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."