Editorial: How to defend native title
How to defend native title
As opposition mounts to Howard's native title amendment bill, the government is desperate to claw back support by raising the bogey that native title claims will be made over freehold title land. This racist scare-mongering, led by National Party leader Tim Fisher, is a last-ditch attempt to exploit some lingering ignorance over the issue.
Many Australians are, by now, fully aware that only very few people stand to gain from Howard's 10-point plan. They include some of Australia's, and the world's, richest people — and up to 29 members of parliament.
Among the winners are the largest pastoral operators, including:
- the company of Sidney Kidman, with a family fortune of $70 million and some 11.7 million hectares;
- Stanbroke Pastoral Co (owned by the AMP Society) with 13 million hectares of pastoral properties;
Three Queensland National Party ministers — including the natural resources minister, Howard Hobbs, who introduced the state bill to upgrade pastoral leases to freehold — are also pastoral leaseholders.
The "claims over people's backyards" line has worked in the past to stir up racism and quash support for Aboriginal land rights. However, anti-racist coalitions and groups have started to organise support for native title, and if they continue could contribute to a mass movement for land rights.
A large amount of good will exists in support of Aboriginal rights. Church leaders have been outspoken, musicians and actors have worn armbands and ribbons, groups for native title have been formed by lawyers and doctors, and tens of thousands have joined in community rallies, vigils and festivals.
This has come at a time when the community, despite the government's best efforts to confuse, has begun to understand the facts of the High Court's ruling on Wik: that native title rights can co-exist on land covered by a pastoral lease, although, if there is conflict, pastoral leases prevail.
Many people across the country, particularly in local church parishes, have been participating in reconciliation discussion circles which have raised consciousness of Aboriginal dispossession. If the Howard government accepted majority sentiment — and its own legal advice — it would not be pressing ahead with its bill.
The Labor opposition is willing to compromise on the validation of leases that may be affected by native title claims — making it clear that they can't be trusted.
Contrary to all its rhetoric, Labor's position allows for the upgrading of pastoral leases without the right to negotiate, and the validation of all mining and other leases and permits that were illegally issued by state governments since 1994.
The Greens, meanwhile, are calling for the bill to be defeated, not amended, saying, "The entire framework of the Native Title Amendment Bill is unjust".
The outpouring of support for native title which has given rise to this people's movement for justice looks set to continue well beyond the close of the parliamentary session. Various actions are being planned around the country for December and into next year. This is important because it is the only way in which indigenous Australians' native title rights will be protected. As the whole Wik debate has shown, the law does not provide enough protection.
The time is right for a massive show of support for native title rights. Just as the mass movement against the Vietnam War in the 1970s and for disarmament in the 1980s had a powerful impact on governments at the time, so too could similar actions force the government to retreat from its racist attacks.