A Review of the Reeves Report: Whither Land Rights in the Northern Territory? Wither Aboriginal Self-determination?

One observation in Chapter 7 reveals a great deal about Reeves’ thinking:

"how will Aboriginal people address the problems posed by the inevitable extinction of the small-localised patrilineal groupings that, ideally, hold the highest authority in relation to land?

This question reminds me of the "inevitable extinction" theories and schemes of "breeding out the colour" of earlier policy makers which held that Aboriginality would be bred out by the mixing of the races and the "Aboriginal problem" would thereby come to an end; see Russell McGrego, Imagined Destines "Aboriginal Australians and the Doomed Race Theory, 1880 - 1939". Reeves’ statement that Aboriginal local descent groups face inevitable extinction is a huge assumption which history contradicts, and which is tantamount to suggesting that Aboriginal tradition itself faces inevitable extinction. It is also a suggestion which I am sure Northern Territory Aboriginals will take exception to.

It is not difficult to see that this proposal will create enormous discontent amongst traditional groups or communities who already hold separate Land Trusts for their traditional land acquired through the land claims process or by schedule grants. Their reaction will be no different from the reaction of anyone whose property is forcibly expropriated and handed over to be controlled or used by someone else. Through the power of access and compulsory acquisition over Aboriginal land which Reeves proposes to give the Northern Territory Government, his proposals will be seen as yet another example of dispossession to the advantage of that Government.

The operation of Reeves’ proposals may be seen in their effect upon the past attempt of the Laynhapuy clans of North East Arnhem Land to have their own land council. The proposed Regional Land Councils ...their own North East Arnhem Land Ringgitj Land Council. Instead, Reeves’ Regional Land Councils will take away from the Laynhapuy clans and other traditional groups the right as traditional owners to give or withhold consent to manage and use their traditional lands in accordance with their own wishes. Under the current Land Rights Act regime, land councils may only do something in relation to Aboriginal land held by a Land Trust when the traditional Aboriginal owners give their consent. If consent is not given, then the proposed act cannot be carried out. Under the Reeves plan, the traditional owners (or any Aboriginal person or group having traditional affiliation with Aboriginal land) lose their right to withhold consent. Power and authority traditionally exercised by them over their traditional land will be given to persons who may not have any traditional affiliation with or authority over the land. Once the decisions reach the level of the NTAC and the Northern Territory and Commonwealth Ministers, decisions concerning the land will be made by people who have no traditional authority over the land whatsoever. A more radical and dramatic change to the land tenure system under the Land Rights Act could not be envisaged.

In Chapter 28 of his report, Reeves claims to lay down a pathway for "building on land rights for the next generation." The Northern Territory Aboriginal Council is designed to have ultimate control of Aboriginal land use and monies derived from such land use, including existing mining royalty equivalents, negotiated royalties and other monies. It would also undertake social and economic programmes "in partnership" with the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments as well as individuals and organisations "from the broader Northern Territory community." In other words, it is to be an agency for the development of Aboriginal land held by the Regional Land Councils. The NTAC’s funding would come from the Aboriginal Benefits Reserve, augmented by funds from other sources including the Community Development Employment Programme (CDEP) and other funds earmarked for expenditure on Aboriginal economic, social and cultural advancement in the Northern Territory. If the combined funding for ABR, ATSIC and the total Northern Territory Government budget for Aboriginal programmes were channelled into the NTAC, this would, according to Reeves, give the NTAC a budget of between $448m and $738m.

As well as the significant financial control over the lives of Territory Aboriginals which NTAC would gain from such a budget, it would also possess great political power. This would come from Reeves’ proposals for NTAC to have the power to intervene in "major agreements" over land use, to control Regional Land Council funds and budgets and to be able to place a Regional Land Council under administration.

The NTAC would be an appointed body nominated by the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments, which would become an elected body "in due course" when

"a positive partnership has developed with both governments and their agencies, and when the Council has established its effectiveness in achieving its purposes, government appointment of its members should be replaced by their election by Aboriginal Territorians on a basis providing for an appropriate spread of regional representation. This election should take place once the land claims process has been completed, the boundaries of the RLC’s have been settled, and a further review of the Act has been undertaken. "

When this might happen is a prospect, given the nature of governments, light years away. The NTAC would be a present-day example of old-style paternalism coupled with new- style cronyism and political favour. Although this may suit some interests, I do not think that it is in the overall interests of all Aboriginal Territorians.

In proposing the creation of the NTAC in Chapter 28, Reeves is suggesting a powerful new bureaucracy and political entity which would have far more control over the lives and land of Aboriginal Territorians than the Northern and Central Land Councils could ever have under the Land Rights Act, and which would be neither representative of Aboriginal people in the Territory, nor in keeping with Aboriginal tradition.

The NTAC and the Regional Land Councils would interface with the Reeves proposals to give the Northern Territory Government the power of compulsory acquisition over Aboriginal land for "public purposes". The Territory Government has long lobbied for this power. The Land Rights Act from its inception has prevented this by s.67. Experience with the States and the Wik amendments to the Native Title Act clearly indicates that the Northern Territory Government will wish to define "public purposes" as widely as possible, even to the extent, one would expect, of permitting compulsory acquisition for the purpose of making Aboriginal land available to third parties (non-Aboriginal) for private development perceived to be in the public interest, as the States have done in recent amending legislation. The inviolability of Aboriginal land would be lost. The destruction of Aboriginal control of Aboriginal land would have begun. The Northern Territory Government does not need the power to compulsorily Aboriginal land for public purposes as it is not necessary to "privatise" Aboriginal land in order to provide public works and services to the communities and homelands living on Aboriginal land. The Land Rights Act has ample provision, with Aboriginal consent, for the granting of necessary interests in Aboriginal land for the placing of public works and services on that land.