Aboriginal Law Bulletin
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Aboriginal Law Bulletin |
|
by Johanna Sutherland
(with assistance from the Rainforest Aboriginal Network)
The Mabo decision has provided a new negotiating baseline for Aboriginal people with cultural and property interests in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Management Area of North Qld, and it has generated demands for the development of an effective reconciliation strategy for the area.
The decision has strengthened a widespread Aboriginal campaign for joint management, and has generated some strong Aboriginal opposition to the Qld Government's commitment to increasing the national park estate in the area. The Rainforest Aboriginal Network (RAN) wishes to see joint management introduced for the area generally, and to have native title areas retained as such, not as national parks. There is a perception that 'Mabo-issues' are being put on hold, and blurred administrative responsibilities under overlapping State legislation have murkied the political processes.
Native title is being asserted over parts of the area's 900 000 hectares, which includes 53 local government reserves, and 366 State and Commonwealth government areas including 31 national parks and 40 state forests.[1] Following the Mabo decision, it is not entirely clear whether native title can be asserted over its leasehold areas, although that issue is not entirely clear.[2] Following Mabo; the 91 freehold estates are free from native title.
Currently, concerns are centred on the Cape Tribulation, Greater Daintree areas which include State forest, timber reserve and fauna sanctuary areas; as well as the traditional estates of the Kuku-Yalanji people. Joint management of the area has been sought prior to the development of interim management principles or a Conservation Plan, and RAN concerns have been voiced that a planning committee and management board have been formed without Aboriginal membership beyond sub-committee advisory status.
Any regional assessment of the extent of continuing native title needs to address the Mabo requirements of continuing affiliations with estate areas, examine potentially extinguishing statutory provisions and executive action, and assess available evidence. Some of these issues have been examined elsewhere at the request of various Aboriginal organisations[3] and resources have been provided by ATSIC and various government bodies to meet some advice costs. Government inquiries such as the Resource Assessment Commission's (RAC) Coastal Zone Inquiry have also been particularly vigilant in having Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests in coastal zone areas properly assessed. Also, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the RAC have met, and will meet, with the contending parties over the issues, but resolution does not appear imminent.
Usufructuary rights, as native title rights, are currently of particular concern to selected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and the Qld Department of Environment and Heritage who have been meeting recently to discuss proposed Conservation Plans under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld), but these will not be discussed here. At two meetings on the issues in Brisbane in February and March this year, agreement could not be reached on appropriate consultative and negotiating strategies, native title safeguards nor regulatory policies and desirable legislative amendments.
In the wet tropics rainforest area most types of terrain are of continuing cultural importance to Aboriginal people, including the rainforests, creeks, rivers, beaches, islands and mountains.[4] Historically, Aboriginal language and dialect groups delineated their territories according to drainage systems, or predominant landmarks or watercourses and they tended to move systematically between campsites or groups of campsites.[5] Robert Dixon has argued that exact boundaries are difficult to draw because territories tended to radiate out from watercourses, lakes or similar features, and tribal boundaries tended to merge into each other in the drier land areas.[6] In the more fertile, rich food bearing areas such as between Cardwell and Cairns, boundaries tended to run along features, such as rivets, although also sometimes across plains.[7] Historical records by Norwegian ethnographer Carl Lumholtz noted the fiercely territorial nature of clan identification with estates.[8] The report to the Qld Government by Nicki Horsfall and Maureen Fuary documents available research on clan groupings generally in the region.
The Dyiribal[9] people of the Murray Upper and Ravenshoe retain strong traditional cultural practices, with Horsfall and Fuary suggesting that "Murray Upper people are still very involved on a day to day basis with the rainforest and continue too speak their language."[10] They have a detailed knowledge of rainforest resources, named localities and identify traditional owners of the country.[11] Ann Duke (nee Kumm) has worked a lot with the Murray Upper communities, many of whom have lived in the area from pre-European days. She has found that around the Jumbun Co-operative Area women sporadically gather traditional foods from the forest and others used the forest for recreation.[12] Retained knowledge of traditional bush foods and their processing has also been documented.[13] Traditional values in particular, such as kinship obligations, communal sharing and co-operation, language use, traditional crafts and subsistence, have also continued.[14]
Other groups in the area include Girramaygan, Jirrbalngan, Malanbarra, Ngajanji, Jirru, Dulgubarra Mamu and Waribarra Mamu. Most of the community now living around Muff ay Upper descend from the Girramygan and southern Jirrbalngan who formed a joint community at around the turn of the century.[15] The Girramaygan elders there have assisted at least one archaeologist in the identification of story places, scarred trees and walking tracks linking the Herbert River/Kirrama and Murray Upper region[16] and have "provided valuable information on the route of walking tracks, ethnobotany and several Aboriginal occupation sites."[17] One particular walking track had been used as a stock route and as forest access for timber-getters.[18]
A number of direct descendants of the traditional owners of the Herbert River region have been identified. The Upper Mulgrave State Forest includes most of the traditional lands of the Davis-Woodleigh clan.[19] In the Goldsborough Valley, the Malanbarra clan of the Yidinji tribe are attached to the State Forest at Kearneys' flat.[20] Dixon has written that Yidijndi people who avoided being sent to the mission at Yarrabah knew more about their environment and tribal custom and beliefs than those at the settlement. He has written that "[t]he last group of Yidijndi who still lived something approaching a traditional life, and spoke their own language amongst themselves (while, at the same time, working as labourers for white settlers) lived at Goldsborough, in the foothills, until about 1934."[21]
The Bamanga Bubu Ngadimunku Aboriginal Corporation Inc., has sponsored a project by Damien Britnel on Aboriginal subsistence and resource utilisation in the rainforest areas north of Mossman Gorge and Kuku Yalanji rainforest knowledge. The Bamanga Bubu place special significance on Mt Demi and wish to seek limited access, although the organisation has expressed an interest in organising guided walks of the area. The whole mountain is regarded as culturally significant by the Kuku Yalanji.
Members of the Biddi Biddi Community Advancement Co-operative Society Limited are familiar with their traditional sites and they have expressed an interest in developing guided walks to sites, initiation grounds and other historically significant areas.[22]
The Kuku-Yalanji people may enjoy recognition of their continuing native title. Anthropologist Chris Anderson[23] has extensively documented the kinship and totemic obligations identifying the Kuku-Yalanji people of the Annan and Bloomfield River region[24] with their land and sea estates. Current residents of Wujul Wujul have traditional affiliations with the area and unlike many other Aboriginal communities, they were never forcibly removed from their lands.[25] The Wujul Wujul Kuku Yalanji appear to have strong claims to extending their land area under native title. Anderson has carefully documented the extent of land in the area now held under various forms of private tenure which is not claimable under the Mabo principles.[26] He has also noted that the community feels cramped and is desperately trying to increase its land area. Anderson argues that the Kuku-Yalanji at Wujul continue to use their traditional bushland for hunting, gathering and semi-permanent gathering.[27]
To assert native title, customary law and continuing affiliation consistent with custom and tradition will need to be proved, and the devastating effect of mission life and assimilation policies on Aboriginal culture may weigh against some native title claimants. The denial of freedom of movement to many Aboriginal people resident on Qld reserves under the Aborigines Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Acts 1897 and 1901 (Qld) and under the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Affairs Act 1965 (Qld)) is likely to have been a factor contributing to the breakdown of customary law.[28] Alcohol, unemployment, the dominance of the Australian legal system, western governmental structures and the unpopularity of some aspects of customary law, amongst other factors, have also taken their toll on current customary law. This cultural desecration demonstrates the need for the development of the law of state fiduciary obligations and remedies for breach, as has occurred in other jurisdictions.[29]
On the other hand there is evidence of continuing customary law even in Deed of Grant in Trust (DOG IT) areas in North Qld.[30]
Native title can also only be asserted where it has not been extinguished by legislative or executive impacts. The Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Bill 1992 (Qld) has been drafted to recognise Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention in relation to the area, but surprisingly does not identify other Federal international environmental and human rights obligations. It provides for the development of management plans, with the Wet Tropics Plan and regulations having primacy. Management Control Plans will be more detailed area, or issue specific plans. The management plan has the potential to extinguish native title, but provisions need to be examined in detail. The plan is likely to involve stringent controls and approvals for particular activities such as the construction of buildings, work on lands and removal or damage to any natural or cultural resource. It is likely that only activities consistent with the management plan will be permitted. Co-operative management arrangements are to be concluded between land holders, owners, groups and public or local authorities. Authorised officers are to be appointed to assist in the enforcement of the legislation.
It will be necessary to read the provisions of State legislation in the context of other legislation which needs to be assessed for any impact on native title, such as the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 (Cth) and the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 (Cth) amongst other relevant legislation.[31] Federal regulations under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) are also relevant, since State legislation may be inoperative to the extent of any inconsistency under s109 of the Federal Constitution. One would hope that any new Federal regulations will continue the exemption in favour of customary Aboriginal activities[32], although proposed Qld permit requirements seem likely to limit customary activities.
Qld's new Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) (hereafter NCA) is to replace the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 (Qld), when fully proclaimed, and it has created various categories of protected areas which operate in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Management Area: viz., National Parks (Scientific), National Parks, National Parks (Aboriginal Land), National Parks (Torres Strait Islander land), Conservation Parks, Resources Reserves, Nature Reserves, Coordinated Conservation Areas, Wilderness Areas, World Heritage Management Areas and International Agreement Areas. The NCA repeals the following legislation: Fauna Conservation Act 1974, Fauna Conservation Act and Another Act Amendment Acts of 1976, 1984 and 1989, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975; National Parks and Wildlife Act and Another Act Amendment Act 1982 and Native Plants Protection Act 1930. National Parks are to be managed for the permanent preservation of the area's natural condition to the greatest possible extent, and to protect and preserve the area's cultural and natural resources and values. Usage must be nature based and ecologically sustainable.
The NCA operates in the context of other legislation such as the Endangered Species Act 1992 (Cth), World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) and Cultural Records (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987 (Qld).
Protected areas under the NCA are to be managed according to prescribed principles which do, for the most part, recognise the importance of cultural resources and this should minimise the risk of impediments to the enjoyment of native title by inconsistent regulation, depending on the extent of supporting administrative programs and Aboriginal and Islanders' participation in decision-making. National Parks are to be managed to protect the area's cultural and natural resources and their values, as a cardinal principle, although it is arguable that the definitions of cultural and natural resources do not adequately accommodate Aboriginal tradition. National Parks (Aboriginal Land) and National Parks (Torres Strait Islander Land) are to be managed, as far as practicable, in a way that is consistent with any Aboriginal tradition or Island custom relating to activities in the area. Conservation Parks and Coordinated Conservation areas are to be managed so as to conserve the area's cultural and natural resources and their values which accords them lesser status than in other protected areas where they are to be protected. The management principles of National Parks (Scientific) and Resources Reserves manifest an intent to prohibit or limit some cultural uses by Aboriginal and Islander people and therefore native title may be regulated or extinguished to the extent of the inconsistency between the management intent and the particular Aboriginal and Islander usage. The incorporation of traditional knowledge is also not yet recognised as an important management principle in such scientific parks.
Importantly, s64 of the NCA, which has been proclaimed, provides:
The interests of a land-holder of land forming part of a protected area are not affected by the declaration of the protected area except to the extent of -
(a) any binding conservation agreement, or conservation covenant, in relation to the land;
or
(b) the conservation plan for the area.
In Division 8, of which s64 is a part, 'land-holder is defined to include a person having an interest in land. 'Interest in land' is defined in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) as a legal or equitable estate in the land or other property; or a right, power or privilege over, or in relation to, the land or other property. This definition should protect those rights arising out of custom and tradition under continuing native title, including usufructuary rights, as defined by the High Court in Mabo.
Section 64 however, appears inconsistent with other sections of the Act. Section 90, for example, prohibits an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander from entering land to take wildlife without the land-holders consent. Land-holder can include the Crown.
The Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld) also expressly protects prior interests in lands which are claimable and transferable under the Act, potentially benefiting Yarrabah, Wujul Wujul, and Aboriginal reserves in Cairns held by- the Division of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, if such previous DOGIT Areas are regarded as consistent with continuing native title, which is unclear.
Another issue in need of resolution is the effect of various provisions which vest title to natural resources absolutely in the Crown. Under the NCA, for example, all cultural and natural resources of a National Park (Scientific), Conservation Park or Resources Reserve are the property of the State. All protected animals and plants are the property of the State unless they are taken with prescribed permission (or under a conservation plan), whereupon the property passes to the holder of the authority (and in other limited circumstances). This vesting of ownership in the state arguably does not extinguish native title, although there is no definitive authority on this issue. It seems inconsistent with s64 which seems to be an effective savings clause for native title interests.[33]
It is also arguable that in national parks with high rates of visitor usage, native title has been been extinguished by incompatible land usage. Statistics on visitor usage in the wet tropics area are not regarded as very reliable but they do nevertheless indicate high rates of visitation. Site specific visits in the area have been estimated at 2.72 million in 1991 while scenic routes were thought to cater for 17.64 million passengers.[34] However, some national parks are clearly more popular than others. For example, visitors to the Tully Falls National Park are guestimated (without assistance) to be about 5 000 per year by a non-patrolling ranger, while at Peals Falls National Park, Bellenden Ker, they are estimated on the same basis to be only 500.[35] This rate is arguably consistent with native title. If customary law allowed visitor access and if links with the land had been retained, a court may hold that access to the parks under state legislation is merely a regulation of native title, and not an extinguishment.
To date, the Qld Government has maintained its preferred position that land claims be made under the Aboriginal Land Act after it has gazetted an area as available for claim, and it has not departed from its commitment to compulsory lease-back and joint management arrangements under that Act, and the NCA. Both Acts make some provision for the continuation of interests in land affected by the legislation, but their provisions are also potentially extinguishing, under Mabo principles. The Qld Government's recent white paper on Crown land management indicates an intent not to extinguish native title wherever possible, and there is provision for co-operative management agreements between the Wet Tropics Management Authority (WTMA) and indigenous peoples in the proposed Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Bill 1992 (Qld), which is now before Parliament and is likely to be passed in September.[36]
The Government is also committed to its stated policy of increasing the national park estate in Qld, despite the Mabo finding that native title may continue over many land tenures, although consultation has been promised with Aboriginal people particularly concerned with targeted areas. This policy is likely to impact disproportionately on native title holders whose property rights are most likely to continue over the land and sea areas least affected by non-indigenous usages, including former protected areas.
In limiting joint management to National Parks (Aboriginal Land) and National Parks (Torres Strait Islander Land), the NCA increases the likelihood that native title will be eroded by conservation and other plans for other areas in the wet tropics. Unless there are appropriate programs to identify traditional owners and to explore the content of customary law, and unless traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander custodians are guaranteed negotiation and veto rights over activities inconsistent with native title in their estate areas, conservation plans may be insensitive to native title and associated cultural resource management issues. There should also be legislative implementation of the recommendations of the recent Federal Parliamentary committee report on biodiversity.
Aboriginal demands for better recognition of their interests in the region intensified when world heritage listing was first proposed[37] and have continued since. Most Aboriginal organisations in the area are members of the RAN and have been campaigning for better recognition of their cultural values, and for work on Aboriginal heritage to be conducted through Aboriginal organisations. They are actively seeking joint-management, with one or two Aboriginal representatives on the WTMA, localised negotiated agreements with traditional owners, and recognition of Aboriginal skills through appointments of authorised officers under legislation. Concerns have been raised that indigenous involvement must be maximised before planning processes are well advanced to ensure appropriate consultation and negotiation is held, and to ensure that proper ethical and protocol considerations are adhered to. They are also advocating legislative safeguards and recognition of then native title land, water and other resource interests.
In line with the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission's report on customary law, RAN seeks legislative guarantees that no management plan or conservation plan be approved in the absence of a negotiated, rights-based agreement between all interested parties. They also seek acknowledgment that Aboriginal culture is intricately and inseparably bound to the environment[38] and independent monitoring of human rights recognition.
The WTMA has responded to the campaign by offering to have the chair of a proposed Aboriginal advisory committee invited to attend Authority meetings, to have identified staff members act as advocates on Aboriginal issues, and to have a scientist with knowledge of Aboriginal issues appointed to the Scientific advisory committee. Five percent of the Authority's budget has also been allocated to Aboriginal issues each year. A Joint Working Party comprising Aboriginal, Authority and Agency members has also been formed. It has met twice and has discussed joint management concepts and processes and the role of members. The Minister for Environment and Heritage, Molly Robson, has also indicated that she is prepared to move amendments to the preamble to the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Bill 1992 (Qld) so that Aboriginal interests in the area are recognised there, as occurs in other legislation, and she has agreed that human rights issues in the management of the area can be monitored by the Aboriginal Reconciliation Council. At a recent meeting of the Wet Tropics' Ministerial Council there were also hints that there may be consideration of Aboriginal appointees to the WTMA.
The WTMA released its draft Strategic Directions document in August 1992, and invited submissions. That document suggests that the management of Aboriginal cultural values in the area will involve:
The Authority's planning processes are continuing and a final document is expected toward the end of year, after various comment and approval stages are completed. The Authority has already funded about 23 projects concerning Aboriginal community relations, heritage conservation and management planning.
The RAN has identified major omissions in the WTMA draft strategic plan and proposed legislation, including its lack of clarity regarding co-operative management arrangements, its failure to address Federal obligations under international human rights and environmental instruments beneficial to Aboriginal people, its lack of commitment to protecting Aboriginal intellectual property rights and its failure to properly address Aboriginal perceptions, definitions and knowledge of their cultural landscapes. The Network has been dissatisfied generally with the Government response and continues to lobby for better recognition of their interests and for joint management. RAN members feel that the WTMA and the Joint Working Group are not committed to genuine joint management, and regard the latter as a stalling tactic until the WTWHPM Bill is passed, despite its usefulness for access, leverage and publicity purposes.
Surprisingly, goodwill survives, despite continuing recognised differences in positions and continuous meetings, although apparently steps are in train to move to a more formal adjudication of some of the native title issues.
[1] Saxon, E.C., Queensland Department of Lands, Draft Directory of Land Holdings in the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area, 21 June 1991, prepared for the Wet Tropics Management Authority (WTMA).
[2] Commonwealth of Australia, -Mabo: The High Court Decision on Native Title', Discussion Paper, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra, June, 1993,pp.16-17.
[3] See for example, Sutherland, J., Aboriginal Interests and Queensland Wet Tropics World Heritage Area Management, Report prepared for the Biddi Biddi Advancement Co-operative Society Ltd., unpublished, 1992.
[4] Lee long, D., An Assessment o f the Research Needs and Important Areas of Rainforest Aboriginal Groups and Organisation, Report prepared for WTMA and ATSIC, September, 1992, Appendix 3.
[5] Horsfall, N., and Fuary, M., The Cultural Heritage Values of Aboriginal Archaeological Sites and Associated Themes, in and adjacent to the area nominated for World Heritage Listing in the Wet Tropic Rainforest of North East Queensland, 12 December, 1988, Horsfall Archaeological Services, Townsville, p.12.
[6] Dixon, RM., Tribes, languages and other boundaries in north-east Queensland', in Peterson, N., Led.) Tribes and Boundaries in Australia, Social Anthropology Series No. 10, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, 1976, pp 207-238 at pp.208, 231.
[7] Ibid.,pp209-210.
[8] Lumholtz, C., Among Cannibals: An Account of Four Years' Travels in Australia and of Camp Life with the Aborigines of Queensland, London, 1889, reprinted by Australian National University Press, Canberra, 1980, pp. 193-194. See more recently: Davis, S.L, and Prescott, J.R.V., Aboriginal Frontiers and Boundaries in Australia, Melbourne University Press, 1992.
[9] Language groups, smaller clans and family groupings are mixed in this description.
[10] Horsfall, N., and Fuary, M., op.cit., p.16.
[11] . Ibid., p.18.
[12] Kumm, A., Jumbun Lifestyle: past and present ( a preliminary surrey of post-European contact change in the Murray Upper region), Unpublished Grad Dip Mat Cult Thesis, James Cook University, 1980, Ch.4, p.3.
[13] Horsfall, N., and Fuary, M., op.cit., p.17.
[14] Kumm, A., op.cit., Ch.4, PAS; Ch.3, pp.l8-19; Ch 5, p.4.
[15] Duke, A., The Murray Upper Region of the Southern Rainforest' in Reynolds, B., (ed.), Australian Material Culture: Handbook of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Material Culture: Northeast volume, in press.
[16] Bird, M., A Preliminary Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Survey of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, Ingham District, Report prepared for Hinchinbrook Aboriginal and Islander Housing Co-operative Society and WTMA, July, 1992, pp 26, 31, 32.
[17] Ibid., p.31.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Chase, A., and Lande, M., Upper Yidinji Attachments to Land in the Atherton-Goldsborough Region: Anthropological Report, Griffith University, Brisbane, April 1992.
[20] Lee long, D., The Preliminary Assessment of the Cultural Heritage of Kearney's Flat, North East Queensland, Report researched and prepared for the Malanbarra Tribal Aboriginal Corporation, August-November 1991.
[21] Dixon, R.M.W., A Grammar of Yidijn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, London, 1977, p.27.
[22] Sofield, T., and Birtles, A., 'Aboriginal Cultural Tourism', Supporting Paper No. 14, Wet Tropics Plan: Strategic Directions, Consultants' Report, August 1992, p.38.
[23] . Anderson, C, The Political and Economic Basis of Kuku-Yalanji Social History, A Thesis submitted in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Qld, Australia, for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1984.
[24] Ibid., Part 2. Ch.3.
[25] Anderson, C.,' 'Like a crane standing on one leg on a little island': An investigation of factors affecting the lifestyle of Wujulwujal community, north Queensland', Research Study No. 1, Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, April 1989.
[26] Ibid., pp.6-17.
[27] Anderson, C., 'The Bloomfield Community, north Queensland: a socio-economic study' in Young, EA., and Fisk, EX, (ads.), Small Rural Communities Vol. 3 of the Aboriginal Component in the Australian Economy, Development Studies Centre, ANU, Canberra, pp.89-156; Anderson, C., 'Aborigines and tin mining in north Queensland: a case study in the anthropology of contact history', Mankind, vol.13, April, 1983, no.6, pp.473-498; Anderson, C., The political and economic basis of Kuku-Yalanji social history, op.cit.
[28] Extracted at Appendix 4, Nettheim, G., Out Lowed: Queensland's Aborigines and Islanders and the Rule of the Law, Australian and New Zealand Book Company, Sydney, 1973, p.135.
[29] See McHugh, P., The Maori Magna Carta: New Zealand Law and the Treaty of Waitangi, Oxford University Press, Auckland, 1991, Ch.8.
[30] Horsfall, N., and Fuary, M., elicit., p.19.
[31] Other relevant legislation includes: Aboriginal and Tortes Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth); and Qld legislation: Cultural Records (Landscapes Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act 1987, Nature Conservation Act 1992, Forestry Act 1959, Land Act 1962, Local Government (Planning and Environment) Acts, State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, Rural Lands Protection Act 1985, Fire Service Act 1980 Integrated Resort Development Act 1987, Main Roads Act Fisheries Act 1976, Mining Act 1968, Mineral Resources Act 1989, National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975, Plant Protection Act 1989, Biological Control Act 1987, Chemical Usage (Agricultural and Veterinary ) Control Act 1988, Diseases in Stock Act 1940, Diseases in Timber Act 1975, Sawmills Licensing Act 1936, Soil Survey Act 1929, Timber Utilisation and Marketing Act 1987, Marine Parks Act 1982, Recreation Areas Management Act 1988, Aborigines and Other Acts Amendment Act 1975, Aborigines and Tortes Strait Islanders (Land Holding) Act 1985, Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984, Community Services (Tortes Strait) Act 1984, Land Act (Aboriginal and Islander Land Grants) Amendment Act 1982, Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act 1978, Aboriginal land Act 1991.
[32] See for example Reg 3C of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Regulations (Amendment) (SR No. 389/88) which exempted the exploitation of forestry resources by Aboriginal people for their own use, and Reg.3E which exempted certain indigenous activities in relation to native plants: World Heritage Properties Conservation Regulations (Amendment) (SR No.249/1990).
[33] See generally' Bartlett, R., "The Aboriginal land which may be claimed at common law: Implications of Mabo', University of Western Australia Law Review, Vol.22, December 1992, pp.272-299; Grosse, W. Jack, in The Protection and Management of Our Natural Resources, Wildlife and Habitat, Oceana Publications, Inc. New York, 1992, Ch2; Fisher, D.E, The Nature of the Environmental Legal System' in Duncan, W.D., op.cit., pp.79-109 at 99-101; Duncan, W.D.,(ed.), Planning and Environment Law in Queensland, The Federation Press in association with the Centre for Commercial and Property Law, QUP, Brisbane, 1993.
[34] . Taylor, S., 'Current Levels and Patterns of Visitor Use', Supporting Paper No. 11, Wet Tropics Management Plan: Strategic Directions, Consultant's Report, May, 1992, at 'project overview' section.
[35] Ibid., Table 1.
[36] Letter from the Qld Minister for Environment and Heritage, Hon. Molly Robson, MIA, to Ms H. Fourmile, Spokesperson, Rainforest Aboriginal Network, 17 May, 1993.
[37] Brennan, F., and Crawford, J., 'Aboriginality, recognition and Australian law: the need for a bipartisan approach', The Australian Quarterly, Winter, 1990, pp. 145-169 at p.161. See generally: White, B., An Aboriginal Approach to Wet Tropics World Heritage Management, A Preliminary Report for Aboriginal Organizations, A compilation of papers emerging from a workshop on Aboriginal involvement in Wet Tropics World Heritage Management, Cairns, February 1992; Cape York Land Council, Black, Green and Red(neck): A Response to Recent Criticisms of Aboriginal Interests in National Parks, typescript copy, Cairns, 3 October, 1991.
[38] Fundamental Working Party Principles, document tabled by Aboriginal delegates at the First Wet Tropics Management Authority - Aboriginal Joint Management Working Group Meeting, March 17,1993.
[39] Wet Tropics Management Authority, 'Wet Tropics Plan: Strategic Directions', Draft for Public Comment, August 1992, pp.14, 32, 36, 47, 66-69,74-75,108.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLawB/1993/25.html