Page 3471 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (10.47): Madam Speaker, the Native Title Bill 1994 is another important step in the process of reconciliation between indigenous Australians and the wider Australian community. The Bill is another initiative which demonstrates the commitment to addressing the social, economic and political disadvantages Aboriginal people experience in living in the ACT. In speaking at the in-principle stage of the debate on the Native Title Bill, I believe that it is appropriate to briefly review some of the key points of recent Australian history which have a bearing on this debate.
Mr Kaine mentioned that in 1982 Eddie Mabo, David Passi and James Rice - Meriam people from the Murray Islands - brought their land rights claim to the HighCourt which, of course, precipitated the 1992 High Court decision on the Mabo case. Following the election of the Federal Labor Government in 1983, numerous changes have been made in the area of Aboriginal affairs, including the introduction of self-determination for Aboriginal communities and the restructuring of administrative functions. While it could be argued that not all of these changes have been totally successful, on balance there has been substantial, albeit incremental, positive change. In 1991 the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was created by Federal Government legislation. More recently the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has also been created. Madam Speaker, I have highlighted these selected events to demonstrate the growing momentum for change to a more fair and equitable treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Having covered this background, I shall now turn to what must be seen as one of the most critical points in this process of change. I refer, of course, to the 1992 decision of the High Court in the native title or Mabo case. This decision effectively overruled the doctrine of terra nullius and, in a judgment of over 200 pages, identified four key principles on which native title claims would need to be based to be successful. These principles are the need, firstly, for native ownership to exist and not to have been extinguished; secondly, for the Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders making the claim to show a close connection with the land being claimed; thirdly, for the Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders making the claim to show a continued observance and acknowledgment of their own laws and customs, and, fourthly, for the Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders to be survived by at least one member of their clan or group.
This watershed decision was the cause of substantive debate throughout the Australian community. It was clear that government action was needed to establish a balance between the native title rights of our indigenous people and the rights granted since settlement to landholders of all kinds. In recognition of the need to clarify this situation, the Federal Government undertook a process of extensive discussion and consultation with the broad Australian community before introducing the Commonwealth's Native Title Bill in 1993.
Madam Speaker, the Commonwealth Native Title Act has four key aspects in dealing with the issues raised by the decision of the High Court on the native title case in 1992. These are the recognition and protection of native title; the validation of past acts, including grants and laws, if they have been invalidated because of the existence of native title; a regime governing future grants and acts affecting native title; and tribunal and court processes for determining claims to native title and for negotiation and decisions on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .