Following the Wik decision by the High Court, and the fear campaign, by a white government, white pastoralists, and other white groups, that nearly 80% of Australia would be over-run by black people, the federal government spun into action to protect white space. The following paragraphs are extracts from my book ‘Hidden Footprints of Unity’ (an ironic title in the current context).
“After a lot of thunder, lightning and hot air had upset everyone, the government got through a ‘ten-point plan’, with the help of an independent senator. In the late 1990s, when the national Parliament pushed through legislation to reduce the property rights of the indigene inherent in native title, it was the whites (politicians, clergymen, and legal advisers) who reportedly decided (yet once again) what was best for the Aborigines. The latter said that they were excluded from the negotiations!
Overall, it was a despicable exercise. The risks of having the blacks go walkabout on leased land (ie public-owned land), of their having any kind of a say in the potential use of this land, of any diminution in the government’s freedom to be generous to its supporters, was all too much for the government, and its pastoral and mineral constituencies.
The federal government cannot, of course, extinguish native title without paying compensation. As a consequence, there was a fine juggling act between the federal and state (and territory) governments in the late 1990s. The latter governments were now to provide a statutory regime acceptable to the former, which would achieve an effective extinguishment of native title rights — but which did not cost much to taxpayers, and did not violate the Racial Discrimination Act and sundry international obligations! This was not asking too much, was it?
This federal government approach is akin to a white colonial government employing coloured mercenaries to carry out the more dastardly acts of subjugation of other coloured peoples (eg. Gurkhas against the Maoris of New Zealand).
Was it not St.Paul who said, “We wrestle … against spiritual wickedness in high places”? The indigenes and their supporters were both up in arms and despondent, realising that their recently acquired justice was short-lived. Consequently, the only appeal mechanism available (for what that is worth) is in the international arena. For some inexplicable reason, I keep recalling Arnold Toynbee’s ‘No annihilation without representation’, whenever extinguishment of Aboriginal native title is mentioned.”
…………………………………………………………………………….
10-Point Plan for ‘bucket loads of extinguishment’ of Native Title
“MR HOWARD’S TEN POINT PLAN
- Validation of acts/grants
The validity of acts or grants made on non-vacant crown land since the Native Title Act will be guaranteed by law.
- Extinguishment of Native Title on “exclusive” tenures
“Exclusive” tenures such as freehold, residential, commercial and public works (in existence on or before 1 January 1994) would be confirmed by state and territory laws.
- Government services
The provision of government services to land on which Native Title may exist would now be made easier.
- Native Title and pastoral lease
Native Title rights over land held under agricultural and pastoral leases would be permanently extinguished if they interfere with the rights of the leaseholder.
Activities other than farming and grazing would be allowed on pastoral leases, even if Native Title exists, provided the dominant purpose of the lease remains primary production.
- Statutory access rights
If those who register a Native Title claim can demonstrate that they currently have access to land held under a pastoral lease, access to that land will be guaranteed by law until the Native Title claim is settled.
- Future mining
For mining on vacant crown land:
- the registration “test” for a Native Title claim would be more difficult
- there would be no negotiations over mining exploration
- only one Native claim for negotiation would be allowed for each mining project
For mining on “non-exclusive” tenures, such as current or former pastoral leases:
- the right to negotiate would continue to apply until State and Territory governments provided arrangements acceptable to the Commonwealth government
- compensation would take account of the currently co-existing Native Title rights
- Future development
For vacant crown land outside cities and towns:
- the registration “test” for negotiation of a Native Title claim would be more difficult
- there would be no negotiations over acquisitions for government-type infra-structure
- For compulsory acquisition of Native Title rights on other “non-exclusive” tenures, such as current or former pastoral leases or national parks:
- the right to negotiate would continue to apply until State and Territory governments provided arrangements acceptable to the Commonwealth government
- compensation would take account of the currently co-existing Native Title rights
- future management actions for national parks or forest reserves would be allowed forfuture activities such as taking of timber or gravel on pastoral leases would be allowed for
- Water resources and airspace
The ability of governments to regulate and manage, surface and subsurface water, offshore resources and airspace, and the rights of those with interests in these areas, would be put beyond doubt.
- Management of claims
For new and existing Native Title claims there would be:
- a more difficult registration “test” for negotiation of a Native Title claim
- amendments to speed up the processing of claims
- encouragement for States and Territories to deal with claims
- a sunset clause within which claims had to be made
- Agreements
Measures would be introduced to encourage the negotiation of voluntary but binding agreements as an alternative to formal Native Title agreements.”
(Source: ‘Teaching Heritage’ a New South Wales Government document)
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 