Land

Native title issues & problems

Native title parties need to prove an ongoing connection. Often numerous parties are involved.

Processing applications can take many years which lets some politicians find strange “solutions”.

Native Title Act needs review

Native title legislation is not without issues. There are several problems which challenge native title parties and those involved in finding a solution.

The Native Title Act was originally handed down so that Aboriginal people could negotiate and mediate to resolve recognition of Aboriginal peoples’ ongoing connection with their land.

But as more and more native title cases take many years, sometimes decades, to be resolved in courts rather than by negotiation, critics of the Act ask the Australian government to review and amend it.

The Act has caused division within Aboriginal communities because it’s often misunderstood.

“It’s a white fella legal construct,” says Glen Kelly, a Noongar man heading the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council in Western Australia. “What it is actually designed to do, in my view, is not to enliven traditional law and custom but to control traditional law and custom.” [41]

One of the toughest requirements of the Act is that claimants have to be able to prove a continuity of traditional laws and customs on the land being claimed since European settlement.

Native title is at the bottom of the hierarchy of Australian property rights.—Tom Calma, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner [1]

Until we give back to the black man just a bit of land that was his and give it back without provisos, without strings to snatch it back, without anything but complete generosity of spirit in concession for the evil we have done him - until we do that, we shall remain what we have always been so far: a community of thieves.—Xavier Herbert author of Poor Fellow My Country (1970)

Proving ongoing connection

Under the Native Title Act Aboriginal people have to prove their ‘ongoing’ connection to the land they want to claim native title for.

This ongoing connection is often difficult to prove, especially where there has been widespread urbanisation or agricultural development, both of which extinguish native title. Aboriginal wars with the white invaders, forced removal from their traditional lands (Stolen Generations) and many massacres of Aboriginal people exacerbate claims further.

The law requires a high level of evidence of each group’s traditional connection which needs to go back to the date when the Crown asserted sovereignty over Australia [29].

Providing connection information is expensive and there is limited expertise available in Australia to develop these reports [29]. Connection reports can take 2 to 3 years to research and may take up to 3 years to be assessed.

During World War II Aboriginal people lost their ongoing connection around Darwin because they were evacuated from the Japanese bombing. “Judges haven’t been able to take in account any mitigating circumstances, and that break is enough to throw the case out,” says Tom Calma, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner [2].

The doctrine of surviving title has some deep problems with it. It requires the Indigenous applicant to prove that colonisation did not hurt. The more it hurts, the less you get. The less it hurts the more you get. There is a deep contradiction in that idea.—Chief Judge Joe Williams, New Zealand, commenting on native title in Australia [28]

Evidence used to prove Aboriginal people’s connection to their land can sometimes date back over one hundred years, as exemplified in the Yorta Yorta people’s native title case which used the 1881 petition of the Maloga residents to the Victorian government [3].

For the Gomeroi people’s claim over areas in New South Wales computer mapping of family trees for 60,000 people, the largest known genealogy of Australian Aborigines ever, along with hundreds of birth, death and marriage certificates demonstrated that the old way of life was still very much alive in Gomeroi country stretching from Singleton to Moree and out to Walgett [24].

The National Native Title Tribunal libraries can offer crucial evidence with their collection of rare and old books [26]. The Tribunal has offices in all major Australian capitals and offers personal assistance and email alerts.

However, cases exist where courts have denied recognising native title while at the same time acknowledging that the people before the court are the same people that owned that land at the time of colonisation [4].

As a consequence of extinguished native title the Indigenous Land Corporation was established to purchase land for groups who would not be able to prove native title.

During 2009 Tom Calma and Justice Robert French proposed to reverse the burden of proof in the native title claim system such that all claimants were presumed to have a “continuous existence and vitality since sovereignty” [2]. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating agrees, noting that “this onerous burden of proof has placed an unjust burden on those native title claimants who have suffered the most severe dispossession and social disruption.” [21]

Assuming continuous cultural traditions is very powerful, says former Federal Court judge Ron Merkel. “The presumption of continuity is very powerful,” he says. “Traditional law and customs do not spring up out of nowhere.” [28]

Some judges, and I include myself amongst them, consider that the bar to successful proof of a native title claim is being placed too high.—Justice Paul Finn [25]

Numerous native title groups

For native title claims, parties can be numerous and diverse and their relationships complex. The Thalanyji people’s claim in Western Australia involved more than 35 parties [5], the Gunditjmara people’s case in Victoria involved hundreds of parties which were divided into 27 groups.

Native title groups can include local, state and Commonwealth governments as well as representatives from the mining, pastoral, pearling, fishing, bee-keeping, telecommunications and many other industries.

The fact that these parties usually don’t know, or interact with, each other complicates the mediation process. Parties might not have been in dispute with each other, but the native title claim brings them into a potential conflict.

Claims can overlap with neighbouring claim areas, and any such disputes need to be resolved. About 45% of claims in 2008 had areas that overlapped with other claims [29].

If more than one Aboriginal group are claiming native title disagreements between Aboriginal groups can delay or even derail native title claims. One group might decide to lodge their own claim or disagree with the other group’s decision, and claims might have to go back to the drawing board, taking many more years to be resolved.

Splits might also cause disagreements between families who have relatives on both sides [6], creating an environment for lateral violence.

If elders’ views conflict with the agenda of others they might be deliberately excluded from native title deliberations [32].

Disagreements between Aboriginal parties sometimes split families “forever” [32]. Families who stuck by each other for generations are no longer on talking terms because of the conflict that has emanated from native title disputes.

In rare cases evidence found during research for a native title claim can lead to an Aboriginal group taking on a new identity [36]. This shows how ancestral knowledge got lost in the process of dispossession.

Public notice listing many Aboriginal ancestors eligible to be a party of a native title claim. Public native title notice (detail) with a list of people whose descendants are eligible to become a party of the claim [31].

Little or no protection from mining companies

There is no requirement for a company exploring for resources to approach traditional Aboriginal owners directly if native title has not been determined for the area [38].

Hence local people sometimes know about the potential for minerals exploration from newspaper advertisements.

But even if native title exists it is no guarantee mining cannot start on the land. As the online news site The Stringer puts it [39]:

“The Native Title Act is set up in such a way that both parties must enter into ‘good faith’ negotiations and hopefully come to a mutually beneficial deal within six months.

“If this fails you can count on the mining still going ahead. You can also count on the National Native Title Tribunal in granting the various licences required by the resource company and you can count on the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations to stand idly by.”

Lengthy process

Even if there is just one party making a claim and everyone acknowledges that they are the right people it is still difficult to settle claims and ‘straightforward’ claims can take a decade or more to reach an outcome [7].

Since both state and federal governments are involved in the native title process they wait for each other and exchange blame [8]. On average it takes 6 years to finalise a contested native title claim [4].

The first native title claim ever lodged (in 1994) was settled in November 2010 [22].

“One of the main reasons resolutions are delayed is the time it takes to prepare and assess the ‘connection’ material needed to show claimants’ links to their traditional land or waters,” says National Native Title Tribunal President Graeme Neate [9].

Even if a judgement by a single judge has been made it might not be the final word. In April 2008 the Full Court unanimously found that a judge had not applied the correct legal analysis in his interim decision. It sent the case back to a single judge for further hearing—almost 13 years after the first native title claim had been lodged [30].

From 1993 to 2011 around 1,300 claims were lodged, but only 121 native title determinations resulted, covering just over 10% of the land mass at a cost to the taxpayer of over $900 million dollars [21].

Amongst the most vociferous [vigorous] opponents to native title are the governments. They're the ones who in part are responsible for the huge cost of it because they prolong the litgation.—Prof Mick Dodson, Aboriginal leader [23]

Map of land subject to native title applications in Australia. Map of land subject to native title applications in Australia in 2010 [10]. It takes an average of six years to process each, and over 420 applications were still due in April 2010.

Map of land where native title has been determined. Map of land where native title has been found to exist in 2010 [10]. Note the few native title determinations in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia’s most densely populated states, and the absence of any determination in urban areas populated by non-Indigenous people.

Compensation

$54.4b
Australian coal exports in 2009 [37].
$34.2b
Australian iron ore exports in 2009 [37].
$17.5b
Australian gold exports in 2009 [37].
$738,000
Sum the Dunghutti nation was given by the government in 1997 as compensation for the surrender of native title. This payment was followed by $1.6 million in 2010 [17].
80
Number of houses built on the 12.4 hectares of land surrendered by the Dunghutti [17].
A cartoon showing two traditional Aboriginal men standing in front of a judge's desk. The judge suggests: How about a compromise? We keep the land, the mineral rights…and we'll acknowledge you as the traditional owners! A land rights compromise many mining companies would like to have. Commodity values are estimated in the billions, yet compensation is often tokenstic.

Many Aboriginal people live on land rich in resources which will bring wealth for Australia, but delivers little for its Indigenous peoples.

A common misconception is that Aboriginal people receive millions of dollars “for nothing” just because mining companies set up camp on their land.

Compensation is what the government owes Aboriginal people when it acquires an area of their traditional country, in a similar way as any private homeowner would be compensated if their property was compulsorily acquired for, say, a main road development [11].

Sometimes governments abrogate their responsibility to deliver basic services including health, housing and education in lieu of compensation payments which is wrong, says Indigenous Professor Marcia Langton [12].

“Compensation provisions have never been used successfully,” says Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Tom Calma [1]. The problem is that native title can easily be extinguished, it is impossible to ‘revive’ extinguished title, and there’s a lack of either a right of veto or a statutory entitlement to any royalties from mining [13].

Private payments negotiated with mining companies allow these access to traditional lands.

Some mining companies believe that the Native Title Act aims to benefit all Aboriginal people, but this is not the case. It’s only the traditional owners of that particular land who are entitled to compensation.

Mining companies are making millions of dollars profit each year operating on Aboriginal land. Between 1988 and 2008 it is estimated that the minerals industry has contributed some $500 billion into the Australian economy [14].

Companies are not required to pay a minimum return from their mining profits to Aboriginal people, and some mining companies pay as little as 0.25% of their gross revenue to traditional Aboriginal owners [10].

There has not been one successful compensation claim.—Tom Calma, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner [15]

No trust in the process

During a native title processAboriginal land councils negotiate with government.

But many Aboriginal people do not trust these negotiations [42]. Sometimes “they have received so little coherent information about the offer and the negotiation process that they are… apathetic,” says Aboriginal Elder John Pell of Western Australia [42]. “I venture to say that three quarters of the Noongar peoples no longer care and that 90 per cent of Noongars will not vote [on the native title case].”

Selective reporting in mainstream media adds to the confusion. Papers and broadcasters focus on the government’s position and supporters but fail to give enough voice to dissenters, probably because it takes more effort to get their voices.

Aboriginal Legal Service CEO and former NAIDOC person of the year, Dennis Eggington, says that “the claimant groups are made-up boundaries. Native title legislation bounds claims and the problem I have with that is that at an international level native title has been found to be discriminatory.” [42] Land councils should not accept native title, according to Mr Eggington. But in the absence of anything better, Land Councils have little choice.

Financial issues

Native title monies paid to Aboriginal groups are eyed on by many parties—Aboriginal council members but also a plethora of lawyers and experts assisting the native title process.

Up to 80% of funds lost to experts

Most of the resources for the historic Yorta Yorta native title claim (1994-2006) were “syphoned off by what became the bourgeoning ‘native title industry’”, a multitude of lawyers and experts who “quickly emerged from the Mabo decision, 1992” [18].

According to Dr Wayne Atkinson, Senior Fellow at the University of Melbourne, “only a small portion of the substantive funds allocated to assist native title holders in mounting their claims ever got to [them]”. The majority, estimated to be “at least” 80 per cent, was paid to “members of the industry” [18].

You know what blackfellas right across this country use Mabo as an acronym for? Money Available, Barristers Only — because they’re the only ones benefitting from the system.—Michael Anderson, Aboriginal lawyer [40]

$37.5m
Money allocated for the resolution of native title claims in Victoria [18].
$7.2m
Portion of that money (less than 20%) which flowed to traditional owners to help them mount their claims and organise community participation [18].
$5.4m
Sum native title costs the Victorian government each year. [18].
$900m
Cost of the native title process to the taxpayer from 1983 to 2011. [21].

Many involved in native title hold the view that those benefiting from the system may intentionally prolong native title proceedings rather than seek their resolution [18].

Inner-council battles

No matter if Aboriginal groups received compensation or private payments, those payments might be a challenge to administer.

An Aboriginal council who received compensation payments has been reported to have “lost” a sum of more than A$500,000, bringing it to the edge of receivership [17]. Some of these monies were spent on inner-council battles over council membership as not everyone is admitted to the council and must prove that they are of that particular tribe’s descent.

Few benefits from native title deals

Les Malezer, Chairperson of the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action (FAIRA) in Brisbane, Queensland, criticises the native title system for its failure to deliver for Aboriginal people [16].

“If Koiki Mabo were alive today he would be an angry man,” says Mr Malezer. “The rights he won in the High Court have been eroded away by government, courts and socio-economic pressure.”

“The current system has not achieved good outcomes in land rights. The native title debates have been so constrained that we have been left holding a process which does not work.”

“It is a process that has been proven to be racially discriminatory, removed from the principles of land rights which has totally replaced the land rights agenda of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”

The current legal arrangements in native title have the effect of obscuring the agents of dispossession and blaming the victims.—Brian Wyatt, chair of the National Native Title Council [8]

An independent study found that only about 25% of native title agreements deliver “very substantial” outcomes for Aboriginal people, albeit with “enormous variations” [35]. About half of the agreements had only “little” benefits. All weaker agreements were negotiated under the Native Title Act and should not have been signed.

“Land-use agreements generally involve sacrifice of native title rights and heritage values supposedly in return for certain benefits,” says Greens Senator Rachel Siewert [35], “however, where Aboriginal communities lack the capacity to negotiate these complex agreements or to ensure that they are enforced, they simply are not delivering.”

Many of the people living under [the resources boom's] shadow continue to live in third world conditions.—Rachel Siewert, Greens Senator [35]

Biased arbitration process

The arbitration process offered by the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) is flawed. The process is favouring mining companies and seriously disadvantages Aboriginal people.

Research shows that the Tribunal demanded more stringent standards of proof from Aboriginal groups than from companies [34], a problem that might be rooted in the Tribunal being government-appointed and not independent. Governments in Australia have great interest in supporting mining operations.

In 17 cases arbitrated by the NNTT under the Native Title Act, not one single mine was rejected. In 10 of the cases, no conditions were imposed on mining companies and only minimal conditions in the others [33].

The negotiating period for native title claims is 6 months. Companies know that at the end of a failed negotiation process they can go to the Tribunal and request that the mining lease be issued and the project go ahead regardless of Aboriginal stakeholders.

The NNTT is not permitted to consider awarding Aboriginal groups money towards the value of minerals taken from their land, which creates pressure on Aboriginal groups to reach an agreement outside of arbitration [34].

Indigenous interests are placed as secondary to the interests of mining activities, even when those activities have dubious economic benefits to the miner and the wider community.—Paul Simmons, Senior Solicitor at Native Title Services Ltd, Victoria [34]

No veto rights

The Native Title Act contains no right of veto for Aboriginal people when mining companies intend to open mines on Aboriginal land, leaving them without benefits and a destroyed environment.

As a result, the incentive to reach an agreement is compelling and puts a lot of pressure on Aboriginal parties involved in negotiations.

“Leigh Creek mine, for example, has had an enormous detrimental effect on our culture,” explains Vince Coulthard, Adnyamathanha, chairman of the Traditional Lands Association [27]. “They have dug up a very sacred site and made a huge environmental disaster and we have had no benefits at all from that mine.”

“There’s a lot of misinformation about this issue, but in reality Aboriginal people are very disempowered in this country and native title does not give us the right of veto of any mine.”

As a result Aboriginal people have to go into negotiations to get the best possible outcomes, Vince says.

People occasionally draw adverse conclusions from claimants’ seeming willingness to ‘make deals’ with developers, but they have no choice. There is virtually no ability to stop a project.

Compulsory acquisition

It can take decades for Aboriginal people to have their native title claims acknowledged, but it only takes a few days for their land to be compulsorily acquired by the government.

Australian governments are lobbied a lot by the resource industry and ever too willing to follow temptation, or money. Aboriginal rights to land come secondary.

In late 2010 the West Australian government served notice on traditional owners to compulsorily acquire land so that a commercial mining company could develop a processing plant for liquefied natural gas.

National Native Title Council Chief Executive Officer Brian Wyatt called on the federal government for help. “The action of the WA government in the Kimberley is sending a message to Aboriginal people that you don’t have to negotiate in good faith and your rights are protected only when it suits the government,” he said. [19]

Stealing land from the Aborigines! I'd love to know how many times Australia has been stolen. Surely it must be the most stolen country in the world! And not just content with stolen land, they want to steal our children, our wages, our cultures, our identities, our ancient artefacts, our severed heads, our everything really.—Phill Moncrieff, Aboriginal writer and musician [20]

Footnotes

View article sources (42)

[1] 'Mixed results on native title', Koori Mail 442, p.10
[2] 'Govt urged to amend native title legislation', Koori Mail 450 p.10
[3] 'First Australians', Miegunyah Press, 2008, p.XXIX
[4] 'Now might be the right moment for native title', Koori Mail 442 p.22
[5] 'Bringing parties together', Koori Mail 437 p.22
[6] 'Dispute a threat to Kimberley gas hub', Koori Mail 474 p.5
[7] 'Nyangumarta get their country back', Koori Mail 453 p.6
[8] 'The bitter taste of native title', NIT 10/7/2008 p.28
[9] 'Tribunal backs change', Koori Mail 447 p.10
[10] http://www.nntt.gov.au visit,ed 26/6/2010
[11] 'Native Title Council leader rejects 'warlords' claims', Koori Mail 473 p.22
[12] 'Warning over entitlements', Koori Mail 478 p.13
[13] 'Private Property', Sarah Burnside, http://www.newmatilda.com (accessed 1/8/2009)
[14] 'Benefits on the agenda', Koori Mail 441 p.8
[15] 'A few home truths, after Mabo', SMH 6/6/2009
[16] '650 delegates pack out MCG', Koori Mail 453 p.12
[17] 'Fortune in native title cash lost, group says', SMH 5/6/2010
[18] 'Native title gravy train', Koori Mail 484 p.26
[19] 'Native Title Council fears over WA plan', Koori Mail 485 p.4
[20] Email communication, 27/3/2011
[21] 'Keating speaks out again', Koori Mail 503 p.16
[22] 'First title claim win', Koori Mail 414 p.3
[23] 'Dodson in warning on justice', Koori Mail 403 p.9
[24] 'Links to land weather ravages of time', SMH 2/6/2012
[25] 'Judge says native title bar too high', Koori Mail 523 p.37
[26] 'Libraries play important role', Koori Mail 462 p.22
[27] 'Mine all-clear sparks anger', Koori Mail 456 p.14
[28] 'Focus on change', Koori Mail 428 p.13
[29] 'Putting native title in context', Koori Mail 428 p.22
[30] 'Litigation v negotiation', Koori Mail 426 p.22
[31] Koori Mail 426 p.16
[32] 'An historic day', Koori Mail 419 p.21
[33] 'Rights at risk', Koori Mail 397 p.6
[34] 'NNTT bias to miners - research', Koori Mail 396 p.14
[35] 'Title war of words', Koori Mail 394 p.8
[36] 'Ngunnawal or Ngambri?', Koori Mail 394 p.11
[37] Investor, Sun Herald 11/4/2010 p.42
[38] 'Rock art row: writing on wall if Gina Rinehart digs', The Australian 2/3/2013
[39] 'First Uranium mine in WA may mean 40 uranium mines by 2030', The Stringer, 3/4/2013, thestringer.com.au/first-uranium-mine-in-wa-may-mean-40-uranium-mines-by-2030, retrieved 5/4/2013
[40] 'Australia’s Aborigines Launch a Bold Legal Push for Independence', Time World 30/5/2013, world.time.com/2013/05/30/australias-aborigines-launch-a-bold-legal-push-for-independence
[41] 'The Native Title Act, 20 years on', SBS podcasts 28/2/2014
[42] 'Dissenting voices rise against single largest native title offer', The Stringer 16/5/2014

Cite this article

An appropriate citation for this document is:

www.CreativeSpirits.info,
Aboriginal culture - Land - Native title issues & problems, retrieved 21 September 2014