisma, captured the hearts and minds of unionists, politicians, the legal and medical professions and large groups of the Australian public. All things being equal, and not discounting the strong support mechanisms that were vital to the 1967 referendum campaign, if Mr Lingiari had not shown such strong leadership and captured the imagination of the Australian press and public, would the pro-Indigenous questions have won the referendum so convincingly in 1967? History has shown effective legitimate leadership can produce positive outcomes for Australian society. Such is the transgressive potential of the Indigenous leader.