AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Aboriginal Law Bulletin

Aboriginal Law Bulletin (ALB)
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Aboriginal Law Bulletin >> 1993 >> [1993] AboriginalLawB 8

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Aboriginal Law Bulletin --- "Editorial" [1993] AboriginalLawB 8; (1993) 3(61) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 3


Editorial
April 1993

As the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation continues down the road towards its vision of a united Australia which respects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land, values, heritage and provides justice and equity for all (see pat Dodson's article, p.6), an open debate regarding the benefits and limitations of the process of reconciliation and its objectives is essential.

'Reconciliation', partly as a result of its ambiguous nature, has been controversial since its legislative birth in late 1991. Aboriginal people are justifiably sceptical of the reconciliation process as a consequence of it being imposed after limited consultation, of the seemingly superficial bi-partisan approach of the Liberal and Labor parties, and because crucial issues such as sovereignty have been conspicuously absent from the agenda. Aboriginal people are well aware of the failure of successive Australian governments to fulfil a number of promises to redress past wrongs. National Land Rights and a treaty are but two of these.

However, the true value of reconciliation will not be clear until the Council begins to elaborate upon how it believes the divisions between Aboriginal and non-Aborignal society can be bridged. Paul Keating, in his much celebrated Redfern Park speech (see p.4), stated that "we have to give meaning to 'justice' and 'equity"'. The meaning given to these terms will be decisive in the success or failure of the reconciliation process and it is for this reason that the educative and consultative function of the Council must be thorough and effective.

Reconciliation will not take place unless it has the support of the majority of the Aboriginal community, nor will it succeed unless all issues are part of the discussion. Aboriginal people must be able to 'reconcile' and 'negotiate' with white Australia from a position which recognises prior ownership and sovereignty, which have never been surrendered. Sovereignty must be on the agenda and native title, as recognized in Mabo, must not be trivialized. As Paul Keating recognized:

"Mabo is an historic decision - we can make it an historic turning point, the basis of a new relationship between indigenous and non- Aboriginal Australians."

Despite his comments, some State and Territory governments have moved quickly, at the request of mining and pastoral interests, to attempt to extinguis' 'ative title and to protect 'existing title holders. The Confirmation of Titles to Land (Request) Bill 1993 (NT) is an attempt to extinguish any native title which conflicts with any grant of land in the Northern Territory. It requests the Commonwealth to validate any grant of land and to pay compensation for any loss sustained by the holders of native title. The Bill contains a declaration that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) does not invalidate or impair any title to land granted before or after commencement of the Bill.

Shortly after the Bill was made public, it was supported through a joint media release by a number of industry bodies. Their perception of the priority of Aboriginal land issues was made clear when they stated:

"When security of title is assured, all Australians can together look to the appropriate action which will assist with providing Aboriginal people with economic and social advantage."

Clearly, the inference is that Aboriginal title is not as legitimate as other interests and should only be recognized with regard to land which other (white) Australians do not want. Such views are more conducive to assimilation than reconciliation and the Commonwealth, whose co-operation is required to give any effect to the NT Bill, cannot afford to take a similar stance. It must be realized that unless native title has already been extinguished, it is itself a legitimate 'existing title which deserves the same quality of legislative protection as other forms of property ownership.

Unless native title is regarded as valuable property and Aboriginal people are given the resources to be able to negotiate from a positon of power with the Government, reconciliation will take Aboriginal people nowhere.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLawB/1993/8.html