JOHN HOLMES, emeritus professor of geography at the University of Queensland, spoke to Green Left Weekly's GRAHAM MATTHEWS about the Howard plan and its likely repercussions for Aborigines.
Question: Could you identify the extent to which native title coexists with pastoral leases under the High Court's Wik decision?
It's only on the most marginal pastoral leases that there'll be a very substantial native title right identified. But I have also argued that on a larger number of pastoral leases there will be an ongoing spiritual connection recognised, and it should grant the right of access to those sites.
That would be a more limited title, found on perhaps a couple of thousand pastoral leases [Australia-wide]. In the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia, there's a statutory right of access on all pastoral leases.
Question: To what extent do pastoral leases as they exist allow government control over land use? What public controls can be exercised?
The [existing] legislation gives the minister total control over clearing of land. There's been a lot of argument, and generally the government has backed off. In fact, the government is being a little too generous on land clearing.
Question: How was coexistence between Aboriginal people and pastoralists affected by the granting of award wages to Aboriginal pastoral workers in 1967?
A very large number of Aboriginal peoples had maintained a connection to their traditional land by working on the pastoral properties. They received very little by way of wages, largely just rations.
When the legislation changed to require that Aboriginal workers be paid award wages, a very high proportion of pastoral managers abandoned the use of Aboriginal labour and at the same time did whatever they could to remove Aboriginal people from their leases.
It was at that time that Aboriginal people were largely moved off into settlements or townships nearby, and of course relied on social security. The extent to which they've managed to maintain an ongoing physical connection with their land has been very variable.
This is one of the perversities of the proposed Howard legislation. In a sense it would reward the more intransigent pastoralists, those who were very unwilling to allow ongoing physical connection or traditional use. On the other hand, the pastoralist who continued to allow Aboriginal use on the property would find that physical connection had been maintained.
Question: How would legislation — both federal and Queensland's — inflate the existing rights of pastoralists?
It's very important on marginal land to continue with the policy that a pastoral lease is only for pastoral purposes. I also take the view that a pastoralist should not be able to exercise a local land monopoly. The state government should have the right to resume the land and to pay compensation for pastoral value.
This is the case in all states except Queensland. In Queensland, the legislation gives the lessee a veto over any subdivision of the land for any use other than pastoral uses. This gives [the pastoralist] a local land monopoly.
It's all very well to talk of Aborigines having a veto, but in fact, in practice, pastoralists have had these rights and they've been used as a means of land speculation.
Question: What is your opinion of the tightening in the 10-point plan of the definition of continuing association with the land?
The very tough conditions are quite inappropriate, and they're inconsistent with what the government has said. They have said that they've always been willing to allow Aboriginal people the rights of traditional access.
If [the government] really means that, they should be prepared to see it formally recognised. For a lot of Aboriginal people, if they're granted the right of preservation of significant sites and a right of access to those sites, I think that would satisfy a very large proportion of the Aboriginal interest.
Question: How would Aboriginal rights under the native title legislation relate to existing agreements such as the Cape York heads of agreement?
Up in Cape York Peninsula, particularly on the more marginal lands, there's much more native title coexisting. As the High Court Wik case said, you have to look at these cases and there'll be different outcomes for different contexts.
In situations like the Holroyd River lease (subject of the Wik land claim) and comparable leases, there's a very substantial amount of native title still persisting. On the other hand, the pastoral interest is very modest.
In those situations — if you're going to try to extinguish the native title and pay compensation — the whole thing's topsy-turvy. You could save the taxpayer a lot of money by buying out the pastoralist (at the pastoral value of the land) and transferring the land back into Aboriginal title.
Question: Do you see any hidden agenda in the proposed legislation to grant pastoralists freehold title and give them benefits from potential land speculation?
You're getting mixed signals from the federal government. At times people like [Senator] Minchin [Howard's spokesperson on native title] have made reassuring statements to the effect that it is not intended that taxpayers' money should be available for upgrading beyond what you're entitled to do for primary production. Transfer from a pastoral activity to an agricultural activity is beyond the right of most existing pastoral leases.
The problem is that the areas that have some potential to upgrade are resource-rich areas — land near water holes, river frontage and so on. It's in those areas where the potential agricultural values are high, but they're also of great significance to Aboriginal people. Picking the eyes out of the country would be damaging to the Aboriginal interest.