Page 1090 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Cedric Jacobs continued:
This group, consisting in part of desert Aborigines, suggests that Aborigines should be eligible for some form of encouragement to own their own family homes on freehold title, at least until the proportion of Aborigines who own their own homes approximates the proportion of other Australians who own their own homes. The demand is not for endless hand-outs, but a proposal to assist Aborigines to reach the existing Australian standards, and then scale down or phase out such assistance except as such assistance is available for all Australians aspiring to their own homes.
Graeme Campbell has spoken strongly on various matters to do with Aboriginals. Graeme is the Federal member of parliament for Kalgoorlie, the largest electorate in the world. It is one of the most, if not the most, heavily populated Aboriginal electorates in Australia. The Northern Territory comes into that category as well. Mr Campbell has said that in the last 20 years $25 billion of taxpayers' money has been given out as assistance to Aboriginal groups and trusts. That would equate, he says, to about $2 billion a year. If you look at the number of Aboriginals counted in the 1961 census, there were 84,470. By 1981 the number had increased to 159,897. Now it is claimed that there are about a quarter of a million. For a family of five, that would equate to $37,500 each year.
The problem here is that it is fairly obvious that Aboriginals are not getting that money. A lot of it is being wasted with pet projects and schemes that do not get to Aboriginals, that do not help their health, do not help the employment situation, do not help the housing situation or the education of Aboriginals. This is a concern that I have. As I said, various aspects of the motion could be agreed with. I make no claim whatsoever to having an understanding of the group mentioned in the motion. I am concerned about some groups and what is being done in this area, for I think that in many cases, or most cases, it is not being done to benefit Aboriginals. I think it is being done to centralise power.
The Labor Party model for Aboriginal land in Australia is 50 per cent of the continent. So far, 15 per cent of Australia is controlled by Aboriginal groups and trusts. That is an enormous percentage. One particular tract of land is larger than Portugal, and another is larger than Austria; but I do not see the benefits going to the average Aboriginal. Why is this? As I said, I think the motivations might be different. I think there may be some people who are more interested in gaining more collective power. I think the Mabo decision is one which will encourage collectivism in Aboriginal people. Individual home ownership, not group ownership, would be a far better situation.
The historian Geoffrey Blainey, in writing on the Mabo High Court decision, said:
The High Court itself, the Mabo Bill, and most press articles and media commentaries in the past three weeks assume that at least 98.5 per cent of Australia's population might have to lose rights for the sake of an important but tiny minority. But this is one nation, and all Australians should be equal in the eyes of the law.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .