Aboriginal Law Bulletin
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Aboriginal Law Bulletin |
|
Frank Brennan
This year is the centenary of the Native Labour and Protection Act passed by the Queensland Parliament in 1884 for the protection and preservation of the states Aboriginal population which had been depleted by disease and exploitation. For the last 100 years, we have had special laws which apply to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders living on reserves which are crown land set aside for their use and benefit. Most of us are familiar with sad and sorry tales by Aborigines about `life under the Act'.
During an election campaign in October 1980, the Queensland Premier said the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Acts would be abolished. Prior to the Commonwealth Games, in March 1982, the Premier and his deputy announced proposals for a system of land tenure over Aboriginal reserves called deed of grant in trust. As initially legislated, that system did not guarantee Aborigines any legal security of tenure. Thankfully, the Queensland Parliament amended the legislation in February 1984. Mr Katter, the Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs, told Parliament that the amended legislation "will give to the Aboriginal and Islander residents rights of occupation and land management for themselves and their children that are complete and beyond interference except by a special Act of Parliament".[1]
The new land legislation was to be complemented by Services legislation which would repeal the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Acts and ensure "that Aborigines and Islanders have the same rights, privileges and responsiblities as every other Queenslander".[2]
Earlier this year there were grounds for optimism. In January, I told the Aboriginal and Islander Catholic Council that: "Provided the terms of the legislation and the mode of its administration match the rhetoric, this is clearly the stuff of land rights, self-management and self-determination". I went on to say that "despite the shortcomings in the consultation process I am fairly optimistic that the Services legislation will be fairly enlightened as a piece of legislation directed at self-management and local government". I was wrong.
The services legislation saw light of day as the sun rose on Friday, 13 April 1984. Parliament sat throughout the night and passed two bills one of which was introduced to Parliament only 10 hours before its final passage. Despite government claims, these bills do not give Aborigines and Islanders the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as every other Queenslander; neither do they fulfil the expressed and recorded wishes of the elected Aboriginal leaders of the Queensland reserves. In j rushing the legislation, the government breached specific undertakings it had made about consultation. What was to be the beginning of a whole new era for Queensland's Aboriginal and Islander reserve residents may, in the words of the cartoonist Moir, turn out to be the beginning of a whole new error.
In October 1980 the Premier announced that the Aborigines Act and the Torres Strait Islanders Act would be repealed.
On 18 March 1981, he told Parliament, "It will be done in the near future: during the year: perhaps not this session but next session. I can promise that. That will be for sure".[3]
On 1 April 1981, the Premier told the Aboriginal Advisory Council that "he hoped that it would be possible to introduce amending legislation later this year and suggested the council might form a small working group ... He stressed also that before any draft legislation went to Parliament, it would have to come back before the Advisory Council".[4]
On 5 August 1981, the Premier told the Council that "their views would be very carefully taken into account".[5]
On 16 September 1981, the Premier told Parliament in answer to a question from Mr. Scott that he would not set up an all-party committee to consider the legislation and that any decisions "taken by the Government ... will be in the best interests of .the people concerned".[6] Thus Mr. Pizzey's 1965 precedent was rejected out of hand.
Late in 1981, the DAIA issued a special edition of the DAIA News entitled "A Time for Thought Not Worry.". That issue presented nine commitments by the Premier and the Minister, Mr. Tomkins. One of those commitments was: "Before any draft legislation goes before Parliament it will go before the Advisory Councils for Discussion. The Councils will have the opportunity to review proposed legislation".[7]
On 11 November 1981, the Minister Mr. Tomkins told Parliament that the Advisory Councils are "the councils from which the Government seeks advice".[8]
1982 was the year for the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane. On 1 March 1982, the Premier and his deputy announced Cabinet's decision to grant Aboriginal and Island communities deeds of grant in trust "under existing provisions of the Land Act". They said, "In keeping with its changing role the Department of Aboriginal and Island Advancement would become a servicing facility". In relation to services legislation to replace the 1971 Acts they said, "Continuing consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Advisory Councils will take place during the preparation of the legislation".
Federal Cabinet was meeting in Brisbane that week. The day after the Premier's announcement, it was endorsed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser. Senator Baume, the federal minister for Aboriginal Affairs, was known to have some reservations.
The deed of grant in trust legislation was later passed through Parliament without any reference to the Aboriginal Advisory Council which had last met in August 1981. The government admitted that it had consulted only with the Advisory Council's chairman, Mr. Les Stewart MBE. He and the Chairman of the Island Advisory Council were said to be "generally in agreement that the tenure reflects the wishes of the people".[9]
A week after the Premier's announcement of proposals for new Aboriginal legislation, the Premier and his Police Minister fuelled speculation about "a secret black army ... in training, specifically to provoke violence in Brisbane during the Games".[10]
The Premier alleged that six Aborigines were at that time in Libya undergoing guerilla and terrorist training. The Police Minister told Parliament:
"A document was presented to me by the Police Commissioner. Being a responsible Minister, I conveyed the information to the Premier. .. It is his duty as Premier to convey the information, which has international overTorres, to the Prime Minister. That was done. As to tabling the document - if the Premier wishes to do that; he may do so: it is entirely up to him"[11]
Though it was claimed that the information had been handed on to the Commonwealth Government, the Premier never tabled the Police Commissioner's document. Senator Bonner placed a question on notice in the Senate for reply by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Meanwhile, the Land Act amendments were introduced and passed amidst press speculation about Aboriginal terrorism. It was not until 20 April 1982 that the Minister for Foreign Affairs provided his answer.[12]
“I am advised that inquiries conducted by my Department and other relevant authorities have produced no evidence to verify that Aboriginals are currently undergo ing guerilla or terrorist training in Libya".
Senator Baume, Commonwealth Minister for Aboriginal Affairs went further and told the Senate.”[13]
"That whole story is quite fanciful ... It may be that a Premier receives from one source or another information that may eventually prove to be false".
But the damage had been done by Queensland Ministers of the crown at the time Parliament was to consider land legislation for the benefit of Aboriginal people.
It was three months after the passage of the land legislation that the Advisory Councils met to consider it and the forthcoming services legislation. The Torres Strait Councillors voted 35-1 in support of the "feeling of the majority of Torres Strait Island people seeking for inalienable freehold title to their land".[14] According to the Aboriginal Advisory Council's Working Party, the Aboriginal Council carried a motion without dissent but with abstentions by Mr. Les Stewart MBE and his deputy at Cherbourg that the Council "does not accept the Deed of Grant in Trust at this stage until further investigation is carried out by the Queensland Government and the Lands Department of alternative land tenure".[15] They claimed that "The Aboriginal Advisory Council totally rejected the Deed of Grant in Trust".[16]
The Islander council elected a negotiating committee which was "to report back to a further conference for consideration and possible ratification of the results".[17] The Aboriginal Advisory Council elected a 5-member working party which was to discuss proposals and to "report back to the next meeting of the Advisory Council".[18]
A week later the Premier issued a press statement concerning the Advisory Council meetings. “He said no vote on the Deed of Grant in Trust title was taken at the meeting”.[19] The Aboriginal Advisory Council never met again.
In August 1982, Mr. Tomkins declined to provide funds for the inaugural meeting of the Aboriginal Advisory Council Working Party requested by its chairman Mr. Tom Geia who was also chairman of the Palm Island Council. Mr. Tomkins told Parliament that "the group was not formed for the purpose of calling its own meetings". He said "The Government will tell them when it is ready with its services legislation". He said Mr. Geia and his Deputy Chairman were "the two persons who are creating the trouble"; however he assured the Leader of the Opposition that "in due course the working party will get together and study the services legislation".[20]
On 30 August 1982, Mr. Tomkins issued a press statement saying he "assured the Advisory Councils they would be given the opportunity to air their views about the proposed services legislation before it went before Parliament".
On 21 September 1982, Mr. Tomkins told Parliament that "As Chairman of the Working Party, Mr Geia wanted regular meetings". He said, "If people wish to get together for meetings, they will not do it at the Government's expense".[21] He confirmed his view to Parliament on 28 October 1982.[22]
On 22 November 1982, Mr. Tomkins confirmed in writing that Mr. Geia "is not, never has been, and has no authority to be Chairman of the Working Party".[23]
On 13 July 1983, Mr. David Brown, Assistant Director of DATA informed a Seminar of Aboriginal representatives and departmental officers that their ideas would be very helpful to the Department and the Working Party ‘in our task of developing up recommendations which eventually will take the form of draft legislation for consideration by the Aboriginal Advisory Council itself’.[24]
The DAIA then prepared a document entitled ‘Work in Progress’ which summarised the recommendations of the Aboriginal Working Party for services legislation. That document concluded with the words:
"The Working Party are still however considering these and other matters before framing final conclusions for consideration by the Aboriginal Advisory Council".
Not even the Working Party met again. Yet Parliament enacted Services legislation which deviates substantially from the DAIA's own summary of what the elected Aboriginal leaders were seeking.
Eventually the Queensland Government will issue a deed to each community council to act as trustee of the community land for the benefit of the residents. The deed will cover the existing reserve area. However, some important bits may be cut out, if the Government so wishes. The Government has not said if it will be handing over things like workshops, sawmills, potteries, bakeries, butcheries, stores, council chambers, farm structures etc. If the Government wished, it could include all these things in the deed along with the houses and all the community land. This would mean the transfer of ownership and control of these things to the community council. Presumably places like police stations, schools, and hospitals will not be included in the deeds but will remain under the control of the relevant Government departments.
The law does allow the Government to reclaim some land for other public purposes. Not until the deeds are issued will communities know how much land can be reclaimed in that way.
Under the present law, Aboriginal housing will be handed over to the councils as trustees. However Mr. Katter and the Minister for Lands have said they favour a scheme which would allow residents to own their own homes provided they could not sell or give them away to outsiders.
Once a deed is issued, the land covered by the deed will belong to the Council as trustee for the people. That land cannot be taken back by the Government unless the Parliament makes a new law to do so. The land cannot be sold or given away by the council. So it is a form of inalienable title. No court and no Minister can take the land back - that would require an Act of Parliament.
The elected council as trustee of the land can make by-laws to govern its use by residents and others. A council has power to mortgage the land provided it has received Cabinet approval. Though a council has power to lease land to individuals, each lease must be approved by the Minister for Lands who also has the power to terminate leases and to veto a Council's termination of a lease. A Council can be replaced as trustee if Cabinet thinks it in the public interest to do so.
The Forestry Act was especially amended by the deed of grant legislation to take away rights to forestry and quarry materials on all lands granted in trust.[25] Most landholders in Queensland do have rights to timber and stone on their land:[26] so too do the shire councils at Aurukun and Mornington Island and their residents.[27] According to DAIA, the Aboriginal Working Party had recommended "a provision enabling the trustees to authorise the gathering, digging and removal of forest products and quarry materials for the purpose of improving the area held in trust".[28]
The land and services legislation do not include any provision for mining rights. In justification, Mr. Katter claimed "such a step would have given the communities privileges no other Queenslanders had".[29] This is not true. Queenslanders holding land under 1860, 1868 and 1872 land legislation own minerals in their land except for coal and gold. Some landholders who acquired title from the crown before 1910 are entitled to royalties from coal extracted from their land. When the present Attorney-General asked the Minister for Mines and Energy a question on notice about the area and situation of such lands, the Minister declined to provide details on the basis that assessment would require a complete search of all Titles Offices.[30] Presumably the number of landholders with these titles is not insignificant. In fact, the Queensland Parliament amended the Mining Act in 1971 to ensure that these landholders were compensated for the value of minerals as well as land in the event of acquisition.[31]
Surface mining cannot occur on any land-holder's improved land or on suburban blocks without the consent of the owner. In other cases a permit must be obtained from the mining warden. On Aboriginal land, the decision is to be made by the Governor-in-Council (effectively Cabinet) which "shall have regard to the views"[32] of the community council but which need not follow those views. Unlike Aurukun and Mornington Island Councils which have power to negotiate mining agreements providing for a share in profits, other Aboriginal and Island Councils will not have that power and their communities will lose the benefits to which they were entitled under the 1971 legislation.
According to DAIA, the Aboriginal Working Party wanted “to see provision for:
(a) The issue of a permit by the trustees as a condition precedent to any mining or mining exploration
(b) The ability of the trustees to require that applicable mining interests must negotiate with them terms and conditions favourable to the local people and economy including profit sharing and preferential employment clauses.
(c) Reference to an arbitration in the event of disputes”.[33]
The Community Services Bills continue the Community courts and police system. A Court may be constituted by 2 JPs or by members of the Council when there are no JPs available. This extraordinary flouting of the separation of powers doctrine is contrary to the unanimous wish of the 14th Aboriginal Advisory Council that Councillors not be permitted to sit on courts.[34] According to DAIA, the Working Party felt that "members of the Council should be divorced from Court work and that each place should have sufficient Justices of the Peace to operate on rotation".[35]
The new bills have provision which ensure that public servants will be dealt with by a Magistrate's Court for any alleged breaches of by-laws. Residents have no choice about appearing before a community court despite DAIA's recording of "an important suggestion" by the Working Party “that the new legislation should provide for a person brought before an Aboriginal Court to elect that the charges be heard instead by a Magistrates Court”.[36] So the time had come when Aboriginal leaders thought it important to give their community members the option of due process in Queensland courts. Against their wishes, it has been deemed desirable that they be able to be tried and convicted not by a magistrate, not necessarily by JPs but perhaps even by local politicians.
Under the new bills, councils require the Minister's approval for the appointment of community police. The last meeting of the Aboriginal Advisory Council "felt that the Council should appoint the Aboriginal Police Force rather than Department".[37] The Advisory Council and Working Party have been seeking proper training for their police. A statutory requirement for ministerial approval of appointments was not sought. There is no statutory requirement for training of community police.
Alcohol consumption leads to major problems on many Queensland Aboriginal communities. The resolution of these problems has been a great concern for Aboriginal Councillors for many years. The Yarrabah community made a special submission to the government on this matter saying, "If we believed alcohol abuse could be lessened by the restriction of the canteen operation, it would have been closed some time ago".[38] The Aboriginal Advisory Council resolved that "Any decision on beer canteens generally be left to the individual council on each reserve".[39] According to DATA, the Working Party felt that "no uniform set of rules can be made for every centre but instead a flexible arrangement
. may be more suitable".[40] The Working Party thought any restrictions on alcohol should apply to all people living on the community.
The new bills allow a council to run premises for the sale of beer but the Under-Secretary's aproval is required. Alcoholic beverage other than beer may not be sold. A Council may make by-laws governing beer canteens and takeaways. If the Under-Secretary satisfies himself that the sale of beer is proving detrimental to the well-being of community members generally he may close down the beer canteen. He does not have this power at Aurukun or Mornington Island. There the councils have power to impose prohibition orders on the troublemakers. One wonders why Palm Island needs a more paternalistic provision than Mornington Island. One wonders why the Aurukun Council is empowered to prohibit alcohol to the trouble-maker while the Yarrabah Council is not.
According to DAIA, the Aboriginal Working Party considered that the Director's powers over estates of deceased Aborigines "should only continue if the Department is appointed as executor in the will or in the event that no will is made, if so appointed by the next of kin of the deceased. In all other situations.... deceased estates would be handled by the executor appointed in the will or by the Public Trustee".[41]
Under the new bills, when an Aborigine or Islander has died and there is no executor or when an Aborigine or Islander is missing, the Under-Secretary shall administer the estate and he is entitled to a Grant of Probate in priority to all other persons. When an Aborigine or Islander has died without having made a will, and if it should prove impracticable to ascertain his successors, the Under-Secretary is empowered to determine the entitlement of persons to that estate.
The most significant development contained in the new bills is the granting of local government powers to the community councils. Introducing the Torres Strait bill, Mr. Katter said that these provisions "are bringing these communities into line with the rest of the State". Introducing the Aborigines Bill, he said:
"This bill reflects the Government's desire to unfetter Aboriginal and Islander people in formulating decisions which affect the development of their communities and which shape their future position in Queensland society".
He went on to describe the "quintessence of this legislation":
that local government decision making powers will ... shift to the local democratically elected community council".
However, these bills contain a series of restrictions on community councils which do not apply to any other local councils in Queensland. They do not even apply to the Aboriginal shire councils of Aurukun and Mornington Island. Councils governed by these new bills will have to submit an annual budget to the Minister who is empowered to reject it in which case any expenditure by the council will be illegal. Council chairmen have to submit monthly and annual financial statements to the Minister. All items of expenditure by Aboriginal Councils which are made from funds allocated by the Queensland Parliament have to be approved by a public servant. Council accounts are to be audited "as if the council were a department of government of Queensland". In other words, these councils are not viewed as responsible, elected councils expending their own funds but as public servants expending government funds and therefore accountable to the Queensland Government through its officers. This is not the stuff of self-management; it is not even local government; it is a continuation of government by the public service. After all, the Minister and the Under-Secretary are empowered to provide the Councils with whatever departmental officers are necessary to enable councils adequately to discharge these duties; and it is an offence for any person, including a Councillor, to obstruct these officers.
In neither of his second reading speeches introducing these new bills did the Minister refer to the expressed and recorded wishes of the Advisory Councils and their working parties. Since 1971 it had been established practice for the Minister to claim Advisory Council approval for legislation. One can only conclude that the coming of age by the Advisory Councils at Bamaga in July 1982 was their death. Once they stood up to government, expressed and recorded their disagreement, they were to be cast out into oblivion while undisclosed persons in George Street, Brisbane, decided what was good for Aborigines. After all, all members of the Aboriginal Working Party and Mr. Les Stewart, Chairman of the Aboriginal Advisory Council were anxious that their Advisory Council meet again as long ago as 11 September 1982.
Meanwhile legislation was drafted containing provisions which did not give Aborigines and Islanders the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as every other Queenslander and which were at variance with what elected Aboriginal and Islander leaders sought. These provisions often repose powers in the Minister and Under-Secretary which are not exercisable over any other Queensland citizens or Councils.
Understandably, government is concerned to protect its investment in these communities and to provide an orderly transition to local government for them. But by deviating from the expressed wishes of the elected leaders without explanation and without opportunity for discussion, government has shown contempt for these communities and their leaders. Though the expenditure of government funds is to be monitored, we must ask: what is the purpose of such expenditure? Is it not to provide for the needs of the people?Though wanting an orderly transition to local government, we must ask: isn't there a time when the apron strings must be cut? Shouldn't that time be determined by the people themselves?
How can it be claimed that laws are made for the development of communities and advancement of people when those laws do not accord equality of treatment and when the inequality of treatment has been neither consented to or requested by the people to be subject to the laws nor publicly justified by the lawmakers?
Though the Commonwealth Parliament has power to override contrary state legislation in the field of Aboriginal affairs, that power has been exercised sparingly to date.
In 1978 the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs reported that “co-operation between the Commonwealth and Queensland is not likely to provide a 'full and sufficient discharge of Commonwealth obligations to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland' and some unilateral action is likely to be necessary.”[42]
If the Queensland Government were to continue in its disregard of the expressed and recorded wishes of Aboriginal reserve leaders thereby imposing laws, ministerial controls and bureaucratic constraints on Aborigines which do not apply to other citizens, then there would be a responsibility imposed on the Commonwealth government to rectify the matter by unilateral action.
If the Community Services bills unamended are Queensland's last word, then the Commonwealth has a responsibility to speak not the words of political rhetoric but the provisions of law.
The rights, powers and responsibilities granted to Aboriginal councils such as Yarrabah and Palm Island are less than those granted to Aurukun and Mornington Island under the 1978 legislation. Perhaps, despite public rhetoric to the contrary, the Queensland government no longer believes in providing ordinary local government to these communities as quickly as possible. The only other explanation for the more onerous provisions in the Community Services bills is that Aboriginal affairs is primarily a matter of federal-state conflict: - a conflict in which the federal opponent is now less feared than it was in 1976 - or a conflict which is more earnestly sought by the state opponent now than it was in 1978.
Whatever the explanation, if the Queensland legislation is its last word, then overriding Commonwealth legislation will not be an interference with imaginery state rights but could be the only remaining legal instrument for the creation, recognition, and protection of the rights of Australian citizens who happen to be Aborigines living in Queensland.
The Community Services bills passed by the Queensland Parliament deviate substantively from the recorded resolutions and wishes of the Aboriginal Advisory Council and its Working Party particularly in regard to: self-management and local government; timber, quarry, and mineral veto rights; courts and police; probate; and alcohol. If special laws are to apply to these communities, they should be laws which are sought and approved by the people themselves.
There are still defects in the Deed of Grant in Trust legislation which will prevent Aboriginal communities form enjoying rights to land, local government and self-management with legal immunity from excessive bureaucratic or political interference by those who masterminded the recent legislation and its mode of passage through Parliament.
It is essential that the Queensland Government now provide the Advisory Councils and Working Parties with the resources, including independent legal advice (which they have been requesting since July 1982), to meet and to consider the new bills so that they might propose amendments which are then accepted or rejected with reasons given to Parliament. Otherwise, these new bills (in the words of one Aboriginal Chairman present in the public gallery in the wee hours of 13 April 1984) will do nothing but "close the door on our cage". The abuse of the parliamentary process on that night and the breach of undertakings about consultation raise the question: "Of what are our lawmakers afraid?" If they are dispensing justice, their actions will withstand scrutiny under the light of day. That which was rushed through the night is unacceptable because it is not what the people wanted nor is it what they deserve. The law must be changed to accord these Australian citizens their rights and to recognise their justifiable claims. Two Parliaments have the power to do it. It takes more than rhetoric and good will. Introducing the Torres Strait bill, Mr Katter thanked his National Party Committee and gave them special praise saying, "They have laboured for over forty hours translating the wishes of the people ... into this legislation". There is more than another week's work to be done if trust, understanding and even advancement are to be salvaged.
Once when Stanner asked an Aborigine what he thought about white people, he received the reply: "very clever people: very hard people: plenty humbug".[43] Like Stanner, I hope we might remove the sting before it is implanted forever. To enlighten the laws made under cover of night will be just a start. The cry of the alienated, frustrated and powerless, the cry for identity, recognition and acceptance will be amongst us for some time to come. Just for the moment, it sounds in the term 'land rights'.
nb. This article comprises extracts from a paper given at a Conference "Towards Justice and Peace", Brisbane, 2 May 1984
[1] QPD: 16 December 1983.
[2] The Hon. K.B. Tomkins, 1982 OPD 5172; 25 March 1982.
[3] 1981 QPD 341; 18 March 1981.
[4] Aboriginal Advisory Council, 13th Meeting, Minutes, p.9.
[5] Aboriginal Advisory Council, 14th Meeting, Minutes, p.10.
[6] 1981 QPD 2096; 16 September 1981.
[7] A.I.A. News, D.A.I.A., Vol 6 No.2, 1981, p. l.
[8] 1981 QPD 3391; 1I November 1981.
[9] Premier's Press Statement, 1 March 1982.
[10] 1982 QPD 4541; 9 March 1982.
[11] 1981 QPD 4667; 11 March 1982.
[12] 1982 CPD 1335 (Senate): 20 April 1982
[13] 1982 CPD 1424 (Senate): 21 April 1982.
[14] Torres Strait State Councillor's Conference. 12th Meeting, Minutes, p.3.
[15] Statement by Aboriginal Advisory Council Working Party, 27 August 1982.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Torres Strait State Councillor's Conference, 12th Meeting, Minutes, p.11.
[18] Aboriginal Advisory Council, 15th Meeting, Minutes Issued by Mr. Les Stewart MBE,p.15.
[19] Premier's Media Release, 13 July 1982.
[20] 1982 QPD 647: 31 August 1982.
[21] 1982 QPD 988: 21 September 1982.
[22] 1982 QPD 1926: 28 October 1982.
[23] Letter of Mr. Tomkins to author, 22 November 1982.
[24] Aboriginal Advisory Council Working Party, Discussion Group 1. 13 July 1983, Transcript of Proceedings, p.3.
[25] s.45(ii) Forestry Act 1959-1982.
[26] See F. Brennan, Consultation Documents on Services Legislation for Aborigines & Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland, 1982.
[27] ss.29,31, Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act 1978.
[28] DATA, "Work in Progress", p.8.
[29] Courier Mail, 19 April 1984.
[30] 1982 QPD 5057-8: 24 March 1982.
[31] s.l 11(3) Mining Act 1968, as amended by s.8 of Act No. 82 of 1972.
[32] s.22(2), Land Act (Aboriginal & Islander Land Grants) Amendment Act 1982.
[33] DAIA, "Work in Progress", p.8.
[34] Aboriginal Advisory Council, 14th Meeting, Minutes, p.7.
[35] DAIA, "Work in Progress', p.2.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Aboriginal Advisory Council, 15th Meeting, Minutes Issued by Mr. Les Stewart MBE, p.4.
[38] Submission of Yarrabah Council, 9 June 1982.
[39] Aboriginal Advisory Council, 14th Meeting, Minutes, p.13.
[40] DAIA, "Work in Progress', p.l.
[41] Ibid. p.7.
[42] Ministerial Statement by Senator Chaney, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, 15 May 1980. (1980) 85 CPD 2305 (Senate).
[43] W.E.H. Stanner - White Man Got No Dreaming (Canberra 1979) p.357.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLawB/1984/8.html