"LET me first observe the appropriate indigenous protocols by
recognising the traditional owners of the lands on which this
particular event is taking place today."
These words have become common practice in indigenous affairs
etiquette today. But are they token gestures, used by Government
officials to cover the dismal picture of indigenous land justice in
Victoria?
The Victorian Government has a shameful legacy in regard to
indigenous land claims, and it still lacks the political will to
deal with the matter in a fair and just manner. But the indigenous
solidarity protest in Kings Domain that has continued since the
Commonwealth Games has returned the issue of land justice to the
public agenda.
The path to indigenous land justice in Victoria has been hard
and the returns have been minuscule. In 2006, the status of
indigenous land justice in Victoria is one that can be indicated
with a dot on the map. Indigenous Victorians have been returned the
derisory amount of less than a half of 1 per cent of their
ancestral lands. Until the late 1990s, the amount of land held was
0.014 per cent. This has increased marginally in 2006, but the
overall amount is still less than a half of 1 per cent.
This does not include the 2005 "consent agreement" reached by
the claimants in the Mallee-Wimmera region, which the court states
is "not a grant of native title". The agreement offers no ownership
or exclusive rights over land and waters, and provides for no more
say over its management than settler interests. The claimants'
traditionally based rights to occupy, possess and enjoy the 2 per
cent of their claim area along the Wimmera River have been
normalised to the extent that their inherent rights to continue to
camp, fish and enjoy the land and waters, as their ancestors did,
are treated the same as those of other Victorians.
In exercising these rights, they will also be required to comply
with the imported Anglo laws and regulations that govern these
activities. Should there be any inconsistency between the native
title rights of the claimants and the rights of other licence
holders, the latter's rights prevail.
The question of whether this is land justice or continued
dispossession by stealth is of critical importance.
The nature of the title and rights returned to Victoria's
original owners by government grants, transfers and the purchase of
land is worth noting. Most of the land has been returned under
inalienable freehold title, including some small areas that
contained Aboriginal cemeteries. Some of the land was granted
and/or purchased on the condition that it is used for Aboriginal
cultural purposes, and in all the lands acquired, the Crown retains
certain rights and interests, including the right of veto over
mining.
The lack of progress towards land justice in Victoria made by
the Bracks Labor Government offers little joy to indigenous
Victorians following the expressions of regret made by the last two
Labor premiers, John Cain and Joan Kirner, during the
reconciliation process. Regrets for not being able to do enough for
indigenous Victorians during their period of office are fine
sentiments, but their failure to deliver is our loss. Feelings of
regret may well be exacerbated for the Bracks Government, which,
unlike its predecessors, has the numbers and the power to deliver
land justice to indigenous Victorians.
Added to this rather embarrassing track record is that Victoria
is the only state, apart from Western Australia, that has not
introduced a formal statewide land claims process for indigenous
claimants.
All other states and territories, including Tasmania, have
introduced land claims processes that allow indigenous claimants to
achieve some degree of land justice on the basis of traditional and
historic connections and on the basis of the need for land.
Cain's commitments to land justice in
the early 1980s had some success but his attempts to introduce a
state land claims process, the Aboriginal Land Claims Bill of 1983,
failed because he did not have the numbers in the upper house
— a privilege that the present Government has. Whether this
Government is morally and politically committed to rectifying the
legacy of dispossession remains at the front of the unfinished
business agenda.
The cultural heritage draft document of 2005 and its attempts to
undermine the rights of ownership and control of cultural heritage
by indigenous Victorians has already met strong opposition from
traditional owners. But Victorian Aboriginal Affairs Minister Gavin
Jennings' ability to achieve greater positive social, cultural and
economic outcomes for indigenous Victorians is exemplified in a
radio interview in which he said that "he is prepared to roll up
his sleeves and get a bit of dirt on his hands". An obvious step
would be to set up a land claims process that will allow for a lot
more dirt to be restored to Victoria's traditional owners than has
been the case so far. Taking away or diminishing any of those
hard-fought cultural heritage reforms that Kooris achieved in the
1980s will produce negative rather than positive outcomes for
indigenous Victorians.
Attorney-General Rob Hulls seems to go much further by
acknowledging the legacy of dispossession. In his talk at the
announcement of the Wimmera determination last December, Hulls
admitted that: "We are complicit in this atrocity, unless we can
return autonomy and integrity to our relationships and reunite
grieving custodians with the home lands they so love." Fine
sentiments again, but matching the rhetoric with the political
action required to rectify complicity and to alleviate feelings of
grief are the moral and political challenges that confront the
Government and indigenous claimants in 2006.
Dr Wayne Atkinson-Yorta Yorta is a senior lecturer in
indigenous studies at the University of Melbourne and was a
principal claimant in the Yorta Yorta native title case
(1994-2002).
index
