I welcome Dawn Casey’s comments on the ILC Draft Bill - the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (A Stronger Land Account) Amendment Bill 2014 (see www.ilc.gov.au). The Land Account was indeed a defining moment in Indigenous peoples’ struggle for recognition in the drafting of the Native Title Act 1993. But, as Paul Keating wrote recently, ‘It’s time to revisit the native title laws’.

The Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) administers the Indigenous Land Fund Act that became the centrepiece of the Keating Government’s social justice measures in association with the Native Title Act. Its purpose was to buy pastoral leases on the open market and convert them to native title while providing employment for Indigenous peoples. The fund has received over $1 billion of Commonwealth subscribed capital and it is now self-sustaining.

Undoubtedly, Paul Keating tried hard to make the Land Account conservative party-proof but the ILC is to be commended for attempting to make it truly independent of government and free of any possibility that it could be used for anything other than its legislated purpose - to buy and manage land for Indigenous Australians who have no other opportunity to benefit from the Mabo decision.

Paul W Newbury

Just how long into the future should we apply indigenous legislation ?
10 years ? 50 years ? 100 years ? 500 years ? 1000 years ? 10,000 years ?
Where & when does it stop ?
Will it be by a time when an aborigine cannot be defined by DNA ?

I think someone got convicted for asking this question !
Do you think the Caliphate will give a damn ?

Baz,
You ask how long it will take.

It may take a thousand years but I can tell you, I believe it will stop when the Indigenous Peoples of Australia achieve justice and equality as First Peoples of the Australian Nation. The Mabo decision took 204 years, so that could be a guideline.

If by the Caliphate, you mean the Islamic World then I do think they would support these endeavours for justice since a significant number of Indigenous peoples in Australia are followers of Islam since their parents were Afghan cameleers and Aboriginal women of the Outback.

Newbs

Hi Baz

A google of Paul W Newbury may interest:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/7165503?selectedversion=NBD14110270

Note the large number of local council, TAFE & university libraries which carry his book --bet you, few of them would carry books which offer counterviews.

Newbs, surely you are not serious ?
On that principle perhaps I should be demanding compensation from the
Norwegian government. I mean the Vikings came ashore and took over even
if I still have some Celtic DNA they killed and enslaved my ancestors.
Or perhaps I should have a go at the Danish government as my ancestors
were forcibly placed under Danelaw.

There surely has to be a more realistic way of handling this rather
than changing the constitution by adding racial amendments ?

Bazz,
It may interest you to know the Mabo decision did not change the Australian Constitution; rather, it expressed its intent on human rights for Indigenous peoples. In fact, when Queensland and Western Australia passed legislation to counter or diminish the Mabo decision, they were declared unconstitutional by the High Court.

I know nothing of Norwegian or Danish legislation on Indigenous minorities but in the Mabo decision of the High Court of Australia in 1992, Eddie Mabo and others pleaded that their title to their land be accorded the same recognition as that of the Indigenous peoples of the USA, Canada and New Zealand. These countries have a common law legal system because of their British heritage.

In essence, the process of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians requires balancing the book of history—addressing the injustices of the past by acts of justice now and in the future. This is my argument for human rights for Indigenous peoples in Australia which the Indigenous Land Corporation represents.

Newbs