>From The Australian newspaper Friday 3 September.
The following are the main points of the proposed Mabo
legislation:
* Remove doubt about grants of interest in land
* Make clear that for freehold, residential, pastoral and
tourist leasehold native title is extinguished
* Preserve native title to the maximum extent (see above!
-R)
* Protect the rights of people who have renewals or
extensions
* Allow native title land to be converted to statutory
title if the owners wish
*Accelerate process for decisions on title involving
mining leases
* The right for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to
compensation where native title is extinguished
* A national native title tribunal to hear claims of
native title (Note also that States will be able to set up
their own tribunals according to Federal guidelines)
* Rights of public access to beaches and waterways will
be confirmed.
---------------------
Extract from articles in same paper.
Mr Keating said that after the passage of the Bill, there
would be a "package of measures to deal with social justice
questions and these will go to land acquisition and other
issues."
Land claims will have to pass a set of credibility criteria
before they will be registered with the tribunal.
Claims will be rejected if the claimants fail to show ongoing
traditional connection with the land, the land is already the
subject of determination, the claim is not in the prescribed
form (Note - this is a classic indicator of cultural
imperialism - Reyburn), or when native title has been
extinguished over the land.
(It seems that the exact form which native title takes will be
left to the tribunal to determine on a case by case basis -R)
The tribunal's decision an be overturned at State or federal
government level if it is deemed to be contrary to the State
of national interest.
(The Tasmanian Premier Mr Groom said) "It is vital that the
State has control of a tribunal and determines who should sit
on the tribunal"
(The Western Australian Premier) Mr Court reaffirmed his
intention to press ahead with State-based legislation, saying
his Bill would restore confidence by enshrining the principle
that the State were solely responsible for land administration
issues.
(Tasmanian activist and representative from the Eva Valley
group Mr Michael Mansell said) "The States will have powers to
allocate leases over native title simply by putting the right
sort of people on the right sort of tribunals. It's nothing
but an anti-Aboriginal set-up."
(From the Editorial) The two aims of government policy are to
provide "justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people in relation to legal rights granted by the highest
court in the land" and to preserve the "integrity of our land
management system as one of the foundations of our economy".
Note also Editorial in The Financial Review of Thursday
September 2 "Getting Mabo right mostly means ensuring that it
does not interfere with the nation's economic growth and
prosperity. (The myth of nationalism prevails. Exactly what
interests comprise the 'nation', 'our ecomony' and 'national
interest' in this part of the world? - Reyburn)
...the Government sensibly proposes to qualify the
inalienability of native title land. Should the traditional
owners elect, their native title may be converted to a
statutory form, allowing them "flexibility to deal with the
land". They may the lease or sell part of the land to allow
economic development. This feature of the Mabo response should
also allay concerns about land being "locked away" from the
economic mainstream.
(But it sets my alarm bells ringing - it signals open slather
exploitation by those who have already gained massive
advantage under the regime of terra nullius against the
relatively impoverished victims - and now all very clean and
lawful. The relationship between First Peoples and their
living countries is not extinguished by acts of Anglo-
Australian parliaments - so why should tribunals established
by those same bodies be making determinations as envisaged by
this legislation. Where is the spirit of partnership in this
heavy handed laying down of the law by Anglo-Australia's
managers? Nowhere in sight. It is a one-sided package imposed
upon First Peoples, and which reduces their standing to mere
'claimants' whose Being may be overriden in a State or
'national' interest which consistently excludes the
recognition of First Law. While we still have a long, long way
to go, the attempts of Paul Keating to stitch things up once
and for all, this legislation (which demonstrates the failure
of the property-minded to comprehend the laws of life) will
not stop the massive movement of the life force under way.
Reyburn)