By Margaret Gardiner
In recent times Prime Minister John Howard has spoken out against the "black armband" view of Australia's history. He seems to prefer that the shameful and sorry treatment of Aboriginal peoples at the hands of Europeans be hidden away, that we ignore our history or pretend it never happened.
Guilt is not the most useful of emotions. But the dispossession of Aboriginal people is not an occurrence consigned to the past.
Aboriginal peoples are dispossessed every time a gate is locked, preventing them access to their lands, their law grounds, their ancestors' burial places, and every time they are asked to prove their Aboriginality, their beliefs and their spiritual connection to the land in a white man's court, to access the little land that hasn't already been sold to others.
Australia's prime minister of 1997 cannot be held directly responsible for what occurred more than 200 years ago. But Howard cannot overlook his direct involvement if his proposed amendments to the Native Title Act go ahead. These aim to strip Aborigines of their rights in order to satisfy the economic interests of pastoralists and shore up the support of the rural constituency. Dispossession to suit political pragmatism has been a common theme in the history of Aboriginal-non-Aboriginal relations.
While these proposed amendments are of grave concern to Aboriginal peoples, they should also be everybody's business.
Around 42% of Australia is under pastoral lease, held by about 9000 leaseholders. These lands are crown lands but are leased to pastoralists to graze cattle or sheep, often at peppercorn rates. That is, they rent the grass.
If these leases are converted to freehold title, the government will be participating in the wholesale dispossession of native title holders and giving away nearly half the continent to a mere 0.05% of the population for virtually nothing.
Of more concern is that many of these cattle stations are controlled by absentee landlords. The sultan of Brunei, the world's richest man, already runs more than 1 million hectares of Australia as cattle enterprises.
The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) claims it needs exclusive title to pastoral lands for the sake of certainty. Its media campaign tries to show that Aborigines are suddenly taking pastoralists' lands and their right to earn a living. This is cynical opportunism. Pastoralists have always know they don't have exclusive title to stations, and for years they've been seeking upgraded title through perpetual leases.
Throughout the post-Wik debate Aboriginal negotiators have tried to address pastoralists' concerns by offering conciliation and negotiation. The High Court's Wik decision made it clear pastoralists' and Aboriginal rights co-exist, but pastoralists' rights prevail in instances where there is conflict.
Aboriginal negotiators have said many times that they are willing to work with the prime minister and other stakeholders to legislatively clarify and confirm that pastoral activities are rights inherent in pastoral leases while ensuring protection of sacred sites and the non-extinguishment of native title rights.
Aboriginal peoples don't want to jeopardise cattle operations. The economic future of pastoralists affects the security of whole regions — including Aboriginal people.
Aborigines understand pastoralists' concerns — about gates being left open, the need to control fires and the use of firearms — and are prepared to talk about them. But pastoralists must also give Aboriginal people some assurance about our concerns — access to our ancestors' places, significant sites, fishing and hunting spots and our ability to fully undertake our inherent responsibility to care for country.
Systematic extinction of native title, as the NFF advocates, would destroy the opportunities for reconciliation through negotiated regional agreements about land use, access, economic development, environmental and cultural protection.
Throughout the native title debate, Aboriginal people have been fair and accommodating short of abrogating their right to assert their cultural responsibility to protect their country. If the law is changed to deny this right, Aboriginal people will use every legal means to assert their rights. Invariably, this will mean long and costly litigation — denying the certainty that industry is seeking. It will also affect Australia's international standing and reputation on human rights.
Aboriginal people advocate negotiation, sitting down and talking to find shared and just solutions to common problems. Wik and native title offer us an opportunity to address past wrongs and find new ways of living and working together.
We live in an Australia where it is no longer acceptable to pretend that Aboriginal people don't exist; that we don't have rights; and that the only history to be told is a white history.
If Mr Howard takes the National Party and NFF view and extinguishes native title rights over pastoral properties, he will be participating in the greatest dispossession of Aboriginal peoples since 1788. For that, history will not judge him kindly.
[Abridged from Yarmbler, Mirimbiak Nations Aboriginal Corporation magazine. Margaret Gardiner is the acting chief executive officer of the MNAC.]