ANTaR NEWSLETTER MAY 2001
|
Dear ANTaR ACT supporters, Since our last newsletter, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation has finished its ten-year term. Its successor body, Reconciliation Australia (RA) is charged with continuing the work of national reconciliation - but on a shoestring budget. A report from a recent ANTaR/Racial Respect forum on RA's role is on p2, along with other reconciliation updates. On the native title front, the Croker Island and Miriuwung Gajerrong cases are defining some fundamental native title issues in the High Court. Our update is on p5. Also inside we have Debra Jopson's investigation of Commonwealth Indigenous spending and a tongue-in-cheek review of the new Federal Minister's performance . . . all in the spirit of reconciliation! ANTaR ACT also notes with sadness the recent death of Liberal MP, Peter Nugent, who gave voice to disquiet from within the Liberal Party on the Coalition's hard line on native title during the Wik debate. We hope you enjoy reading this newsletter. If you'd like more regular ANTaR ACT updates please join our email list at antaract@apex.net.au. Also, watch out for our annual national funding appeal coming soon to a mailbox near you! In the meantime, your local ANTaR is gratefully receiving any donations at the mailing address at the back of this newsletter. SWEETIES FOR A TREATY - THE LARGEST MARDI GRAS FLOAT EVER The Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade may seem an unlikely place to promote the treaty message, but links between the Indigenous rights agenda and the fight for recognition of gay, lesbian and transgender rights go back at least 25 years. This solidarity exploded at this year's Mardi Gras parade in a riot of colour, politics and celebrity as Sweeties for a Treaty. More than 500 people danced and waved their way up Oxford St, carrying black, red & yellow flags, lolly-pop shaped placards with messages like IVF Lesbians for Land Rights, Marys Opposing Mandatory Sentencing, Burn Baby Burn (a tribute to the late Dr Perkins) and very big TREATY letters. They took the treaty message to the nation. Sweeties for a Treaty was organised by Black+White+Pink - a lesbian, gay & transgender reconciliation network that has been around since 1998. This year people joined Sweeties for a Treaty from as far away as Brewarrina, Beechworth, Brisbane and indeed Belconnen, making it the largest float in the parade. The ranks were swelled by high profile Indigenous activists including U.N. Unsung Hero and Executive Director of Tranby College, Jack Beetson; ATSIC Chairman, Geoff Clark; Co-chair of Reconciliation Australia, Shelley Reys; NSW ALP Senate candidate and Dubbo City Councillor, Warren Mundine; Director-General of the NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Linda Burney and Miss Reconciliation 2000, Miss Ruby Royal Reserve. High profile non-Indigenous Australians included NSW Deputy Premier, Andrew Refshauge; NSW MLA Meredith Burgmann; Human Rights Commissioner, Sev Ozdowski; former Mardi Gras President, David McLachlan; political satirist Pauline Pantsdown and cartoonist Judy Horacek. Members of the National Parks & Wildlife Service Reconciliation Group along with representatives of the Human Rights & Privacy Commission and ANTaR also joined Sweeties. Garry Convery, Organiser of the Sweeties float said, "We wanted to utilise the pop-culture impact of the Mardi Gras to bring the 'T-word' to the Queer community and the nation at large. The press coverage was amazing - thanks to the support we got from so many high profile Indigenous people. If the reception to Sweeties is anything to go by, Australians are ready to engage with the concept of a treaty." RECONCILIATION AUSTRALIA ANTaR ACT and Racial Respect co-hosted a forum on 15 March with Neil Westbury, newly-appointed CEO of Reconciliation Australia (RA). Following is a summary of Neil's talk and some of the questions and answers. Reconciliation Australia (RA) is the successor body to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR). RA views itself as an independent foundation and Board appointments will be made by the Board itself. RA has nine directors - 5 Indigenous - and two Co-Chairs - one Indigenous. The inaugural Chairs are Shelley Reys and Fred Chaney. Board members serve either 1, 2 or 3 year terms and admin and executive staff are Canberra-based and likely to remain so. The RA Board will partner existing organisations in: redressing Indigenous disadvantage; discussions on Indigenous rights, including the treaty; maintenance of the people's movement and promotion of best-practice cases of reconciliation activity. It will monitor the progress of the treaty campaign and will also conduct some activity on issues like mandatory sentencing and customary law. There will be an emphasis on school curricula and education and a reconciliation awards scheme will be established. RA received a one-off Federal Government grant of $5M, compared with CAR's annual $4M. Hence RA will not be able to fund the same levels of activity as CAR, will have fewer promotional and educational materials and will not fund the State Reconciliation Councils. RA will direct its fundraising efforts at the community and business sectors, including a public and corporate "membership" drive. In response to questions, Neil Westbury made the following points:
This new reconciliation body has an ambitious range of tasks. ANTaR hopes it can harness community sentiment as effectively as CAR and play a critical role in ensuring Indigenous issues stay squarely on the political agenda. RECONCILIATION PLACE In the grand scheme that is the National Capital a site is being set aside to mark reconciliation. Unlike say the Aboriginal tent embassy, this will be a government project, and because of that the challenge will be to make it have some meaning. Earlier this year, Federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Minister, Philip Ruddock, announced a national design competition for 'Reconciliation Place'. The idea came from Corroboree 2000. He said it would be on a prominent site in the Parliamentary zone and "portray Australia's shared journey of reconciliation - past, present and future". The Government has since referred to the project whenever they've been under pressure to demonstrate some commitment to reconciliation. Rather than a single area, Reconciliation Place will be a pathway between several monumental institutions, linking the National Library, the High Court, the National Gallery and Questacon. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal stories will be told along the pathway. The official blurb for the design competition calls for a pathway that "evolves over time as a dynamic symbol of the process of reconciliation including murals, art paving sculptures and plaques". The National Capital Authority is running the competition, with entries closing in early May. It'll be judged by a star studded panel that includes Aboriginal historian Jackie Huggins, Ngunnawal Elder Matilda House, Wally Caruana from the National Gallery, businessman Ian Spicer, architect Rick Leplastrier and Central Australian artist Michael Jagamarra Nelson. First prize is $50,000, and a spokeswoman for the Authority said the Federal Government is spending a total of $5 million on the project that's due to be finished by the end of this year. DELIBERATIVE POLL ON RECONCILIATION How do you get Australians to dramatically increase their knowledge of Indigenous Affairs, overwhelmingly support an apology to the Stolen Generations and reassess ideas of Indigenous "special treatment" all in one weekend ? Its seems deliberative polling may help. This is a multi-stepped opinion polling process based on the idea that people reach different conclusions about key public issues when given the opportunity to be informed and to engage in discussions. One February weekend, 344 "representative" Australians discussed, prodded and poked Reconciliation-Where From Here? at Old Parliament House. The group, which had been polled previously on the topic either in random phone polling or in regional meetings, represented a cross-section of Australian opinion. They were polled again at the end of the weekend to measure any opinion-change. Information on reconciliation was provided as background materials, moderated small group discussions were held all weekend and questions were posed to panels of experts and political leaders representing many different views on reconciliation. The resulting debate between the likes of Mick Dodson, Keith Windschuttle, Jackie Huggins, Robert Manne, Larissa Behrendt and Gary Johns (and that was just one of the four panels!) was both passionate and informative. The small group discussions were, apparently, equally as interesting. Indigenous representative Australians spoke of the unusual experience of seeing opinions changing over the weekend and non-Indigenous representative Australians spoke of the frustration of being in groups without any black voices or experience - part of the methodology being to compare results from the different groups. One participant from Melbourne looking forward to finally meeting an Indigenous Australian, was disappointed to find himself in an all-white group. He, and many others, consequently spent time across the road at the Tent Embassy. So while huge leaps appeared to made on some issues e.g. support for an apology rose from 46% to 68%; support for a treaty or a set of agreements as a way forward for reconciliation barely changed - 46% to 49%. As interesting as these results may be, its important to remember they don't exist in isolation. There has been a four-year national debate on the Stolen Generations, while the treaty reappeared in the national agenda only a few months ago. The full results of Australia Deliberates: Reconciliation-Where From Here? can be found at www.ida.org.au ANTaR NATIONAL The primary focus for ANTaR National to build up to a sustained Treaty campaign. While ATSIC conducts an education campaign amongst Indigenous communities, ANTaR will take a lead in the non-Indigenous community. We will be putting together information in a variety of formats pitched at various target audiences, as well as training speakers and providing information kits for community groups. The materials will address the questions and reservations in people's minds, as well as explaining the benefits of a negotiation-based approach to resolving 'unfinished business'. In the meantime check out www.treatynow.org which has been put together by the National Treaty Support Group and the February issue of ATSIC News at http://www.atsic.gov.au/default_ie.asp. Organisationally, ANTaR National took a major step forward when it officially incorporated as a separate entity. It has representatives from each State and Territory, various NGOs such as ACOSS and the National Union of Students and other members-at-large. A smaller management committee will help the National Co-ordinator David Cooper run the national office. Stuart Stark is the ANTaR ACT representative. The national organisation keeps in touch by regular telephone hook-ups and occasional face-to-face meetings. Look out for our annual funding appeal coming soon to a mailbox near you. ANTaR depends on public donations as we receive no government or corporate funding. Your generous support keeps ANTaR alive. BLACK DOLLARS WHITEWASH When Federal ministers speak of record "Indigenous" expenditure, they like to conjure up images of improving indigenous lives by delivering health, housing, education and employment - the "practical" reconciliation measures this Government favours. Since the last Budget, Howard and his ministers have been trumpeting that this financial year they are spending a record $2.3 billion aimed at indigenous people claiming this represents an average of $22,000 for every indigenous household. However, many black dollars would be more aptly described as grey - or even white. Budget documents reveal almost $4.3 million of the $2.3 billion this year went towards creating the National Museum's First Australians Gallery. The Government also tagged as "indigenous-specific" the $12.4 million spent on the gallery last financial year and the $3.3 million the year before that. So Aussies of all backgrounds visiting the museum get the benefit of a part of the Budget which the Government has clearly labelled the "black dollar". For each of the past three years, more than $8 million has been allocated for "indigenous policy and co-ordination" within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. This is done by the Office of Indigenous Policy which is renowned for two achievements in Aboriginal affairs: overseeing the Government's defence of the Cubillo-Gunner stolen generations test case and for a document which claimed there were no stolen generations. The Government has said that the office provides alternative advice to that of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), which accounts for about $1.1 billion of the budget. So the "black dollar" helps to fund both sides when the Federal Government and ATSIC do not see eye to eye. There are other grey areas, where it is questionable whether the greatest beneficiaries are Indigenous or non-Indigenous Australians. For instance, reconciliation is meant to be about harmony between the two groups. But under this Government formula, the $5.3 million spent on Reconciliation is "black." So was the $7.5 million last year and the $5 million the year before that. Native title accounts for another chunk of "black" expenditure. This year $4.6 million is being spent by the Attorney-General on top of $14 million paid out to the States. Then there is almost $23 million allocated to the National Native Title Tribunal and $8.6 million to the Federal Court to deal with native title jurisdiction matters. But not all native title dollars are being used to Aboriginal advantage. They are also being used to help those opposing native title claims. Even $100,000 for safety inspections at remote aerodromes serving indigenous communities in northern Australia has been roped in as an item of "Aboriginal" expenditure in the past three budgets. All these figures have been gathered and added together in a document which appears to have been created by lassoing every Budget dollar which could be tagged "indigenous" in every corner of the bureaucracy. The document is called The Future Together. John Howard pleads for honesty about our past. How about a bit more in the Budget? Reprinted courtesy Debra Jopson and The Sydney Morning Herald NATIVE TITLE UPDATE The year kicked off in the High Court with two important test cases on the scope of native title and how it sits within the broader legal system. The Miriuwung Gajerrong case (MG) involves a large claim to land mainly in the East Kimberley, while the Croker Island case is about sea rights off the coast of Arnhem Land. It takes a long time for the implications of a decision like Mabo to work its way through the system and almost nine years on, there are still many unanswered questions about native title law. Croker and MG saw the High Court wrestling with some fundamental issues for the first time - particularly 'what is native title' and 'when is it extinguished'. Miriuwung Gajerrong In March, the High Court spent 8 days hearing from Aboriginal parties, governments, miners, pastoralists and others who wanted their say over the MG claim. At the Federal Court trial Justice Lee found the Miriuwung and Gajerrong peoples had a strong title, akin to ownership. A lot of government action had taken place on their land: resumptions, creation of reserves, grants of limited interests for people to carry on business or recreational activities. Did these actions extinguish native title? Or did they 'regulate' it: leaving native title intact, temporarily suppressing it where necessary? Lee favoured the regulation view. The Crown and the people with leases and licences could rely on their legal rights, and in case of conflict those rights would prevail over native title rights. But the underlying native title generally survived such activities - as freehold title does - so that if the pastoralist sold out and moved on, or the agriculturalist forfeited their lease and the land reverted to open country, then the full native title revived. On appeal in the Federal Court one judge agreed with this approach, but two others took a harsher line, so that e.g. fences built to restrain cattle extinguished native title. The major victory at trial was turned into a major reverse on appeal due to the majority view of extinguishment law. Croker In February, the High Court tackled the question of sea rights. At both trial and on appeal in the Federal Court, each side was unhappy. The Commonwealth argued there is no such thing as native title beyond the low water mark. The Croker mob argued their underlying native title rights to control access and use were strong enough to prevail over other rights, except the ones granted by the Crown - such as commercial fishing licences. The Federal Court judges said native title did exist in the sea but it was a weak or 'non-exclusive' set of rights. Common Features In Croker, as in MG, the High Court spent time trying to work out how to convert the content of traditional law into a form whitefella law can recognise. In MG some parties relied on a principle of non-discrimination: that native 'title' should be seen as a form of ownership, like freehold title. Another view of native title emerged which emphasised certain key rights such as control of, access to and use of land and water. Opponents attempted to depict it as bundle of use rights, easily wiped out by official action. Surprisingly, the heavily amended Native Title Act may still offer strong levels of protection, stronger perhaps than if claimants were left at the mercy of the judge-made common law. A decision in both cases is not expected for several months. . . . and good news from Queensland ! And from Queensland, news that 5 years of patient and difficult negotiations have resulted in the Western Cape Communities Coexistence Agreement. Mining giant Comalco, Cape York Land Council, 11 traditional owner groups, community councils and the Queensland Government all signed on to the deal. It includes $4 million a year to a Trust with majority Aboriginal control for community development; the transfer of a pastoral lease; employment and training provisions and other land and cultural heritage protection as well as Comalco support for native title claims. The deal is particularly significant for the people of Mapoon. In November 1963 it was the scene of one of the most shameful acts of state-sponsored dispossession in recent history. Armed police drove residents from their houses and shipped them hundreds of kilometres north to the tip of Cape York. Their homes, school and church were burnt to the ground. Earlier in 1959 the Queensland Government had granted a huge bauxite mining lease over the Weipa Aboriginal reserve to Comalco, without reference to the Aboriginal people who lived there. REPORT CARDS WE'D LIKE TO SEE !
|