Queers for
reconciliation
float
One of the first actions of Queers for Reconciliation
was to write to the Vice-Chancellor of Sydney University to ask him to
acknowledge the cultural significance of Victoria Park (it was an important
corroboree site and is next door to the University), to fly the aboriginal
flag and to guarantee that funding to the Koori Education Centre would
be maintained.
The new group is still waiting ion a reply but it
shows what queer groups can do to further the process of reconciliation.
They are now working on a float for the Mardi Gras
parade and has invited people to get involved.
"A lot of people responded very positively to the
Pauline Hanson float last year," said Queers for Reconciliation spokeswoman,
Gina Laurie. "That float took up a dangerous political phenomenon and satirised
it."
Laurie said that while a float in the parade would
not change the world, it was important to get the message out. "Reconciliation
is a very important issue," she said. "And I feel like we are running out
of time to get it right."
While the final form the float will take has not
yet been decided, the group has already dispensed with the idea of a burning
effigy of John Howard. "We thought about putting his head on the body of
a giant prawn and throwing the shrimp on the barbie," said Laurie.
"But it is too easy to come up with negative images.
We want to come up with a positive image that celebrates reconciliation."
Laurie said her queer identity was tied up with making
connections with all sorts of groups on various issues.
"I can't wait to be in the parade under the banner
of Queers for Reconciliation," she said.
"I would love it if the whole parade marched under
that banner."
A queer
guide to Mabo
Wik and Native
Title
When worrying about Wik it is important to remember
that the High Court expressly ruled that when there is a conflict between
the rights of native title claimants and pastoral leaseholders, the rights
of pastoralists prevail.
The decisions should be seen in the context of how
little they give to indigenous Australians and how much they guarantee
for white landholders.
What did the
Mabo High Court
decision mean?
In the Mabo decision, the High Court held that Australian
common law recognises a form of native title to land.
The Court rejected the notion of terra nullius (land
belonging to no-one).
The Mabo decision did not create a new form of land
title, instead it more explicitly recognised existing legal rights.
To make a native title claim, indigenous people have
to prove that they have a relationship to that land; prove that the connection
has been main- tained (which makes it nearly impossible for the members
of the stolen generations) and that their native title rights have not
already been extinguished. The Mabo decision did not grant any land to
indigenous people nor did it grant any new rights, it merely recognised
rights which already existed under common law.
What is
the Native Title
Act?
The Native Title Act was drafted to give legal expression
to the Mabo decision. It came into force on January 1, 1994.
The Act validates past grants of interests in land
or water that would otherwise have been invalidated by the Mabo decision.
The Act established the National Native Title Tribunal
which rules on native title claims. It created a Land Fund that can allocate
money to help indigenous Australians to acquire and manage land.
In some cases where indigenous people are able to
prove native title, but they cannot exercise those native title rights,
compensation can be paid to them.
The Native Title Act grants indigenous people the
right to negotiate over land use. This is not a right of veto.
What did the
Wik High Court
decision mean?
Again, the Wik decision did not grant any land or
special rights to indigenous Australians.
What it did was rule that the Federal Court was wrong
when it said that the Wik and Thayorre people had no right to claim native
title to the land, because a pastoral lease had also been granted on the
land. The court ruled that pas- toral leases did not auto- matically extinguish
native title.
The High Court instead ruled that native title could
co-exist with pastoral leases - in other words pastoralists and indigenous
people could share the land.
However, where there was a conflict the rights of
the pastoral leaseholder would prevail over the native title holder.
What is Howard's
ten-point plan
all about?
The ten-point plan is racist. It would extinguish
only those property rights held by indigenous people.
Instead of promoting co-existence between native title
holders and pastoral lease holders, the ten-point plan would extinguish
most native title rights.
The ten-point plan would also extinguish native title
on public land even when there was little or no conflict between the public
use and native title uses.
It would allow the Federal Government to validate hundreds
of unlawful mining licenses and pastoral leases.
Native title rights which are inconsistent with pastoralists
rights would be extinguished forever on all land which has ever been pastoral
leasehold.
It also severely curtails the capacity of indigenous
groups to claim compensation for lost native title rights.
The rights of indigenous people to negotiate would be
gutted, leaving traditional owners little ability to protect their heritage.
|
