Chalk, Andrew --- "The NSW Land Rights Act: Interview with Tiga Bayles" [1988] AboriginalLawB 21; (1988) 1(31) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 8

• The Nsw Land Rights Act: Interview With Tiga Bayles

---

The NSW Land Rights Act: Interview with Tiga Bayles

by Andrew Chalk

For almost four weeks since the March election of the Liberal/National Coalition Party to government in NSW, that State's Aboriginal Land Councils have operated under the threat of imminent abolition. On Saturday April 16, Premier Greiner, announced a deferral of his government's plans to repeal the NSW Land Rights Act. Through government regulations, however, the Premier is seeking to transfer financial control of the annual land tax revenue allocation of $24 million from the Land Councils to his department. The NSW Aboriginal Land Council has now lodged proceedings in the Supreme Court for a declaration that the new regulations are invalid.

In any event, the Democrats who hold the balance of power in the NSW Upper House, have stated that they would move to bring about a disallowance of the regulations. Despite these assurances and support from the Rev Fred Nile's ultra-conservative Call to Australia Party, The NSW Land Councils still face a tentative period in their brief history. Thus, it seems an opportune moment to take stock of the achievements made and the barriers encountered by Aboriginal people under what has been described, ironically by the Rev Fred Nile, as "an almost conservative piece of legislation" - the NSW Land Rights Act. In the following interview, Tiga Bayles, Chairman of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, speaks with Andrew Chalk.

‘...The majority of Aboriginal people in this state do want to retain the Land Rights Legislation. Let's face it - this is the only opportunity that we have had to implement self-management, self-determination and to give us the opportunity to establish an economic base; to give us the opportunity to contribute to the economic development of this state; to give us the opportunity to be less of a burden to the taxpayers of this sate. Yes, not only Aboriginal people would like to see it retained, but non-Aboriginal people support is gathering.’ Tiga Bayles, Radio 2BL, 12/4/88

A.C. The Land Rights Act introduced by the Wran Government had two purposes: one was to provide money payments from State land tax revenues and the other was to provide land grants. From the way the Act has been implemented, could you say that one aspect was more important than the other?

T.B. I don t believe you can really split it up. It is very important that we get money to establish business enterprises and to administer offices. We need the money even to maintain the land that's been granted. For example the major part of land grants are former reserve lands which in some cases have quite a number of houses on them. So we need money to maintain these houses. As for Crown Land we need money to administer offices, to survey the land and to make claims. Similarly, once claims are approved we need funds to develop that land. So I don't think you can say one of them was more important because they are both vital.

The claims that have been granted form a somewhat motley collection of land types. What are some of the specific problems with the nature of the land?

Well first of all, the only claims that have been approved were where a particular piece of land was not wanted by anyone else. So that is going against us from the start. If you are getting land that isn't wanted by anyone else you can bet that nine times out of ten there is not much you can do with it. But that doesn't bother us. Just to be able to have pockets of land that you cant do anything with, but to have the title to that land, that is a big thing to us.

On the other hand, there are some areas of land that we have been able to clear and establish market gardens on, even housing can be built on some of the land claims that have been approved. Some of it has been good.

Would it be fair to say that most of the land that bas been granted is of little cultural or spiritual significance for Aborigines but does serve a social and economic function?

Yes it would. I think most of the land serves more of an economic and social function than spiritual, although there are some pockets of land that maintain quite a lot of sites and rock engravings. Up around the Kuring-gai National Park we have had claims approved that contain some beautiful rock engravings which we want to open up to educational institutions. We would particularly like to see schools take their children on excursions there. This year they started teaching Aboriginal history in the schools and they need access to sites like these.

What specific benefits has the land provided?

Well as an example, in my region which is the Sydney/Newcastle area, we have had a pocket of land approved for the Worimi Local Land Council in the Port Stephens area. It is very sandy, coastal country with a lot of scrubby growth on it. We spent $200,000 on a bulldozer which enabled us to clear the land and get pneumatic-tyred machinery in to plant corn, beans, potatoes and so forth. At present we have people working up there picking the beans. But that is just one land use that we have created and established, and the effects flow right through the community. It offers employment and, often more importantly, self-esteem. Aboriginal people in that community can now drive past it and point it out to their friends, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal and say "See that! That's my people doing that. Good, isn't it?" They mightn't even be working on it themselves but to know that it's Aboriginal people, it's Aboriginal development, it's Aboriginal initiative has a great effect on them and their community.

Is it possible to say what sort of land would best serve the needs of Aboriginal people?

Well there are specific projects that we can use land for. For example, we can't develop the land up at Ku-ring-gai in any way that would involve removing trees but as I mentioned before we can take people in and show them the rock engravings. But up around Wilcannia, for instance, we have a 180,000 acre sheep station on 50km of the Darling River. Now, I see that land as being very good because it gives Aboriginal people in the area the choice between living in town where they put up with racist actions every day of their lives, or, if they like, going onto this property. There they can live in a caravan. They can establish market gardens and maybe even a school. Those concerns are important and of some real value.Then there are other areas of land that are in the nature of housing blocks. We can fund the building of houses on them through Federal and State bodies such as the Department of Housing. But really we can utilise any land, any land at all.

To what extent has the experience of the Land Councils taught Aboriginal people how to lobby and organise themselves within a European system?

It has certainly taught us that. It's an area most people don't pick up on, in fact a lot of us don't even realise it ourselves. If you want to retain something and it's related to government or legislation you have to accept, firstly, that it's a numbers game and secondly, that finding those numbers depends on the way you get your information across. You have to be able to make people aware of the real developments, achievements and positive opportunities of Aboriginal people. In that respect we have certainly learnt a lot about lobbying but mind you we still have some way to go because we haven t done much of it just yet. But at least we now know how important it is.

Similarly, we are realising the importance of making contact with international communities to bring pressure to bear from outside. By feeding them the information we have found that they're interested and that their opinions count.

We also understand that the non-Aboriginal community is looking to see whether we can use the land in a constructive way. Weve been saying for too long "Listen you mob can't do it You white fellas can't solve our problems. Put us in the position where we have the money and the back-up resources and let us do it." This has happened in N.S.W. They passed the Act and put the ball in our court and naturally they are very keen to see how we handle it. Unfortunately, more often than not we get negative reactions. The media is primarily responsible because they try to highlight the mistakes while ignoring our positive achievements.

Why is it that the media seem to be against you?

Well I think it goes back to the basis on which this country was colonised, the theory of terra nullius, which was a lie from the very start.

Every year after that has seen the reinforcement of that lie: It's in the history of this country that our people did not give their land away. It was stolen. It has been the persistent need to sweep that fact under the carpet that has caused so much ongoing hostility towards the indigenous people. It has been a way of trying to legitimise an illegal act. And it will continue until people are prepared to face their history. But it is the media that nables it all.

There were times when you saw all your land claims being rejected and other periods when there were grants made without much fuss. To what extent was that difference made to the direct result of Ministerial policy?

We have had more claims approved in the last few months following a change of Ministers than we probably had in the previous few years. The last Minister prior to the elections was Hallam and he was much more positive in his outlook. He was keen to see that some of the land claim submissions were finally processed because up until then figures for grants were extremely poor.

Do you think Janice Crosio was responsible for starting the policy to reject claims?

I'm sure she was. Unfortunately, a lot of Aboriginal people don't have a terribly high regard for Janice Crosio because she was not at all supportive of the Land Rights legislation or land claims. We tend to feel that she would have preferred to see us on a 'hand-out system'.

It's an attitude that we believe is often rooted in a broader fear. Many country people see land rights as a threat to their privately owned property. They don't understand that the only land that we can put a claim on and have approved is land that is not already owned or occupied and is not wanted by any government department. They don't realise just -how stringent these criteria are. As soon as land rights are mentioned hysteria erupts, fuelled all the time by an ignorance of the limits to the Act.

Turning aside from the Act for the moment, there are a number of local governments that are sympathetic to Aboriginal concerns. Have you been able to approach councils and other groups off your own bat?

Yes we have. For example one or two councils have approved of rate exemptions on specific pieces of land. We have also been able to negotiate with shire councils as well as other non-Aboriginal organisations on land claims. When someone wants a section of our claim for a particular purpose we can often negotiate to reach an amicable agreement before we even submit the claim. So in some areas there have been quite good relationships developed. Land Councils are serving a function here just in terms of community awareness and relations. Rotary Clubs, for instance, have asked people to come across and tell them what the functions of the Councils are; what the basis for claims are. They want to know if we can claim their property, or the Opera House. It's simply a matter of communication and we find that after the first visit we begin to build up a bit of a relationship there. It's a good feeling that develops - an understanding between individuals; between non-Aboriginal groups and Aboriginal people. It’s building bridges.

Until now have the Land Councils been able to devote much of their resources to promoting a greater awareness of the legislation?

No we haven't, although over the last three months we have spent more than in the previous three years trying to make people aware of the positive achievements we have made under the Land Rights legislation. Moreover, we are already starting to see pay-offs. We are seeing it in the way non-Aboriginal people are sending in letters or will stop us in the street and say, "I saw that advertisement you mob had in the paper" or "I saw you on TV talking about the achievements of the Land Council network and I must admit that I hadn't thought that there was any real legitimacy in this Land Rights business, but after hearing you talk you've changed my mind and I support what you stand for." Just that fact alone is good. It says that we are being heard and that we need to do more of it.

We also need to explain the benefits for non-Aborigines of having land rights recognised. We want to let them know that ten years down the line we don't need their taxpayers' money. They'll be able to spend it on transport or public health without having to put aside a sum for Aborigines.

Given that almost any new organisation takes at least several years to find its feet, how do you see the Council's endeavours over the past couple of years?

In the first three years we did have some problems, particularly accountability. A few people were charged and even put in goal; but in the last two years we have had no problems with misappropriation or mismanagement whatsoever. In that some period we have seen the development of more business enterprises and sound management skills. Overall, our rate of progress in the last five years is such that the mind boggles at what we could do in the next five. The thing we would like Mr. Greiner to do is just to allow the legislation to serve out its time. It expires in 1998.

Mr Greiner has appointed himself to the portfolio for Aboriginal Affairs. At this stage how do you look forward to his Ministry?

He has been standing back and criticising the land rights legislation and wanting to repeal it. All we are saying is that he should realise that as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, he is the one to whom we are directly accountable. What's the fuss? It seems that he obviously doesn't know much about the structure of the Councils or what has been achieved under the Act. The fairest course would be for him to just spend the first twelve months observing how things operate. Naturally he would have all the Ministerial powers of veto provided for in the Act. But it would at least give him the chance to see where both the positive aspects lie and also where things aren't so good and perhaps need tightening up or improving. That would seem to be the most sensible time to start making any changes he feels are necessary.

There were times when the previous Government used a variety of administrative tactics to completely frustrate the claims provisions in the Act. Such moves drew strong criticism from the judiciary. In trying to overcome truculent Ministers, do you see the courts as playing a decisive role in the future?

Possibly. There have been some very strong statements made by the judges and I appreciate their comments. Their remarks are important because they are held in high esteem by the community and they are people that Governments take notice of. So we certainly sec them as being helpful to the cause, even if its only to draw public attention to the obstacles we have to face.

What effect would the repeal of the Act have on Aboriginal morale?

It would put us back twenty to fifty years. It would be back to welfare and the hand-out system. It would take away our right to self-management and self-determination. It would take away any hope we have of establishing our economic independence. Basically, it would kick the guts right out of the Aboriginal people.