Bruce Reyburn
Wednesday 9 June.
It has just been announced on the news that the Council of
Australian Governments (a joint Federal and States meeting)
has failed to agree on a national approach to the Mabo
decision. I am not surprised. The level of energy in Anglo-
Australia for real change does not come from the interests
established under the regime of terra nullius. Those blocked
energies are represented, in Australia, by the States.
Barring miracles and wars, it will probably take international
pressure, over many years, to encourage those energies to
adapt to the contours of the real world.
The Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, Premiers of the
States and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory
started talks yesterday on how Anglo-Australia Inc was to
handle the consequences of the Mabo decision.
Members of the Aboriginal Provisional Government led a protest
outside the Melbourne meeting to highlight the exclusion of
First People from the one-sided deliberation process.
The meeting was expected to achieve several points of national
agreement. The 'validation of existing titles' - which means
those issued by the Anglo-Australian Crown and not native
titles - was high on the agenda.
Also included was the definition of native title (why should
non-native Australians decide this matter?); questions of the
veto rights (partial or otherwise) of native title holders
over developments on their land and the possibility of
'suspending' native title for the life of, say, an open cut
mine (pretend it doesn't exist).
Other matters included the question of settling issues and
claims involving native title by way of a tribunal or on a
case by case approach through the courts.
But day one of the meeting got bogged down when the Victorian
Premier Jeff Kennett made his contribution, according to
reports. "We were Jeffed!" as they say in Victoria of a
Premier who quickly established a reputation for crashing
through issues of social conditions.
Day two came undone, according to the Prime Minister, when
some Premiers refused to accept the word 'claims' in the trade
off with the Commonwealth to establish tribunals to hear -
what? "issues" - arising from the Mabo decision. The veto,
partial or otherwise, was probably sacrificed in this trade-
off.
One view from the Premiers side was that they were being asked
by the Commonwealth to go well beyond what is involved in the
High Court's decision and to accept a package of social
justice issues as well.
The meeting ended without agreement being reached.
The Prime Minster said that some of the Premiers seem to be
having difficulty in accepting that, as a result of the High
Court decision, native title is now a fact - "an absolute."
Another analyst (didn't catch his name) mentioned that there
was something of a failure to appreciate that native title
rights are something which provide a basis for negotiation
between two sides - not something which could be contained
within legislation which removes anything to negotiate about.
All in all, some of the Premiers appear to have reacted very
badly to the news that First People were here first and do
have important rights.
With Aboriginal groups lodging new claims to large areas of
Australia as each day passes, a hard core of Anglo-Australian
resistance is starting to emerge. This hard core questions the
validity of the High Court's decision which found that common
law could recognise the existence of native title in
Australia.
The Western Australian Premier, Mr R. Court, went into the
Heads of Government meeting yesterday saying that the High
Court did not make the laws in Australia - this was the job of
governments in general and State governments in respect to
laws relating to land titles in particular.
Claiming that Western Australia had the 'most to lose' as a
result of the implementation of recognition of native title,
Mabo was held up as a threat to business investment and to
'the economy'. In his attitude Mr Court seemed to regard
Australia's First People as 'the enemy'.
It could also be argued that Western Australia had the 'most
to gain' by forming a new partnership with that State's First
People and providing a lasting foundation for future joint-
venture deals.
But, while the 'economy' is held up as the reason for acting,
the real reason may have something to do with the substantial
emotional investment many Anglo-Australians have made into an
image of life which is pre-ordained superior, white skinned,
English speaking, born-to-rule, upwardly mobile...You get the
picture.
Good economic management would jump at the opportunity to
recognise native title, stitch up a deal, and move on safe in
the knowledge that questions of security of title, or of
human rights issues, would not put off international trading
partners.
What is meant by Premier Court's use of the term 'economy' is
the sum of vested interest built up from the expropriated
wealth of First People during the reign of the repugnant
doctrine of terra nullius.
In my opinion, the extent of rejection of the High Court's
Mabo decision can be seen as being in direct proportion to the
underlying knowledge of the degree of guilt. Bad faith
underlies the inability to embrace brothers and sisters.
The Australia States are the modern day translations of the
former British colonies which came together in 1901 to form a
Commonwealth of Australia. These colonies were formed out of
brutal and repressive practices towards First People. The
foundations of these Australian States are those provided by
genocide.
Many ordinary Anglo-Australians, believing in a fair-go, want
to repair the damage done. They are not the powerful. There is
also a sunstantial number of people who continue to look down
on First People. It is interesting to ponder how the alliances
will emerge - a spilt in Anglo-Australian life?
In setting up the Commonwealth, the politicians who
represented the interests of the terra nullius regime made
very sure that the former colonies retained the power base
established since colonisation. The Commonwealth was something
of an empty shell which provided for free trade between the
former colonies and took care of international matters. The
States retained control over a long list of functions,
including land, education and health matters.
Aboriginal interests were excluded from the functions of the
Commonwealth government until the Constitution was amended in
1967.
The treatment of First People by the colonies and States is
one which follows a simple formula - denial of the rights of
First People and maximisation of the vested Anglo-Australian
interests. Present day politicians still play this game -
seeking to provide services which pretend First People are
really disadvantaged Europeans.
While some of the managers (Premiers) attending the joint
meeting in Melbourne felt secure enough in the protection of
their largely sham Aboriginal policies, Western Australia,
Victoria and Tasmania ( and no doubt the Northern Territory)
are thought to have aligned to oppose the Federal Government's
33 point plan.
New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia no doubt know
a good thing when they see it. The High Court's decision can
be read as being a slight adjustment movement which seeks to
protect the interests of Anglo-Australia Inc from the chilly
winds of international scrutiny.
Under the rules laid down by the High Court, native title can
be extinguished by the Crown and, prior to the 1975 Racial
Discrimination Act, without requiring any form of payment in
return. Just what kind of rule this is remains to be debated.
My view is that, in so far as native title approximates the
relationship between First People and their living countries,
this relationship stems from a transcendental authority and
not from the Court of the European coloniser.
Ask surviving First People if their relationship with country
died when the Crown issued a lease or freehold title over
their country, without consultation, consent and compensation,
to a Whitefella.
The view that it did is wrong in fact and, I bet, will prove
to be wrong in law. But maybe not in the law courts of Anglo-
Australia.
However the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Robert Tickner,
toes the line. He said, of people making claim (including one
to the Australian Capital Territory lodged this week):
"To be blunt, they haven't got a legal feather to fly
with, and on the basis of the present law, their chances
of success are nil...It is mischievous for lawyers to
suggest to Aboriginal people that they have a right of
claim over land where dispossession has been complete."
(Illawarra Mercury 9-6-1993)
Is Mr Tickner aware of the consequences of what he is saying
in reassuring Anglo-Australian interests? For the expression
"where dispossession has been complete" we could read "where
genocide has been complete." A shameful admission. Let us hope
that there is no part of Australia where this applies.
But at the moment attention has been kept focused on the rules
laid down by the High Court. The game at this stage is that
native title was extinguished in the past, without the need
for compensation until 1975. To the victor the spoils.
The Federal government, and New South Wales, Queensland and
South Australia seem able to live with the notion that, in
return for 'validation' of existing Crown titles up to 30 June
1993, compensation could be paid by the Commonwealth in those
cases which extinguished native title after the introduction
of the Racial Discrimination Act.
It is not clear how this compensation would be calculated, but
it is clear that it will bear little relation to the amount of
wealth which has been generated by that expropriated living
country. Anglo-Australia just cannot afford to repay the full
amount. Equally clearly, from the reaction of New South Wales,
Queensland, and South Australia, irrespective of how
compensation is calculated, this was an offer to good to be
refused.
Some reports mention 1992 as the cut-off date in the
Commonwealth offer, and others 30 June 1993. The confusion may
be mine but the latter date has been frequently mentioned.
After that date, the States would be responsible. Aboriginal
spokespeople said that this would set off a land rush by
Anglo-Australia, and that the date of the Mabo decision of 3
June 1992 should be the cut off date.
Large numbers of mining leases or exploration licences over
'vacant Crown land' have been reported from Western Australia.
Probably as a result of this timetable, several large claims
for native title have been made - lodged with the High Court -
in recent weeks. "Vast tracts of the East Coast of Australia
claimed" as the press report. These claims would be necessary
to protect interests under native title which can be
extinguished by the issue of Crown titles.
Under the High Court rules Anglo-Australia was well placed to
dismiss most claims to native title. Not only is it required
that native title has not been extinguished by inconsistent
grant by the Crown, but the claimant First People must be able
to demonstrate that they have kept some degree of traditional
attachment alive with their country.
Many First People have suffered from forced relocation
programs and from enforced experiments in assimilation. Some
were removed from their parents and brought up as Anglo-
Australians.
It can be seen that, under these rules, the recognition of
native title does not pose a significant threat to many
established Anglo-Australian interests.
Paul Keating's working party have been quick to attempt to
stitch up a deal which gives the larger questions the flick
and to attempt to close the sale on terms most favourable to
Anglo interests.
When the High Court over-turned the doctrine of terra nullius
it also over-turned the basis upon which, it was former
argued, the Anglo-Australian State justified its claim to
sovereignty.
This may have what was explained by the Prime Minister to the
State managers behind closed doors when the officials were
ejected.
If it was, the axis lead by Western Australia have opted to
tough it out. Maybe they will aim to remove the parts of the
Commonwealth's Racial Discrimination Act upon which much of
Mabo turns. This would probably require a change of
government at the Federal level.
With much of middle Australia potentially heading into turmoil
as First People lodge their claims, and the next Federal
election years away, the WA lead axis would need to maintain
the rage over these years. The Country-Liberal Party Northern
Territory government, and the Western Australian governments
of either party are old hands at exactly this. It looks as
though this is the path they are setting out upon.
A very interesting article appeared in the Sydney Morning
Herald yesterday (8-6-1993 page 17) by Wanda Jamrozik. She
compared the present situation in Australia with the split
between the United States over the issue of slavery last
century with the South seeking to protect 'the economy' (or
way of life) based on slave labour and the North took the
moral high ground based on a different economic base.
Anglo-Australia has not known outright civil war, nor was its
Constitution founded in a struggle for core human values. The
good life, rooted on the doctrine of terra nullius, has
expanded out into the living countries and wealth of First
People for two quiet centuries. Quiet, that is, if you were
not one of those First People. Two centuries of hell if you
were.
But the constraints which never cease to operate in life have
returned. After two hundred years of oppression, the First
People have popped up again. They have learnt the tricks of
those who cast spells over other minds with European notions
of law and property. Armed with this powerful magic, they have
re-emerged to restate their relationship with the country
which their lives uniquely represent.
"If only they would go away permanently!" seems to be the
attitude of many Anglo-Australians - who seek to naturalise
their own presence in the far side of the globe by removing
evidence to the contrary. Evidence like people who speak and
behave in a vastly different way. What's more, they insist
"This is our home! We don't go to another place."
The refugees from mismanaged Europe, fearing there is no place
in life for them, do not like to hear such talk. Now the
expression 'native title' has been added to underscore the use
of the term 'home'.
There has been a massive emotional, intellectual and financial
investment by members of the Anglo-Australian formation into
the myth that Anglo-Australia is Australia. Much of the world
has found it advantageous to support this act of false
consciousness.
Missing out on Manchuria, despising their own Ainu life-
priests, Japanese interests are quite happy to work through
the Australian management which sells off mountains of iron
ore and other forms of the living continent's wealth for less
than a song. The present bankrupt regime must suit their
purposes even better. ( I wonder which overseas interests lie
behind the present condition of the Australian 'economy'?)
It is unlikely that Anglo-Australia's existing trading
partners - at the level of governments - will press too hard
if the native title rights of First People are not fully
complied with. Who will?
Australia cannot afford to pay First People the compensation
which it owes them to balance things up for the use of their
resources, and for the appalling behaviour.
And the greater part of the Anglo-Australian population, snug
in a cosmology which stops at the boundary of home ownership,
will not move of its own accord to redress issues it is not
well equipped to fathom. Anglo-Australian people have been
starved of the vital information regarding the realities of
First People by the State education system.
Mining interests and politicians know that the everyday people
are relatively easy to manipulate - fear of losing that hard-
earned home goes right to the heart of the Great Australian
Dream.
I do not see any possibility for a coming together of the two
Peoples in Australia while some States, and many people in
other States, maintain their attitude that First People are
'the ememy'.
The States may have to be encouraged to reconsider their
position - to let go from their positions of perceived
privilege - to unblock that energy which is tied up in the
protection of an unreal self image.
The Western Australian Premier has justified his position on
the grounds that, unless uncertainty regarding Corwn titles is
removed (without necessarily addressing the rights of native
title holders) Australia will face a strike by capital:
"Mr Court told yesterday's meeting that if the
Commonwealth's prescriptions were adopted not another
dollar would be invested in Western Australia."
(Australian 9-6-1993)
We do not have that kind of power to influence outcomes. How
can we get a message get through to the representatives of
capital in what looks like being a long battle?
Simple. By the exercise of choice by people in other places.
You see, only those things produced according to First Law -
with the sanction of the First People - are spiritually
beneficial to the recipient. Those things produced against the
will of First People are spiritually harmful to the recipient.
Large amounts of Uluru (Ayers Rock) are presently being
returned by people who have come to appreciate this simple -
but astounding - truth.
Anyone who is at the end of a songlines trading link must be
absolutely certain that the 'thing' exchanged was obtained by
fair dealing with First People.
We have a long way to go.