Thu 16 Aug 2007
Land rights before breakfast
Posted by jangari under Indigenous, Politics, The Intervention
[2] Comments
Mal Brough gave an address at the National Press Club yesterday in which he claimed that land rights have actually impoverished indigenous people in this country and that ‘communism’ – though certainly not in the political sense of the word – doesn’t work. You can read all about it here.
He is in effect blaming the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (ALRA) for the conditions in communities around the country, thereby mitigating himself and his government for the blatant inaction over the past eleven years and at the same time, providing a rationale under which to legitimately take apart the ALRA.
Of course, the gradual dismantling of the ALRA has been underway for some months now, probably since the government began bribing Tangentyere council to gain control over their town camps, something that continued with the coercive actions in having Nguiu council agree to similar conditions. But until now they’ve left themselves open to criticism for doing so. Now they can turn around and claim, since the ALRA has done nought but impoverish aboriginal people, that they are doing the right thing in getting rid of it.
We now have clear and unequivocal evidence that this entire debacle was about undermining land rights from the beginning, but until yesterday the government hasn’t grown the courage to ‘fess up to it. This of course became obvious for most of us, when all aspects of the intervention plan that would have any effect on the causes of the problem became swamped by those aspects that concerned land only. In their defence though, they couldn’t very well have come out from the beginning and said that the ALRA was their target, since that had nothing to do with the report at all and they wouldn’t have been able to hijack it use it as a justification.
Their solution?
Make it appear that the intervention is about kids being sacred and all the rest of it. Make it seem that their strategy will focus on stopping people from drinking and taking drugs. In the meantime, gradually introduce measures into the legislation that would enable the forcible seizure of land, and then ram the legislation through a Coalition-stacked parliament without due process, such as any form of debate, apart from a token one-day senate hearing, citing the imperative to act fast “when the safety of children is concerned”.
Do all that and you’ll have abolished land rights before breakfast.
2 Responses to “ Land rights before breakfast ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Long Road » Legislative ‘Debate’
August 17th, 2007 at 12:24 am[...] and coming clean about the real ‘problem’ for Aboriginal communities: land rights! See this post by Jangari. This administration, and all of the Ministers for Indigenous Affairs that have held the post under [...]

August 16th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Normalisation
Check out yesterday’s Hansard, and you can see why Tangentyere might be worried.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia) (11.59
pm)… Will the government guarantee that, if it exercises the power either to resume or forfeit the leases, they will then be used exclusively for the benefit of Aboriginal people and they will only be used for that?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister
for Community Services) (12.00 pm)—The intention would be that, if you would look at any other suburb in Australia, that would be the circumstances of the lease arrangements. It would be the same as Mawson or Belconnen in the Australia Capital Territory. There will be no difference. They will just be like normal suburbs.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia) (12.00 pm)—That provides the answer but it is not a satisfactory answer. In other words, you are making no guarantees when you take away these people’s land, because that is what you are doing. Let us be clear: that is why Tangentyere council and the members of that community said, ‘No, we won’t hand over the leases because we do not want to hand over the hard fought for control of our land.’ What you are saying—if I have interpreted you correctly, and again I am happy if I am
wrong—is that it will not now be for the benefit of Aboriginal people. You are going to treat those lands like any other suburb. That is what you just said. You have answered the question but it is a totally unsatisfactory answer and I think the community, when hearing that answer, will be extremely distressed. That is why they did not want to hand over the leases in the first place and it is why they said no. You would not negotiate; they were prepared to negotiate. What you have just said is exactly what they are scared of.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Community Services) (12.02 pm)—…I do not want to get into a debate about what is in the wider benefit, but I would have thought that, yes, it is normalisation. We stand by that. It will be just an ordinary place where people live, not a dark place that is completely different from the surrounding suburbs because of some particular difference in the way that it is governed.
—-
Elsewhere in it Scullion says that, of course if a traditional owner was being a nuisance the Government could throw the TO off the lease, and I think also that they could sublease the land to non-Aboriginal people and businesses.