Mining bill 'threatens reconciliation'
by Paul Chamberlin
and Gay Alcorn
The Federal government's planned reconciliation process with
blacks was under threat because of its approval of a Northern
Territory Government bill guaranteeing mining title to a huge
McArthur River project, the nation's senior Aboriginal
bureaucrat said today.
Aboriginal people were "extremely concerned" and felt they had
been undermined by the deal between the two Governments, said
Ms Lois O'Donoghue, the chairwoman of the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC).
The ATSIC, which is responsible for farming out Federal
funding to Aborigines, had been frozen out of the negotiations
on the proposed $250-million lead, zinc and silver mine in the
Gulf of Carpentaria, she said.
"If that is the way things happen from now on, reconciliation
may not have much of a future," Ms O'Donoghue said.
The Federal approval of the Territory bill was stitched up in
letters sent form the Prime Minister and the Special Minister
for State, Mr Walker, to the Territory Chief Minister, Mr
Marshall Perron, this week.
It followed concern that the joint venturers behind the
project - MIM Ltd with four Japanese partners - would pull out
unless the mining title was guaranteed by July 1.
It marked the first government action to guarantee title in
the wake of last June's High Court Mabo decision.
The Northern Land Council (NLC), on behalf of black elders in
the nearby township of Borroloola, had threatened Mabo-style
court action unless certain concessions were made by the joint
venturers on social and economic matters.
Discussions on those matters continue, but Ms O'Donoghue said
it was difficult to see how local Aborigines could take part
in good faith even though they had long supported the mine
going ahead.
There was still a mystery over whether the legislation
extinguishes native title and whether compensation could be
paid if native title was proved in the future, she said.
Meanwhile, an admission in a letter from Mr Walker to Mr
Perron on May 26 has also created confusion over the future of
the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 - the cornerstone of the
Mabo decision.
Mr Walker told Mr Perron the Commonwealth would meet the
Territory Government's legal costs if its proposed legislation
on McArthur River was challenged as being inconsistent with
the Racial Discrimination Act or the Territory Self Government
Act "or any act replacing either of these acts".
The existence of the Racial Discrimination Act was the only
reason why Mabo plaintiffs were able in 1988 to defeat
Queensland legislation which would have extinguished any claim
to title they may have had.
During the Federal Government's consultation period on the
implications of the Mabo decision, there has never been any
suggestion that the act might be amended or replaced.
Aboriginal legal sources said yesterday it appeared the
Government may be considering amending the act for innocuous
purposes to fit in with any new legislation dealing with Mabo.
Or it may be considering a change to prevent any back claim
for native title that existed between 1975 and 1992, when the
Mabo judgement was handed down.
However, a spokesman for Mr Walker said last night that the
wording of the paragraph in question was purely "legalistic",
and was made to placate the Territory Government, which feared
a change to the act at some time in the future. The Government
has no plans whatsoever to amend or replace the act, he said.
The NLC intends using the act as the basis for legal action
against the Territory bill, with sources saying that it was
"more likely than not" that such action would take place if
blacks at Borroloola gave their approval.
The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Affairs, Mr Tickner, said an announcement on the Mabo
ramifications would be made within the next week.
Speaking on Thursday Island, he said most Aborigines would not
benefit form the Mabo decision because their native title had
been extinguished by titles granted to European settlers.
"Most Aboriginal people won't benefit from the Mabo decision
because they've been dispossessed absolutely," he said.
"That's why the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Commission
has placed such importance on land acquisition as a means of
addressing their needs."
To prove native title using Mabo as a precedent, Aborigines
would need to prove a close and ongoing association with the
land.
(ends - Note also Editorial on page 30 'Come to terms with
Mabo' which concludes:
...projects like the McArthur River mine will not wait.
That doesn't mean shoving aside all claims to native
title, but hastening their resolution.)