Page 1792 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to the 1988 celebrations. To make sure that the ACT is as fully involved in the celebrations as possible and works closely with the Commonwealth Government, my department is shortly to convene an interdepartmental committee to develop a program of activity leading to 2001, with the aim of maximising any opportunities open to the ACT.
In relation to the issue of Commonwealth-State roles and responsibilities, COAG noted that there was an increasing propensity for the respective roles of governments to become blurred, impacting on the efficient and effective delivery of government services. As a result, it was agreed that a working group would be established to consider existing intergovernmental arrangements and to identify where overlap may exist and clarification of roles and responsibilities is needed. All jurisdictions will be represented on the working group, which will report back to the next meeting of COAG, identifying areas where initial progress can be made.
Turning to the most critical issue addressed by COAG last week, I am disappointed to have to advise the Assembly today that the Council of Australian Governments was unable to settle upon a national approach to the implications of the High Court's Mabo decision. Action at a national level is needed if the disadvantage and dispossession of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples throughout Australia is to be comprehensively addressed. The Mabo decision is not about just land administration issues. To treat it as such would ignore the needs and disadvantages faced by dispossessed Aboriginal people for whom the Mabo decision will have no bearing - the people whose native title has been wholly extinguished since white settlement. Rather, the High Court's decision requires governments throughout Australia to consider every aspect of the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that members would find it useful if I were to outline some of the key elements of the Mabo ruling. In June 1992 the High Court held in the Mabo decision that the common law of Australia recognises a form of native title. The court rejected the view that Australia was "terra nullius", that is, land belonging to no-one, at the time of European settlement. The court rejected the view that land was vested at that time in the Crown. Instead, the court held that native title rights survived settlement in circumstances where indigenous peoples have maintained their connection with the land and where the title has not been extinguished by actions of government, such as legislation or the granting of freehold title over the land. Further, the court found that the content of native title - the rights which it contains - is to be determined according to the traditional laws and customs of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples involved.
The Mabo decision establishes a new entitlement to land founded on the place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the original owners of the continent. Due to the provisions of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, which came into effect in 1975, land legislation and land management procedures put in place subsequent to the Act and which have not recognised native title, or have treated such title less favourably than other forms of land title, may give rise to a claim for compensation by native titleholders. In addition, land legislation and land management procedures currently in operation throughout Australia will need to be reviewed to ensure that they recognise the rights of native titleholders and that they treat such rights appropriately.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .