WHAT FUTURE FOR LAND RIGHTS?

In August 1996 Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory joined with their supporters to mark the twentieth anniversary of the passing of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (ALRA). The celebrations, held at Old Parliament House in Canberra, were an occasion for reflection upon the achievements of the legislation, which has provided the foundations for the recognition of Aboriginal traditional ownership of land and the subsequent conversion, after claims, of nearly half of the Northern Territory to Aboriginal freehold title. In marking the occasion there was broad recognition that an era was drawing to a close. In 1997 the `sunset clause' would come into effect, bringing the claims process to an end. The focus on land claims would soon give way to an increased emphasis on land development issues.

The twentieth-anniversary celebrations took place under a wider cloud of uncertainty. The Howard Government had recently come to power, riding a wave of anti-Aboriginal sentiment fuelled by Hansonism. The ominous promise of the Coalition to govern `for all Australians' underwrote an expressed intention to significantly amend the Native Title Act 1993 (recall Howard's commitment to `bring the pendulum back to middle'), deliver substantial cuts to the ATSIC budget, and take a very different approach to indigenous affairs to the politically correct `black armband view of history' their Labor predecessors were accused of upholding.

In 1997 Minister Herron appointed John Reeves, a Darwin-based lawyer and long-ago Labor MHR, to undertake a comprehensive review of the operation of the ALRA. Shane Stone, the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, subsequently promoted Reeves (along with himself) to the status of QC. Reeves' appointment came in the face of strong protests from the Northern and Central Land Councils that he was neither impartial nor qualified to undertake the task. His review was conducted throughout 1997-8 at a cost of more than $1m (which was charged to ATSIC and subsequently queried by the Senate Estimates Committee). The review report, `Building on Land Rights for the Next Generation', was presented to the government in August 1998.

While finding that land-rights legislation has delivered many positive results to Aboriginal people living in the Northern Territory, particularly in terms of the return of traditional lands, the report's major emphasis is on what it sees as the legislation's `negative outcomes'. In particular, Reeves argues that the ALRA has failed to deliver any improvement in the socio-economic conditions of Aboriginal people. It is notable that this was initially the only aspect of the report picked up by the media. It became fuel for debates concerning the intractable nature of the `Aboriginal problem' and the failure of policies of self-determination to deliver better circumstances to Aborigines -- most recently at a forum organised by Quadrant, at which Herron and a member of Reeves' team led a group of conservative speakers through two days of discussion. The sentiment of this forum was clearly reflected in its program. One session, for example, addressed the topic the `Rescued not Stolen Generations'.

Reeves' recommendations call for sweeping reform of the ALRA, including the diminution of rights of traditional owners, increased powers to be handed to the NT government, and, predictably, almost too predictably, the splintering of the major land councils -- arguably the most potent and vocal representatives of indigenous interests in the country. Aboriginal stakeholders led a groundswell of opposition to the review's findings. They were backed by anthropologists, lawyers, economists and policy makers, whose responses, published in the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research's volume Land Rights at Risk?, discredit the scholarship underwriting the report, its basic premises, findings and recommendations, and its selectivity of sources and consultations.

In the face of a hostile response, the government had deferred acting on Reeves in the lead up to the 1998 Federal Election, instead referring the report's findings to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (HORSCATSIA), a committee comprising a majority of Coalition members. The findings of this committee, tabled last month in a report entitled `Unlocking the Future', amount to a surprisingly comprehensive rejection of the Reeves recommendations. The significance of HORSCATSIA arriving at this outcome -- with no dissenting minority report -- cannot be understated. In a political environment viewed by Aboriginal people as immensely hostile to their interests, for a joint parliamentary report to not only reject Reeves, but have as its first recommendation that land-rights legislation `not be amended without traditional owners in the Northern Territory first understanding the nature and purpose of any amendments and as a group giving their consent', seems indeed remarkable.

The transcripts of HORSCATSIA's hearings (available on the internet) make for interesting reading. In presenting their evidence to the committee, Aboriginal people expressed their fear and anger regarding what the implementation of Reeves' proposed model would mean. Belying this fear is a deep distrust in the consultation process. Aboriginal people feel they have demonstrated the cultural basis of their ownership of land in legal proceedings held over more than two decades. Their right to live on that land in accordance with their customary law has been recognised. Time and time again they have made their aspirations clear to a steady stream of visiting politicians and bureaucrats. In restating this case yet again to the visiting HORSCATSIA delegation, one woman from Yuendumu made her frustration clear, telling them:

This is our land. We dance and we sing to it like our great great grandfathers and great great grandmothers did and we want to keep it ... We want to keep our land through the land council ... This is our home and our land. That is what it means to us ... Why does the government always come and humbug us? Leave us alone.

While welcoming HORSCATSIA's findings, Aboriginal leaders remain cautious in their response. It is yet to be seen how the next chapter in this episode will unfold. HORSCATSIA have called for a series of project teams to be established to advise the government on the reworking of those aspects of the legislation which have been widely acknowledged by all stakeholders as needing amendment. Herron's initial response to the report, however, does not give Aborigines any cause for optimism. In his statement made shortly after the report's launch, Herron said he welcomed the fact that Aboriginal organisations had called for `changes to the Act' and `greater transparency and accountability' of land councils. Clearly the Minister had been engaging in some highly selective reading in order to extract these observations.

One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to build a picture of political intent behind this entire review process, its sizable expenditure of scarce ATSIC money, with no commitment on the part of the government to implement HORSCATSIA's recommendations. There are other coincidental developments which augur badly for the future of land rights in the Northern Territory, most notably the appointment of Shane Stone -- the recently departed Chief Minister and sworn enemy of Northern Land Council chair Galarrwuy Yunupingu -- as influential Federal President of the Liberal Party. Hostile attacks on Native Title, a hollow and defensive response to the Stolen Generations report, the erosion of ABSTUDY, bilingual education, and, now, land rights -- W(h)ither Aboriginal futures in a `reconciled' Australia?

Melinda Hinkson is in Anthropology at LaTrobe University.