Aboriginal meeting demands justice on Mabo
By Peter Boyle
An historic meeting of about 500 Aboriginal organisations and
communities from around Australia met in Eva Valley in the
Northern Territory between August 3-5 to work out a united
response to the Mabo case. It firmly rejected the Keating
government's plan to introduce state and federal legislation
aimed primarily at protecting the interests of mining companies
and pastoralists from claims for ``native title'', made possible
under common law since the High Court's 1992 Mabo ruling.
``We reject the Commonwealth government's position on the
proposed legislation. We want legislation based on native title
to advance Aboriginal rights to land. The federal government does
not'', declared the Eva Valley meeting.
``The government must only move on this issue with the support of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The development of
any legislation regarding the Commonwealth government's response
to the High Court's decision on native title will need the full
and free participation and consent of those people concerned''.
Instead, the Keating government had been pursuing a deal with
state and territory goverments aimed at minimising the Aboriginal
and Islander rights recognised by the High Court in Mabo and
protecting the massive profits of big business, especially the
mining companies. Anti-land rights forces, including the mining
companies, have waged an aggressive and at times blatantly racist
propaganda campaign against Mabo.
Nevertheless, the Eva Valley meeting insisted that the federal
government take full control of native title issues to the
exclusion of the states and territories. ``We want a national
standard for our people, not numerous different standards'', the
statement said.
The Eva Valley statement, which will be formally delivered this
week to Prime Minister Paul Keating by a new negotiating
delegation, demanded that the federal government honour its
obligations under international human rights instruments and
international law and agree to a negotiating process towards a
lasting settlement with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples.
The federal government's response to the Mabo decision should be
based on five principles, the statement said:
* Recognition and protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander rights.
* Acknowledgement that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
title should not be extinguished by government grants of interest
over land.
* Any grant of interests over Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander land should be made with the informed consent of all
titleholders to such land.
* The federal government should declare Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander title to Aboriginal reserves and other defined
land.
* There should be total security for sacred sites and heritage
areas.
The meeting also demanded federal funding to allow Aborginal and
Torres Strait Islanders to negotiate on fair terms with the
government on the legislative response to Mabo.
Keating responded to the Eva Valley meeting by charging
Aboriginal leaders with not doing their job properly. He claimed
that his government had negotiated its position with Aboriginal
representatives. He added that he had made it clear from the
beginning of these negotiations that ``native'' titleholders
would not be allowed the right to veto mining and other
developments on their land. He said he was concerned that
``extremists'' had gained the upper at the Eva Valley meeting and
called for ``moderate voices'' to speak out.
However, at the Eva Valley meeting, many of the representatives
who had been participating in the limited negotiations with the
Keating government over its Mabo response voiced their
disappointment with the Keating government. This is not
surprising given the government's record in consultation with
their representatives.
On April 27 Keating called a meeting with 13 representatives of
Aboriginal land councils and legal services to begin the formal
negotiations on draft federal legislation. Keating's bureaucrats
selected the Aboriginal negotiating team and tried to commit them
to negotiation in secret but word soon got out and there was an
angry response from Aboriginal organisations that had been
excluded from the process.
Nevertheless, a meeting meeting of national Aboriginal
organisations held in Adelaide on May 24, approved an initial
negotiating position and ratified the negotiating team. This
meeting was held under extreme pressure. Advisers told the
meeting that there was a limited window of opportunity to cut a
deal with the government, so concessions had to be made.
Yet three days later, the Northern Territory government revealed
that it had a deal with the Keating government to legislate to
immunise the giant McArthur River mining project from any Mabo
claims. Keating had guaranteed in wrtitng to NT Chief Minister
Marshall Perron that his government would support this move with
funds, legal advice and complementary legislation if becessary.
Since then the Keating government has been trying its best to cut
a deal with the Court Liberal government of Western Australia
(which wants the Mabo case reversed by referendum) and the
Kennett government of Victoria (which has passed special
legislation of its own to limit the Mabo decision). Keating's
latest offer has been for legislation immunising pastoral and
tourism leases from Mabo claims, limiting compensation claims on
mining companies, and allowing state and federal government's the
right to have the final say on land use of native title land.
Aboriginal social justice commissioner Mick Dodson, who has been
the official spokesperson of the Aboriginal negotiating team,
expressed his anger at the Eva Valley meeting. ``At this stage'',
he said, ``the only thing the [Keating] government has been
prepared to do in their legislative response is to look after the
interests of everybody but Aboriginal and Islander people.''.
Northern Land Council chairperson, Galarrwuy Yunupingu said that
Keating had backed off from his previous promises to Aborigines
in the face of pressure from land developers who claimed that
Mabo was a threat to the nation. Keating, Jeff Kennett, Richard
Court and Wayne Goss argue that if Aborigines have to give
consent to development on their land, this will cause a major
disruption to mining and tourism. But Dodson disagrees: ``We want
economic development, but we want it on our terms and conditions,
not someone else's''.