Native title

[Barrabundy]

Page 2 of the Financial Review has a story about the upcoming 20 year anniversary of Eddie Mabo's landmark win in the hit court which overturned the previous idea that no one owned the land before European settlement. I'm sure many of you know much more about it than me but basically it meant that native title could still exist where it hadn't been extinguished by freehold or leasehold title.

At first most landholders were outraged, some, possibly most, still might be, e ermine thought the traditional owners were going to take "our" land.

20 years on, my views have probably turned full circle to the point that the story inspires me. I went to school with relations of Eddie Mabo and am still good friends with them now. The fact that a groundsman at JCU had the guts to stand up and get the ball rolling on an issue he felt so strongly about and to keep at it until he won is pretty amazing.

Anyway, got to get the kids from school, more later.

[punchanello]

There was a lot of fear around what native title would mean at the time. But it is an absolutely inspirational story and decades on, like so many things, hasn't been the end of the world as we know it.

It was such a huge decision by the High Court. It enshrined things that we take for granted to day and can't understand how they can be considered anything else but common sense and fair. Like acknowledging ownership and history before European settlement or doing away with the notion that if it was pre-european, it was not real or never existed and was irrelevent in an age of fences and land deeds.

Today there are a lot of lands being use by aboriginal owners with tourism or leased by them for mining etc and improves the social and economic status of their people. It's a good thing.

Eddie Mabo is as important as Captain Cook or (the demise of) Whitlam or Simpson and his donkey in a historical sense.

[gonetroppo]

Today there are a lot of lands being use by aboriginal owners with tourism or leased by them for mining etc and improves the social and economic status of their people. It's a good thing.

Yes its a good thing, but the fact is if you go to some of the communities and see how the infrastructre that this money brought is treated, than you loose a lot faith in the idea of giving millions in royalties to the communites, just to see it wasted. Im all for the idea, but its just not working in its current state.

[Barrabundy]

Gonetroppo, my second post was going to be along those lines. I've seen the results of what might now be called an "industry". This doesn't take away from what was fought for and won but whether it's brought the benefits many hoped for can and will be debated for the rest of our lives.

[Occy]

Saw a show on the ABC about it last night. A truly inspirational story. Eddie Mabo and another of his ilk Vincent Lingiari are Australian heroes and absolute legends. Joe Bjelke Peterson and Lord Vestey would be turning in their graves - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_ndC07C2qw.

[Junglefisher]

I think most of the native title claims then went through in the first ten years were great. It really was a case of people reclaiming their land.
Unfortunately now, I think most of the claims are based on getting the maximum cash out of the claim.
Did anyone see that you can now no longer sail on Lake Eyre as it was awarded a native title claim and is now sacred?

[Barrabundy]

Like lots of things, it's turned into an industry. Every mining project has its token indenous employees sitting at the back gate on "security" duty or doing weekly duck and turtle counts.

There's usually someone getting paid an hourly rate onsite in case some shells (or bones for the big $$) get dug up. They then have a meeting with the elders to decide what it's worth, a payments made and it's all good to go again.

The biggest hassle for most projects is the time it takes to go through the process. I was involved in a greenfield project which had an old stock route as a potential site, it was quickly bypassed in favour of another freehold site which was later found to be unstuitable. On going back to the original site there had to be a period of notification etc where our intentions had to be advertised to identify who might have a claim over te land before the state could hand over title. The block was bare, had been previously cleared, had gravel extra ted for the nearby road.....there was nothing there but we still had to go through the process. A bit of a joke really.

STILL, who of us uneducated ones would choose to fight the federal government to our death for something we believed so strongly in? An inspiring story and an example for all of us.

[Occy]

Unfortunately now, I think most of the claims are based on getting the maximum cash out of the claim.

I'm not being critical of you personally Junglefisher, but I must say the implied suggestion that aboriginals are just in it for the money is wearing a little thin. Even if they were (which they are demonstrably not) what's wrong with that. It was their land after all.

I find it quite interesting that we as a society don't seem to mind people like Clive Palmer, or Geinna Rheinhardt, or Whatisname Forrest doing exactly that.In fact we worship them. And they never came within a bulls roar of having any right to ownership of the land. They are just borrowing it from us for a while to dig big holes and make their fortunes.

Any benefit the aboriginals get from their land claims pales into insignificance compared to the obscene personal wealth these individuals take from our land (I include both native and general title here). I find it quite sickening actually.

[Junglefisher]

Oh please. I'm getting really sick of this idea that the miners did nothing to get where they are today. It just fell in their lap eh?
Here's an interesting map : http://www.nntt.gov.au/Mediation-and-ag ... TC_map.pdf
That's almost the entire WA coastline and Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane under potential claim. I'm sure you won't care about that though Occy, it's not your backyard.

[Occy]

Oh please. I'm getting really sick of this idea that the miners did nothing to get where they are today. It just fell in their lap eh?
Here's an interesting map : http://www.nntt.gov.au/Mediation-and-ag ... TC_map.pdf
That's almost the entire WA coastline and Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane under potential claim. I'm sure you won't care about that though Occy, it's not your backyard.

I'm not saying they did nothing JF. But the fact is that they don't own the land, they just rent it from us. Of course they are the ones who risk their money (or more correctly other peoples) and put all the effort into working it, but they get a very handsome return for their efforts. And yes we (the people of Australia) make a very tidy sum from their efforts as well, which as the landlord is only right. I will leave the argument about whether the rent is high enough aside at this stage.

As for the comment about the extent of potential native title claims I must admit to being a tad confused as to what you are getting at. That map shows heaps of areas not under claim. Which is fortunate for us considering the aboriginals once owned the entire country (including all of the WA coastline, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane), not just parts of it. In one sense we should consider ourselves lucky they haven't claimed every square inch of the joint. Not that it makes much difference, because the sky hasn't and won't fall in just because of native title claims. Life goes on.

[Barrabundy]

On the subject of the miners, I remember a time when everyone considered resource stocks to be very risky investments. I also remember a time (early 90's I think) when the coal miners were all going bust and all the little ones got swallowed up in one fell swoop by the global players because they were unviable.

How things have changed, although they might end up back there again at some stage when the sky falls in.

[salticrak]

Zimbabwe too has a form of native title,although theirs was for selected natives only.

[liam8227]

I find this a very interesting topic. Most human migrations that were successful in antiquity resulted in the natives being enslaved or killed off. Reading Polybius account of the sack of Numantia where even the animals were killed certainly tempers my perception of Roman expansion. Conversely glimpses of Celtic expansion can be gleaned by through Caesar, the Helvetii and their tragic destruction. Earlier the Cimbri and Teutones. In the late empire the mass migrations of the Germanic peoples unsettled by eastern European migrations. The middle ages are less mobile in the west, however the Arab conquests and the rise of Islam included a hell of a lot of migration. Later again the European expansion into the Americas involved enslavement and extermination.

A lot of summarising however it illustrates a point not well realised by most people. Human migration is dreadfully traumatic. The average layman has very little idea of what the settlement of Australia actually entailed. The distances travelled, the wealth invested. The precarious nature of the early settlements. A hell of a lot of new revisionist histories have been published on our treatment of Aboriginal peoples. In light of other human migrations the early history of Australia did not have the temper of say the US expansion into Indian territory. Or the the treatment of Indian peoples on the subcontinent. It was hardly a process where the aborigines did not suffer and in some places suffer terribly however there was no large scale organised mass killings sponsored by the state. The Archaeological record as well as historical records do not support it. Do not mistake me, there were killings. On both sides, however you will be very hard pressed to find a pit with several thousand skeletons of people killed by mechanical process.

My perspective is perhaps different to others for two fold reasons. A central tenet of historical study is to remove personal bias and modern morals from the subject matter. I find killing for sport repellent but would not condemn the Romans for doing so. The accepted moral standard of the day is how to interpret a persons actions, not applying modern morals to an ancient act. This becomes more difficult as the events become closer to ones own lifetime. Secondly in my work life I have very few positive interactions with Aboriginal peoples. My personal interactions are fewer than those in regional areas however there is the "corporate knowledge" gleaned from time in service.

Its through these filters that I view Native Title. In itself I find it rather absurd that a Nation would spend so much wealth, relinquish good land in the name of (albeit recent in historical terms) a past wrong. Recognition of wrong is usually not a strong point in any government. The application of native title is not a bad thing. Especially where applied fairly to all inhabitants.

The problem as I see it with this subject matter is largely the attitude of Australians. On the one hand the lefties find it appealing (and fashionable) to champion Aborigines. The conservatives are threatened by everything. Native title would never be allowed to cover our population centres. The whole nation isn't going to be handed back. Yet the lefties who bang on about Aborigines being here first etc etc are very rarely ever seen out in the communities where they are needed. As Con rightly points out Aboriginal politics has largely degenerated into cronyism. Jobs for Aborigines. Tokenism at official moments (we thank the traditional owners etc etc before sporting matches). With any deviation from the orthodoxy instantly labeled as racist. Lastly the attitude of Aborigines themselves needs to change. Recent actions in Canberra and Brisbane do not advance their cause. Far from it, educated intelligent Aborigines exist. I will listen to them, not the morons rioting.

Mabo was a triumph of the day. As far as modern politics are concerned it is a turning point for Australia. It certainly redefined how our legislators view Aborigines. How Native Title will play out in the future I do not see it being successful in a hell of a lot of places. Like many legal things it is open to challenge. By favouring Aborigines it does discriminate against the rest of us by its nature, whether that will ever be addressed/redressed however one looks at it remains to be seen.

[Barrabundy]

Your last point Liam is interesting. If anyone digs up an artifact believed to be of aboriginal origin, there is a process to be followed. If the artifacts are human, it CAN be a real show stopper, not always the case that it is, but it CAN be.

Dig up white fella artifacts, if it's a body there's a process I'm sure, but unless it's a crime scene, is it treated the same?


I have photos of a multi million dollar pump station upgrade in the lower Murray area where a couple of straggly trees had sheet pile driven into the ground around them to stop them falling into the excavation. I asked what that was all about and they said that aborigines used to sit around underneath them and they were a cultural site. The trees are so ordinary it's not funny and they're probably not even still standing now, but they had to be protected. I wonder if the descendants of the traditional owners ever visit or teach their kids about their history.

There are families in town who have stuck their hands out in the past to get their "entitlements" and they've used them to set themselves up in businesses (lawn mowing, earthmoving) and are now just getting on with life, paying the bills and making plans like the rest of us. They are always there to celebrate their history at the usual events but the rest of the time they're out there earning a buck, educating their kids, fixing their house on the weekends like you and I.

Good and bad in all of us and I don't think there'll ever be a perfect system. Time will "fix" it eventually and by then we'll have other issues to debate as a nation.

[Occy]

I find this a very interesting topic. Most human migrations that were successful in antiquity resulted in the natives being enslaved or killed off. Reading Polybius account of the sack of Numantia where even the animals were killed certainly tempers my perception of Roman expansion. Conversely glimpses of Celtic expansion can be gleaned by through Caesar, the Helvetii and their tragic destruction. Earlier the Cimbri and Teutones. In the late empire the mass migrations of the Germanic peoples unsettled by eastern European migrations. The middle ages are less mobile in the west, however the Arab conquests and the rise of Islam included a hell of a lot of migration. Later again the European expansion into the Americas involved enslavement and extermination.

A lot of summarising however it illustrates a point not well realised by most people. Human migration is dreadfully traumatic. The average layman has very little idea of what the settlement of Australia actually entailed. The distances travelled, the wealth invested. The precarious nature of the early settlements. A hell of a lot of new revisionist histories have been published on our treatment of Aboriginal peoples. In light of other human migrations the early history of Australia did not have the temper of say the US expansion into Indian territory. Or the the treatment of Indian peoples on the subcontinent. It was hardly a process where the aborigines did not suffer and in some places suffer terribly however there was no large scale organised mass killings sponsored by the state. The Archaeological record as well as historical records do not support it. Do not mistake me, there were killings. On both sides, however you will be very hard pressed to find a pit with several thousand skeletons of people killed by mechanical process.

My perspective is perhaps different to others for two fold reasons. A central tenet of historical study is to remove personal bias and modern morals from the subject matter. I find killing for sport repellent but would not condemn the Romans for doing so. The accepted moral standard of the day is how to interpret a persons actions, not applying modern morals to an ancient act. This becomes more difficult as the events become closer to ones own lifetime. Secondly in my work life I have very few positive interactions with Aboriginal peoples. My personal interactions are fewer than those in regional areas however there is the "corporate knowledge" gleaned from time in service.

Its through these filters that I view Native Title. In itself I find it rather absurd that a Nation would spend so much wealth, relinquish good land in the name of (albeit recent in historical terms) a past wrong. Recognition of wrong is usually not a strong point in any government. The application of native title is not a bad thing. Especially where applied fairly to all inhabitants.

The problem as I see it with this subject matter is largely the attitude of Australians. On the one hand the lefties find it appealing (and fashionable) to champion Aborigines. The conservatives are threatened by everything. Native title would never be allowed to cover our population centres. The whole nation isn't going to be handed back. Yet the lefties who bang on about Aborigines being here first etc etc are very rarely ever seen out in the communities where they are needed. As Con rightly points out Aboriginal politics has largely degenerated into cronyism. Jobs for Aborigines. Tokenism at official moments (we thank the traditional owners etc etc before sporting matches). With any deviation from the orthodoxy instantly labeled as racist. Lastly the attitude of Aborigines themselves needs to change. Recent actions in Canberra and Brisbane do not advance their cause. Far from it, educated intelligent Aborigines exist. I will listen to them, not the morons rioting.

Mabo was a triumph of the day. As far as modern politics are concerned it is a turning point for Australia. It certainly redefined how our legislators view Aborigines. How Native Title will play out in the future I do not see it being successful in a hell of a lot of places. Like many legal things it is open to challenge. By favouring Aborigines it does discriminate against the rest of us by its nature, whether that will ever be addressed/redressed however one looks at it remains to be seen.

Indeed it is an interesting topic, as are your observations on it Liam. It was thought provoking, well considered in places, yet strangely confusing in others. I couldn't quite pick it at first, but on further reading I think I see where you are coming from. The "pit with several thousand skeletons of people killed by mechanical process", followed closely with your "jobs for aborigines" and "tokenism at official moments" comment set the tone of your argument quite well I thought. But it was your closing salvo about native title being discriminatory that sealed it for me. Some would call those views racist. Not me mind you, I call them misinformed.

When are people going to realise that the process we are currently going through with native title claims will NEVER right all the wrongs that were done to the original inhabitants of this great land in the name of "human migration". And when are they going to realise the world as we know it isn't going to come to an end just because we do the right thing for once.