Stop the racist Wik bill!
By Jennifer Thompson
On October 22, two Liberal MPs broke ranks to abstain from the second-reading vote in the House of Representatives on the government's racist Wik bill. Another Liberal MP went to a Christian "Praise Corroboree" rather than attend.
The differences emerged after MPs a day earlier were forced to cross a 750-strong human protest chain — part of a growing movement against the bill and the government's attacks on Aboriginal rights — to enter Parliament House.
The bill eventually passed the lower house on October 29, after Labor and right-wing National Party amendments were defeated by Coalition votes. The bill was opposed by the ALP after its proposed amendments lost. NSW independent Peter Andren also voted against.
In contrast, another Queensland Liberal, ex-barrister Tony Smith, said he opposed the law because he believed it was unworkable and would create more litigation, rather than create the "certainty" promised to pastoralists and miners by Howard. He called for a referendum to overrule native title, and claimed he was supported by five other Liberal MPs.
Smith's criticisms are not about concern for Aboriginal rights, but the fear that the bill's questionable legality will lead to the failure of extinguishment.
Movement bolsters opposition
The qualms shown by some Liberal MPs reflect a number of concerns. Victorian Liberal Peter Nugent said the legislation impeded reconciliation, did not respect Aboriginal connection with the land and would result in massive compensation costs for extinguishment of native title rights.
Queensland Liberal John Bradford said he'd had second thoughts because he was pro-reconciliation.
The government's attempt to extinguish native title is opposed by a growing movement. Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR), Defenders of Native Title (DONT), Women for Wik and the anti-racist campaign groups sparked by Pauline Hanson have mobilised at least 18,000 people throughout the country in public meetings, marches and rallies in September and October alone.
Many white Australians are anxious to right the wrongs of the past and rightly see that reconciliation is meaningless without justice. They recognise that the government's native title bill is the latest injustice against indigenous Australians.
During the national days of action against the Wik bill in September, 500 protesters turned out in Wollongong, 300 in Hobart, 500 in Brisbane, 60 in Perth and 100 in Canberra. In Sydney, despite the official rally being postponed because of the weather, 5000 gathered anyway. On October 11, 5000 again turned out.
The October 21 human chain in Canberra was organised by DONT and ANTaR. Later that day, a smaller group marched from the Aboriginal Tent Embassy at Old Parliament House to protest against cuts to Abstudy income support for Aboriginal students.
ANTaR organised a 1000-strong rally on October 12 which planted a spectacular "sea of hands" on the lawns of Parliament House. Each of the 66,000 recycled plastic hands represented a signatory to the Citizens' Statements for Wik distributed by ANTaR. Women for Wik also held a rally outside Parliament House on October 16.
At the annual Synod of the Anglican Church's Sydney Diocese on October 13, Archbishop Harry Goodhew condemned the "hysterical and ill-informed claims" made since last November's Wik High Court decision, which had jeopardised relations between pastoralists and indigenous people. He called on the government not to extinguish native title.
In Byron Bay on October 18, 3000 rallied against Howard's 10-point plan, embodied in the Wik bill. Another 200 attended a public meeting in Lismore a week later. Both actions were organised by Northern Rivers Australians for Native Title.
Prior to the October 24-27 CHOGM meeting in Edinburgh, the government was embarrassed by a letter from a British parliamentary group which added to the international concern over the danger to Aboriginal Australians' human rights posed by the Native Title Amendment bill. The letter referred to protests against the legislation outside Australian embassies and high commissions worldwide and raised the possibility of a boycott of the Sydney 2000 Olympics.
As soon as he had rejected the British group's views, Howard was also forced to rebuff an offer from South African President Nelson Mandela, made during the CHOGM meeting, to help resolve the dispute over the Coalition's attempt to wipe out native title.
Attempting to tap this growing opposition, the ALP opposition issued an alternative native title blueprint on October 27 and proposed detailed and stronger amendments.
The amendments, defeated in the House of Representatives, will again be proposed in the Senate, where the Greens and Democrats will support them. Brian Harradine has the casting vote.
Labor's federal Aboriginal affairs spokesperson, Daryl Melham, said the ALP was not prepared to back down under the threat of a double dissolution if the bill is rejected by the Senate.
Legal flaws
WA Greens Senator Dee Margetts' initiative to refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee has revealed a weight of evidence that raises serious doubts about the constitutional validity and social justice implications of the bill.
Margetts proposed that the committee consider the bill after the government used its control of the Joint Standing Committee on Native Title — "the Wik committee" — to prevent the Australian Law Reform Commission from making a submission.
The Privileges Committee is investigating Attorney-General Daryl Williams' attempt to gag the ALRC. The ALRC submission said the bill was unconstitutional and in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act.
"The government has claimed from the outset that amendments were required to the Native Title Act to 'provide certainty' to pastoralists and mining companies. Evidence to the committee suggests that the government's agenda of extinguishment and dispossession will only exacerbate the problems they are claiming to fix", said Margetts.
David Bennett, from the NSW Bar Association, and the government's former chief general counsel, Dennis Rose, in their submissions to the committee said the bill was "probably unconstitutional" because the clause in the constitution passed by referendum in 1967 did not give parliament the power to make laws to the detriment of Aboriginal people.
Jacob Fajgenbaum, a lawyer for ATSIC, said the government's intention to ask the High Court to rule that the constitution allows it to pass racially discriminatory laws would, if upheld, permit a system of apartheid.