Click here to return to the Articles and Opinion Pieces Index
Options for indigenous economic development
Opinion Piece by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner & Acting Race Discrimination Commissioner Mr Tom Calma
Published in The Canberra Times, 11 May 2005
The economic development of indigenous owned land has been a prominent issue debated in recent weeks. There have been various proposals to shift the ownership of indigenous land from community to individual control to further the economic progress of indigenous peoples. While this sounds good in theory, I am concerned that this debate has been oversimplified and several important issues inadequately addressed.
Firstly, land rights legislation already provides a range of options which allow indigenous people to lease their land to third parties. In NSW, Aboriginal Land Councils can sell Aboriginal-owned land if they have the agreement of most of the members of the council. In the Northern Territory, under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 traditional land is inalienable but can be leased back to the Commonwealth and Territory governments, Aboriginal organisations or even individuals.
In Queensland, inalienable freehold land is granted usually to Community Councils. This land can be leased to an Aboriginal person from the area, the Crown or another person. The existing options balance flexibility, in allowing indigenous communal land to be used to generate capital, with important checks and balances, and tries to ensure that traditional land is not traded away without careful consideration.
The regional and state land councils play a critical role in the system of checks and balances, ensuring communal consultation and informed deliberation before land is leased or sold. Native title on the other hand, rarely provides traditional owners with full ownership of land due to extinguishment or suppression by rights to use land held by others (for example, a pastoral lease or a national park). Traditional rights often include the right to hunt, fish and use the natural resources of an area.
But native title rights which may have commercial value, such as the right to make decisions about the use of land or control access to land, have been dramatically curtailed by the High Court, and are not supported by the Native Title Act. Where native title holders do have exclusive possession rights to land, they could lease land for home ownership through an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. Clearly, it is not necessary to amend existing legislation to facilitate home ownership or raise capital.
The second issue is whether the creation of capital by the sale of indigenous lands will be linked to the development of capacity to manage this capital and gain ongoing, sustainable outcomes from it. Because if it isn't, many Aboriginal communities may lose their land to short-term gains or through foreclosure, and money generated by selling or mortgaging land alone is unlikely to address the underlying social and economic problems in indigenous communities. Economic and social development in indigenous communities is the crucial first step in improving wellbeing, but opportunities for generating economic development from traditional lands have not yet been adequately explored in the current debate.
Many indigenous communities have already devised imaginative ways of generating economic development from their traditional lands and resources. The Northern Land Council assists communities in commercial customary harvesting of wildlife, and the Torres Strait Regional Authority is developing aquaculture and commercial fishing opportunities for traditional owners. Other options include using traditional lands for tourism and national parks, land management, airstrips and small enterprises.
However, these projects can be undermined at times by the failure to allow traditional owners commercial rights and interests in land through the allocation of commercial licences. Land rights need to be accompanied by resource rights which can generate income. Governments at all levels need to first consider supporting these options, and meeting their obligations for the provision of adequate services to communities, to demonstrate a genuine commitment to economic development in indigenous communities.
Finally, the spiritual and cultural importance of our land has been ignored in this debate and the voices of traditional owners from around the country are conspicuously absent. Real, engaged dialogue with traditional owners is urgently needed if this debate is to be credible and meet the human right standard of prior and informed consent.
Tom Calma is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.
Last updated 18 July 2005.
