Page 1768 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: They say:
If a lease be granted, the lessee acquires possession and the Crown acquires the reversion ...
Therefore the title goes. Why we are discussing Namadgi is this: Most of this area around Canberra was intensively settled by European occupation from about the 1830s onward. Many members would have read some of the early history of this region. It was extensively settled by pastoral interests, and leases or freehold were granted over extensive areas of the ACT. The area which was not extensively covered by leasehold or freehold grant is much of the area of Namadgi National Park. That is also the area where the strongest links can be drawn for such continuing links with the land as would satisfy a Mabo decision. The court does not simply say that any Aboriginal group can claim land. The court says that if a group can demonstrate a continuing and ongoing traditional link with land they may still have title, provided it has not otherwise been extinguished.
Given that the vast bulk of the rest of the ACT and the surrounding New South Wales area subject to this claim was dealt with by way of leasehold and freehold title from as early as the 1830s, Namadgi is different in that it was an area substantially not dealt with - unalienated Crown land under New South Wales administration, transferring to unalienated Crown land under Commonwealth administration on the transfer in 1914, and now unleased Territory land or, indeed, national park land consequent upon self-government. So it satisfies the possible Mabo test as land that has not otherwise been dealt, even by lease, Mr Humphries, in stark distinction from much of the rest of the ACT.
It also may satisfy the traditional link tests, provided a claimant can establish those links, and there are substantial hurdles for a claimant to go through. It is, I think, common ground in the ACT that there are a number of Aboriginal groups who would claim such links. The current claim represents a claim by one such group, but other Aboriginal groups may make different claims. It is very unlikely, given the Mabo reasoning and the distinction between that group's links and current groups' links, that a claim would be successful. Namadgi National Park does represent the most likely area where, if any group could establish the traditional links, they would be likely to have some chance of being successful.
Mr Westende said, "Would the Government entertain such a claim or seek negotiations on such a claim?". As I think Ms Follett has made clear throughout, our approach to Mabo is that it offers an opportunity for reconciliation between Aboriginal Australia and us who are the descendants of later settlers to Australia. This Government would, of course, be interested in any way of settling those matters, including negotiation. We are approaching Mabo as an opportunity for reconciliation and unity in Australia over one of our most divisive issues. It is very sad to see members opposite attempting to exploit this issue, to strike fear into the hearts of ordinary good Canberra citizens; trying to suggest that some Aboriginal group is going to come along and claim their backyard, or claim their commercial lease, or claim their agricultural lease. The sort of fearmongering that you people are engaging in - a sort of poor relation of a Peter Cochran, Western Australian National approach - does not reflect credit on you, and you should desist in this divisive approach. I guess that the thing about the Liberals is that they always have to have someone to divide the community against. It is sad that you are now picking on Aboriginals.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .