Summary of story follows from the Australian Financial Review
Friday 30 July 1993, but it is worth noting first the comments
by Hal Wootten (QC Former Royal Commissioner Deaths in
Custody) in the Sydney Morning Herald 29 July 1993 that:
"In short, after promised validating legislation has been
passed, no white Australia will have lost any rights enjoyed
before Mabo. Non-Aboriginal Australia, which holds 98 per cent
of the voting power, will, not surprisingly, have looked after
its own.
The great majority of Aborigines have no benefit from
Mabo.Broadly speaking, THE MORE THEY SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF
WHITE SETTLEMENT, THE LESS LIKELY THEY ARE TO BE ABLE TO
ESTABLISH A CLAIM UNDER MABO.
Even those Aborigines who do hold native title will lose it if
their lands are subject to invalid grants issued since 1975.
They will receive compensation in non-Aboriginal terms, but to
many this will seem like being compelled to sell their
birthright for a mess of pottage."
-----------------
Financial Review story:
Mabo: the cupboard may well be bare
by Peter Gill and Rowan Callick
The Federal Government has conceded there is little native
title land in Australia - other than tracts already recognised
as Aboriginal - that can be awarded as a result of the Mabo
High Court decision.
The Minister fro Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Affairs, Mr Tickner, made this major adjustment to the
Government's stance yesterday against a background of intense
business and public antagonism.
Mr Tickner's concession is the most explicit comment to date
from the Government that successful native title claims will
be extremely limited.
Until now the Government has linked Mabo to the question of
Aboriginal reconciliation, implying significant benefits would
flow to the community from the controversial High Court
judgement.
However the political cost of holding this position has been
high.
Mr Tickner was responding to a comment earlier yesterday from
AMp chairman, Sir James Balderstone that "there may be very
little - if any - native title remaining in mainland Australia
other than the substantial areas of land already returned to
Aborigines."
"Sir James may well be right in his view," Mr Tickner said
last night. "However, this is an issue which will be clarified
under Commonwealth proposals... There has never been any
Government suggestion that all vacant Crown land should be
subject to native title and any such idea is unambiguously
ruled out," he said.
Other ministers have previously indicated the difficulty of
meeting the tests laid down by the High Court for native
title. But the perception that native title would be
widespread has fuelled much of the public debate over the
issue.
It is also a perception that underpinned many of the
arguments mounted by the mining industry and other's against
the Government's approach to native title.
"The impact of the Mabo decision will be very limited," Mr
Tickner told The Australian Financial Review last night.
"The vast majority of Aboriginal people will not directly
benefit from the Mabo decision."
Mr Tickner said the "absurd over-reaction" by conservative
figures like WA Premier, Mr Richard Court, was a "sham".
"Where Aboriginal people have been dispossessed absolutely,
there is no possibility of native title continuing to exist,"
her(sic) said.
"We are really talking about very remote parts of the country.
We are talking about probably select and limited parts of WA,
Qld and possibly SA and the NT."
(story continues to cover aspects of the debate by mining
industry).
----------------------