Aborigines reject Keating's Mabo Mark 2
By Tony Iltis and Kristian Whittaker
CANBERRA - More than 600 Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders arrived at
Boomanulla Oval in south Canberra on September 26 for a three-day conference
aimed at formulating a national response to the High Court's 1992 decision
on native title. The conference followed on from the first national
post-Mabo meeting held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at
Eva Valley in the Northern Territory, August 3-5
The Boomanulla conference called for the abolition of the government's draft
legislation. The legislation proposes to validate existing land title
against possible native title claims and establish a system of
state-controlled tribunals to hear future claims.
At a 500-strong march on Parliament House on Sept 27, conference
participants burned a copy of the draft legislation. Northern Territory
artist Michael Nelson Jagamara symbolically removed a stone of the mosaic
from the forecourt of Parliament House, which he had originally painted to
represent all the indigenous people of Australia.
``This is no longer a meeting place for all my people to meet as equals ...
the government continues to weaken Aboriginal laws and customs ... Because
the government of Australia has still not recognised our people and our
culture, it is abusing my painting and insulting my people. I want to take
my painting back to my people'', Jagamara said.
The following afternoon, the conference refused an invitation from Prime
Minister Keating for a small delegation to meet with him. ``What is there to
meet for? To negotiate?'', suggested one conference speaker. ``We've already
given our response. We burned the legislation yesterday. As far as we're
concerned, it no longer exists.''
Conference speakers opposed strongly the government's plan to suspend the
Racial Discrimination Act of 1975. This would allow it to validate land
grants which have been made over native title land since the act came into
force.
The director of the Cape York Land Council, Noel Pearson, afterwards
described the draft legislation as a ``putrid proposal''. On ABC television,
Pearson commented, ``The worst aspects of this proposed legislation arise
out of the fact that its provisions are not going to come under the
operation of the Racial Discrimination Act''.
In an article published last month by the Aboriginal Provisional Government,
Michael Mansell points out that the 1992 High Court ruling was extremely
limited in recognising Aboriginal rights. Native title was restricted to
communities which could prove a continual relationship to the land through
white courts. Furthermore, the judges ruled that, unlike freehold, native
title could not be passed on to future generations and that governments have
the right to extinguish it.
However Keating's Mabo Mark 2 offer is a big step backwards for land rights
compared to the Mark 1 model presented to the June Premiers Conference.
According to Frank Brennan SJ, in a recent issue of Eureka Street, Mabo Mark
2 underwent three major policy changes.
First, any suggestion that traditional owners should be able to exercise a
veto over development on their land, as in the Northern Territory, was
dropped.
Second, the Commonwealth agreed to validate all non-Aboriginal titles back
to 1788, rather than back to 1975, when the Racial Discrimination Act was
passed. This was in response to Queensland Premier Wayne Goss, Comalco and
foreign investors after the Wik claim in Cape York. Any crown grant of land
will therefore be confirmed as valid, while a native title that might
otherwise have survived (if the grant were invalid) will be extinguished.
Third, the Commonwealth agreed to extinguish any title on pastoral leases.
Public access to beaches, river banks and waterways is also guaranteed.
``The miners are happy with these three policy shifts. But they were not
quite as happy as the pastoralists, who were guaranteed immunity from any
effect of native title.''
Under the Keating model, the states will be able to set up their own
tribunals to hear cases put by Aboriginal people regarding development
proposals. The model merely allows Aborigines the right to be heard. If the
tribunal does happen to reject a development proposal, the government can
simply overrule the decision in the ``state (read mining corporation)
interest''.
While denying the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples any
fundamental rights to self-determination and land rights in his Mabo Mark 2,
Keating is expected to outline a ``social justice'' package for Aborigines
when he introduces the Mabo legislation into parliament. Sops may well
include a ``land acquisition fund'' and money earmarked for ``economic
development''.
The Boomanulla conference decided to challenge the legislation, if it is
passed in its present form, in the High Court or the International Court of
Justice. There was a strong emphasis by many speakers on the need to
internationalise the campaign. Michael Mansell suggested the legislation
could break Australia's obligations under the International Convention on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Other conference proposals included directly appealing to the queen to
refuse royal assent to the bill, and appealing to African nations to boycott
the Sydney Olympic games.
The NSW delegation to the conference also resolved to reject in total the
NSW native title legislation and to seek assistance against it in UN and
other international forums.
Also passed was a resolution ``That all tribes in New South Wales resolve to
join together in one parliament, and invite all other Aboriginal Nations to
join us''.
At the close of the conference, a working group was established to condense
the conference discussions and proposed actions. Participants will be taking
back conference reports to their nations and local communities.
Earlier, summing up th feelings of many conference participants, a
representative from Cape York stated, ``We don't want everything ... Paul
Keating and Wayne Goss, they close their ears on one side, but they never
forget to open their ears on the other side for wealthy people such as
mining industrialists.''