By Nick Everett
BRISBANE — "Australia and its citizens ... have an opportunity before them to do something about the dispossession and alienation of Aboriginal people. If Australia doesn't at this particular time pick it up, then this opportunity it is not going to come again ... A situation is going to prevail in which the fingers of the world are going to continue to be pointed at Australia and say, 'You have not even come of age. Why are you talking about republicanism?'"
This is how Aboriginal activist Bob Weatherall introduced a panel of speakers at a meeting on Mabo here on October 13. The meeting was organised by the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action in the lead-up to Prime Minister Keating's unveiling of the proposed Native Titles Bill.
The meeting, held in City Hall, was attended by 1000 people. Keynote speakers included Noel Pearson, director of the Cape York Land Council, Mary Graham from the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and Marlene Speechley from the Regional Council, Mount Isa.
Noel Pearson argued that the proposed bill was intended to limit the rights afforded to Aboriginal people under last year's Mabo decision.
"The process the federal government has embarked upon, together with the state governments, has been a process of identifying those areas of the Mabo decision that pose real problems for governments and development interests", Pearson said.
There was a great danger that the Native Title Bill would wipe out those rights to land acknowledged by the High Court decision. "What has happened is a deliberate and calculating bureaucratic effort to contain the decision."
Pearson described as "crucial to our campaign" the Racial Discrimination Act, which has been in force since 1975. The proposed bill initially sought to suspend this act, to enable native title to be extinguished in favour of mining or pastoral leases. The current proposal, while accepting the coexistence of native and other titles so as to avoid breaching the Racial Discrimination Act, protects existing pastoral and mining titles in the face of Aboriginal land claims.
The campaign for federal legislation, according to Pearson, began with the Wik people's claim for land controlled by Comalco. "The possibility that the Wik people could have negotiated a settlement with CRA was very real. The federal government ultimately decided to give a leg up to CRA and to seek to validate the bauxite mining leases."
Queensland Premier Wayne has pushed this position from the outset, claimed Pearson. "I recall very painfully and very clearly the day when Premier Goss announced the cabinet's decision on Aboriginal land rights legislation. I recall the Premier saying that we are not going to give those 'abos' anything ... The entire debate in the white community just shut down. The Chamber of Mines, the National Farmers Federation, even the churches, well most of them, supported it. I have hardly heard one positive word from this state government on the possibilities Mabo has afforded for reconciliation."
Mary Graham, who described the premier as "Mr Comalco", said he was waging a war on Aboriginal rights.
"This is probably the most important time in the history of white Australian society. This is not just Aboriginal human rights we are talking about. If you don't fight now, you can forget about your human rights.
"Aboriginal issues have always been run in the 'national interest', not in the Aboriginal interest", said Graham. "We need to up the ante and call for sanctions against this country ... This country is not terribly well liked in this neighbourhood. The time is now, but it will pass. This government has to learn that, and if it doesn't act it will get increasingly marginalised in the international community."
Other speakers on the panel included Ron Castan, barrister on the Wik claim, senators Margaret Reynolds and John Woodley, Professor Garth Nettheim and Phil Toyne, previous director of the Australian Conservation Foundation and adviser to special minister of state Frank Walker.
John Woodley, from the Democrats, spoke of the importance of a favourable decision on Mabo in the context of reconciliation. Speaking about the upcoming anniversary of federation, he said, "I want 2001 to be a new beginning, not a celebration of Australia's shame".
Garth Nettheim talked of the international negotiated settlements in the last few years such as those reached in South Africa and Palestine. Keating's proposed legislation, on the other hand, was an outcome in which real consultation had occurred only with the mining lobby. It did little to appease Aboriginal claims for land.
Margaret Reynolds and Phil Toyne expressed a more optimistic view of the proposals. Reynolds claimed that the situation could have been "far worse if it were not for Keating". She said that he had "entered into the spirit of negotiation" and that this ought to be considered symbolic of the possibilities for a positive outcome.
Toyne saw as crucial to the debate the protection of the Racial Discrimination Act. If a result could be reached that would uphold this act, it would most likely be supported by the Greens and Democrats in the Senate and would represent a positive result.
This position was challenged by many speakers in the discussion, who argued that Keating's proposal could only limit the opportunities afforded by Mabo.
A spokesperson for the Aboriginal Provisional Government quoted Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who earlier that day, in response to a question on native title and reconciliation, said: "It reminds me of the bloke who stole my pen and sought forgiveness for both stealing my pen and not wanting to give it back to me".
The speaker argued that the Mabo decision, while overriding the assumption of terra nullius, did not address Aboriginal sovereignty and self-determination. "What the High Court says to me is that we cannot deliver justice, merely try and treat the symptoms of injustice." White Australia's economic and political power "is derived from our land and maintained through the injustices this system perpetuates.
"That is what native title is about. It is not about recognising our rights, but extinguishing them."