Page 1767 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the land, and those links to the land can survive the acquisition by the Crown of paramount sovereignty. The court has drawn the distinction between the Crown acquiring land as sovereign and the Crown acquiring ownership of the land. That is the important point in the Mabo decision; a point which most right-thinking Australians, I think, would accept. I would find it inconceivable that members of the Liberal Party would advance the proposition - - -
Ms Follett: Don't bet on it.
MR CONNOLLY: Ms Follett, perhaps I have an optimistic view of human nature. I could not believe that members opposite would quibble with that proposition, although I note that some Liberal Premiers have, and I note that Peter Cochran has. The consequences of that decision have to be worked out. There are several ways of working out those consequences. One is the way that Ms Follett has outlined. The other is the way that Peter Cochran, your colleague from across the border, outlined on the ABC the other afternoon. He was saying that his constituents may have to use violence to defend their farms against Aborigines. What a shameful and contemptible statement by a politician! But it is typical, I fear, of the campaign the conservatives seem to be running to get fear and loathing running in the community about this Mabo decision.
Mr Humphries: That is beneath you, Terry. That is garbage.
MR CONNOLLY: I am pleased to hear opposite very strong condemnation of Mr Cochran's comments. That shows, Madam Speaker, that there is some hope yet for some ACT Liberals. What the court said then was that the acquisition of sovereignty means that that original native title can survive. The court noted, though - the relevant passage is at page 50 of the ALR decision - that as a matter of fact most of that title has disappeared in Australia. I read from the decision of Justice Brennan, who delivered what is regarded as the majority judgment, acquiesced in by two others:
As the governments of the Australian Colonies and, latterly, the governments of the Commonwealth, States and Territories have alienated or appropriated to their own purposes most of the land in this country during the last 200 years, the Australian Aboriginal peoples have been substantially dispossessed of their traditional lands.
He then goes on to say how that could occur and he makes the point very clearly that if that occurs by leasehold they have lost. The judgment at page 49 says:
If a lease be granted, the lessee acquires possession and the Crown acquires the reversion expectant on the expiry of the term. The Crown's title is thus expanded from the mere radical title and, on the expiry of the term, becomes a plenum dominium.
That is Latin for "full or total title". That is to say that the court has said that the granting of the lease, let alone the granting of freehold, can have the effect of rubbing out that - - -
Mr Humphries: Might have the effect.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .