Bush Families and Native Title

• to possess, occupy, use and enjoy the "determination area";
• a right to make decisions about the use and enjoyment of the "determination area";
• right of access to the "determination area";
• the right to control the access of others to the "determination area";
• the right to use and enjoy resources of the "determination area";
• the right to control the use and enjoyment of others of resources of the "determination area";
• the right to trade in resources of the "determination area";
• the right to receive a portion of any resources taken by others from the "determination area";
• the right to maintain and protect places of importance under traditional laws, customs and practices in the "determination area"; and
• the right to maintain, protect and prevent the misuse of cultural knowledge of the common law holders associated with the "determination area".

The judge did not say how the above rights, and the rights of others such as leaseholders, would sit together.

So now we have an evolving land tenure system, replacing a stable one. This affects the 78% of the continent which is vacant and other crown land; pastoral leases; and a variety of Aboriginal tenures.

The Native Title Amendment Bill 1998 will be challenged in the courts. Leaseholders face the double whammy of uncertainty as to what rural activities they are allowed to conduct without interference, and the equally serious uncertainty of tenure. "Voluntary" agreements about land use are permanent and remain a burden on the lease, even if a court later finds native title does not exist on the area.

On top of that potential buyers are reluctant to consider purchasing leasehold land while lack of legal clarity hangs over the tenure system. Leaseholders’ equity in their properties will ultimately suffer.

Bush women watched TV coverage of the final passage of the Bill in July 1998, and the sympathetic media portrayal of crying Aborigines.

The silent tears of despair of bush families went unrecorded.