Aboriginal meeting demands justice on Mabo

August 11, 1993
Issue 

By Peter Boyle

An historic meeting of about 500 Aboriginal organisations and communities from around Australia met in Eva Valley in the Northern Territory between August 3-5 to work out a united response to the Mabo case. It firmly rejected the Keating government's plan to introduce state and federal legislation aimed primarily at protecting the interests of mining companies and pastoralists from claims for "native title", made possible under common law since the High Court's 1992 Mabo ruling.

"We reject the Commonwealth government's position on the proposed legislation. We want legislation based on native title to advance Aboriginal rights to land. The federal government does not", declared the Eva Valley meeting.

"The government must only move on this issue with the support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The development of any legislation regarding the Commonwealth government's response to the High Court's decision on native title will need the full and free participation and consent of those people concerned".

Instead, the Keating government had been pursuing a deal with state and territory goverments aimed at minimising the Aboriginal and Islander rights recognised by the High Court in Mabo and protecting the massive profits of big business, especially the mining companies. Anti-land rights forces, including the mining companies, have waged an aggressive and at times blatantly racist propaganda campaign against Mabo.

Nevertheless, the Eva Valley meeting insisted that the federal government take full control of native title issues to the exclusion of the states and territories. "We want a national standard for our people, not numerous different standards", the statement said.

The Eva Valley statement, which will be formally delivered this week to Prime Minister Paul Keating by a new negotiating delegation, demanded that the federal government honour its obligations under international human rights instruments and international law and agree to a negotiating process towards a lasting settlement with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The federal government's response to the Mabo decision should be based on five principles, the statement said:

  • Recognition and protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights.

  • Acknowledgement that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander title should not be extinguished by government grants of interest over land.

  • Any grant of interests over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land should be made with the informed consent of all titleholders to such land.

  • The federal government should declare Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander title to Aboriginal reserves and other defined land.

  • There should be total security for sacred sites and heritage areas.

The meeting also demanded federal funding to allow Aborginal and Torres Strait Islanders to negotiate on fair terms with the government on the legislative response to Mabo.

Keating responded to the Eva Valley meeting by charging Aboriginal leaders with not doing their job properly. He claimed that his government had negotiated its position with Aboriginal representatives. He added that he had made it clear from the beginning of these negotiations that "native" titleholders would not be allowed the right to veto mining and other developments on their land. He said he was concerned that "extremists" had gained the upper at the Eva Valley meeting and called for "moderate voices" to speak out.

However, at the Eva Valley meeting, many of the representatives who had been participating in the limited negotiations with the Keating government over its Mabo response voiced their disappointment with the Keating government. This is not surprising given the government's record in consultation with their representatives.

On April 27 Keating called a meeting with 13 representatives of Aboriginal land councils and legal services to begin the formal negotiations on draft federal legislation. Keating's bureaucrats selected the Aboriginal negotiating team and tried to commit them to negotiation in secret but word soon got out and there was an angry response from Aboriginal organisations that had been excluded from the process.

Nevertheless, a meeting meeting of national Aboriginal organisations held in Adelaide on May 24, approved an initial negotiating position and ratified the negotiating team. This meeting was held under extreme pressure. Advisers told the meeting that there was a limited window of opportunity to cut a deal with the government, so concessions had to be made.

Yet three days later, the Northern Territory government revealed that it had a deal with the Keating government to legislate to immunise the giant McArthur River mining project from any Mabo claims. Keating had guaranteed in wrtitng to NT Chief Minister Marshall Perron that his government would support this move with funds, legal advice and complementary legislation if becessary.

Since then the Keating government has been trying its best to cut iberal government of Western Australia (which wants the Mabo case reversed by referendum) and the Kennett government of Victoria (which has passed special legislation of its own to limit the Mabo decision). Keating's latest offer has been for legislation immunising pastoral and tourism leases from Mabo claims, limiting compensation claims on mining companies, and allowing state and federal government's the right to have the final say on land use of native title land.

Aboriginal social justice commissioner Mick Dodson, who has been the official spokesperson of the Aboriginal negotiating team, expressed his anger at the Eva Valley meeting. "At this stage", he said, "the only thing the [Keating] government has been prepared to do in their legislative response is to look after the interests of everybody but Aboriginal and Islander people.".

Northern Land Council chairperson, Galarrwuy Yunupingu said that Keating had backed off from his previous promises to Aborigines in the face of pressure from land developers who claimed that Mabo was a threat to the nation. Keating, Jeff Kennett, Richard Court and Wayne Goss argue that if Aborigines have to give consent to development on their land, this will cause a major disruption to mining and tourism. But Dodson disagrees: "We want economic development, but we want it on our terms and conditions, not someone else's".

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.