## Nachricht vom 03.08.93 weitergeleitet
## Ursprung : /APC/GREENLEFT/NEWS
## Ersteller: greenleft@peg.UUCP
Keating seeks Mabo compromise with states
By Peter Boyle
On July 26 the federal cabinet worked out new drafting
instructions on a legislative response to the 1992 Mabo land
rights case. This represents an attempt to come to a common
position with Liberal state governments in Western Australia,
Victoria and Tasmania.
Essentially the new federal position calls for a system of state
and federal tribunals to interpret the ``native title'' found to
still exist by the High Court decision. The tribunals could also
allow proven native title holders the right to negotiate new
mining leases (but not to veto mining) and to claim limited extra
compensation from mining companies for special attachment to
land. However, it also allows state and federal government veto,
in the ``national interest'', over land use determinations by
those tribunals.
Many Aboriginal organisations have yet to receive details of the
new federal position, and a united response will not be
formulated until after a national meeting in the Northern
Territory this week.
But there was an angry reaction from Rob Riley, the executive
director of the Aboriginal Legal Service of WA. Riley is part of
a committee negotiating with the Keating government on behalf of
Aboriginal land councils and legal services.
``As soon as politicians start talking about the national
interest, Aboriginal concerns are always the loser'', said Riley.
By deeming that pastoral and tourism leases will extinguish
native title, Keating's latest proposal interpreted the High
Court's decision so that Aboriginal interests have once more been
overridden by pursuit of the dollar, he said.
Giving state governments the right of veto would be ``grossly
unfair'' in view of the fact that state premiers like WA's
Richard Court refuse even to accept the Mabo decision. Court
wants to hold a referendum to reverse Mabo. ``Giving the state
the right of veto is like asking one of the players to act as the
umpire'', said Riley.
In contrast, the acting chairperson of the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), Sol Bellear, welcomed the new
federal position as a ``major breakthrough''. He was quoted in
the July 29 Age in fulsome praise: ``Paul Keating and his Cabinet
have shown statesmanship in recognising our right to have a say
in how our land is used''.
The new position has been welcomed by the National Farmers
Federation and ACTU president Martin Ferguson, and has been
treated as a vindication of his conservative views by Victorian
Premier Jeff Kennett.
However, the Australian Mining Industry Council (AMIC) is still
unhappy, as is the WA premier.
AMIC executive director Lauchlan McIntosh has demanded even
further concessions from the federal government, including:
* Complete extinguishment of native title by all ``valid acts of
government'' granting land uses, including mining leases.
Canberra's position allows for the revival of native title upon
the expiry of mining leases, though such native title does not
carry mineral rights.
* Native title owners to have only the right to receive
compensation for disturbance caused by mining. Canberra proposes
an extra, capped, entitlement in consideration of Aboriginal
people's special attachment to the land.
* No special tribunal to determine native title, as proposed by
Canberra. Any Aboriginal people wanting to prove native title
would have to go through the expense of a High Court case, taking
10 years or more, if the AMIC has its way.
Aboriginal people are confused and disoriented by the mixed
signals coming from Canberra, according to an urgent letter sent
to the federal government on July 26 from the Aboriginal
negotiating team. On one hand Keating is making grand statements
about reconciliation while on the other ``the strength of his
words is not reflected in either the spirit or the substance of
the draft'', says the letter, which seeks a clarification of the
federal government's position.
``Fundamentally, the drafting instructions advance and protect
the vested interests of the economic, mining and pastoral sectors
in particular, while doing nothing to protect Aboriginal
interests beyond the bare minimum required by law'', the letter
said.
The proposals in the drafting instructions before the latest
cabinet decision were such that Aboriginal interests would be
better protected by the common law, according to the Aboriginal
representatives. In fact in one area, the Victorian government's
bill provides better protection than that offered by Canberra,
they said.
In the face of federal and state government prevarication,
Aboriginal groups are continuing to lodge Mabo-style claims
before the courts. The latest claim is by the Wik people of the
Cape York Peninsula. They are claiming 35,000 square kilometres
of land, much of which in under mining leases held by Comalco.
## CrossPoint v2.1 ##