Recognising Native Title
One of the key challenges for the Australian community is to achieve reconciliation for its Indigenous
population: Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Recognising Native Title, or the
original land rights of the first inhabitants of this nation, is a major challenge and responsibility for our
nation. Native title is the formal acknowledgement that our ways were unfairly imposed on the
Indigenous peoples following British arrival in 1788. The arrival of the British led to the removal of
basic rights of citizenship, land rights and human rights for these peoples. Geographers look at a
range of community issues such as these in order to suggest how the demographics, features and
social organisation of Indigenous communities may be greatly improved. This would allow the
Indigenous population to respond more positively and productively to change in our society. See
image 1
Community harmony through reconciliation
A key way to achieve reconciliation is to understand and remedy the causes of social and economic
disadvantage in our society. The Indigenous population is at a disadvantage to other Australian
communities because of the unfair, even racist, policies of the past. Until the 1960s, Indigenous
peoples were treated as non-citizens. They had no voting rights, no adequate education nor
satisfactory employment prospects. There was no recognition of prior land rights (pre-existing native
title). Reconciliation involves recognising these past wrongs and putting new policies in place, such as
recognition of native title, to remedy the shameful consequences.
Recognising native title
In 1991 a formal structure for recognising native title and reconciliation was initiated by the then
Federal Labor Government, with the formation of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. Its aim was
to create policy strategies and principles for steering the path towards reconciliation and it was to
complete these by 2001. These guidelines would be a formal acknowledgement of the Indigenous
peoples' past occupation and rights on the Australian continent. The guidelines would also recognise
that past governments had unfairly dispossessed the Indigenous peoples of their land. The council's
recommendations would represent a timeline of action for reconciliation rather than a series of formal
processes meaning that government will and community support were needed to make reconciliation
a reality.
The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was significant because it employed 25 leading
representatives from the Indigenous community. Together, they defined reconciliation and consulted
large portions of the Australian and Indigenous community to raise awareness and build support for
the cause. The Report 'Reconciliation: Australia's Challenge' (2000) was a genuine achievement and
a community commitment to reconciliation. It included two documents: the 'Australian Declaration
Towards Reconciliation' and the 'Roadmap for Reconciliation'.
Early steps towards recognising native title
Before the Council commenced its work in 1991, there had been a series of important steps towards
recognising native title and indigenous occupation and land rights prior to 1788. There has been
formal recognition that previous governments forcefully and unlawfully removed many Indigenous
children from their natural parents - referred to as the stolen generations - between 1911 until as late
as the 1970s. In 1962 the Indigenous population attained Commonwealth voting rights (State voting
rights in 1965) and in 1967 Indigenous people were officially counted in the Census. These were
steps towards genuine citizenship rights.
In 1972, the Woodward Land Rights Royal Commission and the Aboriginal Tent Embassy were
established, and in 1975 the first legal land lease was issued to the Gurindji Indigenous people based
in the Northern Territory. The years 1975 to 1983 saw the issuing and application of the Racial
Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), an important legal process for ending racist treatment of Indigenous
peoples and upholding their legal and democratic rights as Australian citizens. In 1988, then Prime
Minister Bob Hawke issued the Barunga Satement, which was the first political recognition that a
treaty or pact (law or policy) for reconciliation was needed. See image 2
The legal myth of Terra Nullius: the Mabo and Wik cases
Mabo v State of Queensland (1992) 175 CLR 1 (Mabo) overturned Terra Nullius ('empty land'), which
was the statement of land claim made by European settlers when they invaded Australia in 1788. The
Mabo case was based on Eddie Mabo's landmark legal claim of unbroken title, meaning a historical
and unbroken connection to the island of the Mer Indigenous peoples. Mabo set a precedent for
future legal recognition of native title on at least 12 per cent that is crown or government land. See
animation 1
The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) was put in place for land claims on crown land where an ongoing
connection to the land could be legally proved. The Wik Peoples v the State of Queensland Ors; The
Thayorre People vs The State of Queensland Ors (1996) HCA 40 ('Wik'), produced an important
native title claim in Cape York. Wik potentially allowed for native title to co-exist with pastoral leases.
Although disputes or uncertainty would see the pastoralists' rights upheld, the 'right to negotiate'
would give Indigenous people some control over business ventures on their traditional land, such as
the application of limits or rules for mining or harvesting.
The road to reconciliation in 2006
Since the landmark legal decisions of Mabo and Wik, there has arguably been limited or symbolic
progress toward reconciliation and recognition of native title. The 1997 stolen generations federal
government inquiry report 'Bringing them Home', proposed a 10-point plan in response to Wik, which
weakened the land rights of the Indigenous population. 1998 brought a reduction in native title rights
as specified in the Native Title Act 1993 (which was criticised by the United Nations Committee for the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination). On a positive note, in 2000 the wider Australian community
staged a peaceful protest walk to say 'sorry' for the actions of past governments and to tell its
governments that it wanted to see genuine progress towards achieving reconciliation. See image 3
There is still much to be done to implement reconciliation and to recognise native title. Key aspects of
the Council's recommendations have been sidelined. These aspects include: an apology to
Indigenous peoples for the actions of past governments, promotion of the concept of community selfdetermination, and the application of customary law.
It has been suggested that present decision makers could follow a 'road map' for reconciliation,
developed by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. This features four national strategies:
1. National Strategy to sustain the Reconciliation Process (educate the population about
reconciliation, develop a people's movement and formally recognise Council
recommendations)
2. National Strategy to Promote Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rights
(constitutional and legislative)
3. National Strategy to Overcome Disadvantage (related to education, work, housing, law)
4. National Strategy for Economic Independence
It has also been suggested that governments could develop a Treaty for Reconciliation. This would
involve constitutional recognition of past discrimination, present rights and past ownership and
occupation of the Australian continent. Our indigenous population deserves the full range of
citizenship rights (social and political) enjoyed by the wider Australian community. It also is
reasonable that we recognise and uphold Indigenous concepts of citizenship. Indigenous culture, for
example, is defined by a collective 'sense of community' and the extended family. Present and future
Australian governments must take the necessary actions to preserve and promote Indigenous
heritage and, through reconciliation, show a complete commitment to helping and developing
Indigenous communities. Several questions still remain, however. We know what reconciliation is and
when to do it, but how do we actually achieve reconciliation? Will the government and the wider
community support this process?
A Landmark moment in the Road to Reconciliation
The most defining moment to mark reconciliation efforts was ex PM Kevin Rudd's formal apology to
aboriginals on behalf of Australia. Kevin Rudd made an official apology on 13th February 2008. Below
is an excerpt of the apology:
To the stolen generations, I say the following:
as Prime Minister of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the government of Australia, I am
sorry. On behalf of the parliament of Australia, I am sorry. I offer you this apology without
qualification.
We apologise for the hurt, the pain and suffering that we, the parliament, have caused you
by the laws that previous parliaments have enacted. We apologise for the indignity, the
degradation and the humiliation these laws embodied.
We offer this apology to the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the families and
the communities whose lives were ripped apart by the actions of successive governments
under successive parliaments. In making this apology, I would also like to speak personally
to the members of the stolen generations and their families: to those here today, so many of
you; to those listening across the nation—from Yuendumu, in the central west of the
Northern Territory, to Yabara, in North Queensland, and to Pitjantjatjara in South Australia.
I know that, in offering this apology on behalf of the government and the parliament, there is
nothing I can say today that can take away the pain you have suffered personally. Whatever
words I speak today, I cannot undo that. Words alone are not that powerful; grief is a very
personal thing.
I ask those non-Indigenous Australians listening today who may not fully understand why
what we are doing is so important to imagine for a moment that this had happened to you. I
say to honourable members here present: imagine if this had happened to us. Imagine the
crippling effect. Imagine how hard it would be to forgive.
My proposal is this: if the apology we extend today is accepted in the spirit of reconciliation
in which it is offered, we can today resolve together that there be a new beginning for
Australia. And it is to such a new beginning that I believe the nation is now calling us.
The apology received tremendous support. The apology was not ‘merely' symbolic but has been
accepted widely as a statement of historic national significance. The broader community has greeted
the apology with relief, pride, gratitude and pleasure. Some people consider that 13 February 2008
was our finest day since the 26 January 1788 and there have been suggestions that we should move
Australia Day celebrations to this date which all of us can embrace