Antinuclear

How the Western Australian govt and mining companies sabotaged Aboriginal land rights

By December 1984, the government’s commitment to national land rights
was in disarray as the mining industry dug in and Mr Burke introduced
legislation that did not permit any veto over mining or exploration,
restricted Aboriginal applications to land with little economic
potential, retained the state’s power to resume land and imposed a
four-year time limit on claims.

Miners and Brian Burke sank land rights hope
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/cabinet-papers/miners-and-brian-burke-sank-land-rights-hope/story-fngr9pxq-1226545827125
BY: STUART RINTOUL  The Australian January 01, 2013   A CONCERTED
campaign by the mining industry, backed by the Burke Labor government
in Western Australia, left the commonwealth’s commitment to national
land rights in disarray by the end of 1984.

A year earlier, the Hawke cabinet had been grappling with how to
deliver on its promise of land rights for Aborigines and policy
objectives that included Aboriginal control over mining.

In opposition, Aboriginal affairs spokeswoman Susan Ryan had told a
cheering crowd protesting at Brisbane’s Commonwealth Games that a
Labor government would introduce national land rights. In government,
however, the promise was proving to be problematic.

In December 1983, Aboriginal affairs minister Clyde Holding prepared a
cabinet submission on the government’s options. He said the states had
the capacity to provide land rights and protect cultural sites, but
their willingness to act varied considerably.
He said it was the “responsibility” of the government to secure land
rights and the failure of the Fraser government to exercise its powers
beyond the Northern Territory had “resulted in disadvantage to the
Aboriginal people”.

While Malcolm Fraser made no attempt to extend land rights beyond the
Territory, the Tonkin Liberal government in South Australia passed the
Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act in 1981; the Wran government passed the
NSW Land Rights Act in 1983 as the “first step in this state towards
redressing the injustice and neglect of real Aboriginal needs since
Captain Phillip stepped upon the shores of Port Jackson in 1788”; and
in 1984, the Bannon government in SA returned freehold title for the
Maralinga Tjarutja Lands to its traditional owners.
Labor Party national conferences in 1982 and 1984 endorsed the party’s
commitment to national land rights. Holding told cabinet that despite
some progress in individual states, none satisfied the government’s
policy objectives, or “five principles”: that Aboriginal land be held
under inalienable freehold title, full legal protection of Aboriginal
sites, Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land,
access to mining royalty equivalents and negotiated compensation for
lost land.

“A situation where Aboriginal citizens in one part of Australia have
more or fewer rights in land than Aboriginal citizens in another
cannot be allowed to persist,” he said.

Holding said that while a High Court challenge by some states should
be expected, the commonwealth had clear constitutional powers that had
been clarified by the Tasmanian dams case.

He warned that Treasury had noted the potential cost of federal
acquisition of land on “just terms” might be substantial.

By December 1984, the government’s commitment to national land rights
was in disarray as the mining industry dug in and Mr Burke introduced
legislation that did not permit any veto over mining or exploration,
restricted Aboriginal applications to land with little economic
potential, retained the state’s power to resume land and imposed a
four-year time limit on claims.

He also told Mr Hawke the issue could cost Labor up to eight seats in
WA. Mr Hawke reversed the government’s commitment to Aboriginal veto
over mining exploration. While the title deeds to Uluru in the
Northern Territory were formally transferred to the traditional owners
in 1985, cabinet settled on a “preferred national model” for land
rights, which broke with three of Labor’s “five principles”: there was
no Aboriginal right of veto over mining exploration, no guarantee of
access to mining royalty equivalents and no mention of compensation
for lost lands.

It satisfied no one. A defeated Holding told cabinet on August 12,
1985, the government had received 261 responses to the “preferred
model”, but little support. Aboriginal organisations found it too
conservative, while miners said it favoured Aboriginal interests too
much.

December 31, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, history, Western Australia