IN Australia’s current frenzy of greed for uranium, anything goes – especially when it’s only the exploitation of the aboriginal people.
Why do we hear so little about this in the mainstream media? In the Northern Territory, aboriginal traditional owners Malak Malak people are resisting mining companies Troy Resources, Territory Uranium Company and Rio Tinto’s efforts to move into their land.
In South Australia Kokatha Mula Traditional Owners are resisting Iluka Resources, particularly in the threats of mining exploration to their precious groundwater
Stephen Hagan’s is a sad story, from one who knows well the history of the dealings between mining companies and aboriginals, in which the odds are stacked in favour of the miners, aided by government. Stephen Hagan offers faint hope that Mr Chaney’s resignation might lead to changes in the way the Native Title Tribunal operates. The Indigenous Land Use Agreements obviously work as far as mining companies are concerned, but not for the aboriginal owners of the land. Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

The problem with ILUA's is not that it disadvantages indeginous land owners but reflects a deficientcy in our entire system of land ownership and management in Australia.

Speak to a landholder in Central Queensland where a new coal mine is being developed and ask how much his rights are being protected.

We are currently seeing a ranking system where some uses are valued more or above others. This is fine but the "value" should be reflected in the transaction price.

My experience with ILUA's in the petroleum industry is that they can either work well or not at all. It comes down to proper communication and a willingness (on both sides) to co-operate.

The petroleum industry, in the case of the majority of operators, can be seen to harbour a willingness to co-operate with landholder and indegenous claimants. They want to do business but also undertand that to secure long-term certainty of production other competing land interests must be respected.

I have seen ILUS's dissintegrate and required legal action to obtain access. In this instance, in my view, the traditional owners where unrealistic in their requests frm the petroleum operator. What may look like a big pot of gold is in many cases a low margin operator. Neither side should be preferenced but clear and trasnparent rules set of for both sides.

The problem with ILUA's is not that it disadvantages indeginous land owners but reflects a deficientcy in our entire system of land ownership and management in Australia.

Speak to a landholder in Central Queensland where a new coal mine is being developed and ask how much his rights are being protected.

We are currently seeing a ranking system where some uses are valued more or above others. This is fine but the "value" should be reflected in the transaction price.

My experience with ILUA's in the petroleum industry is that they can either work well or not at all. It comes down to proper communication and a willingness (on both sides) to co-operate.

The petroleum industry, in the case of the majority of operators, can be seen to harbour a willingness to co-operate with landholder and indegenous claimants. They want to do business but also undertand that to secure long-term certainty of production other competing land interests must be respected.

I have seen ILUA's dissintegrate and required legal action to obtain access. In this instance, in my view, the traditional owners where unrealistic in their requests frm the petroleum operator. What may look like a big pot of gold is in many cases a low margin operator. Neither side should be preferenced but clear and trasnparent rules set of for both sides.

Many thanks to Stephen Hagan's contribution. The public's desire that the indigenous negotiators in ILUAs get a fair go is almost universal. The broad public has great respect for the life work of Fred Chaney. The problem is that if Fred Chaney suggests that the structure of the NTT and the procedures involved in the ILUAs are unfair to the Aboriginal interests then this is serious. Where are the watchdogs. Who checks to see if the Aboriginal negotiators are getting a fair go? What is a fair go? Are the new moves to speed up proceedings working against the aboriginal interests? What is a fair share of the global minerals boom for the owners of the minerals? Are the traditional owners and guardians of Aboriginal culture being sidelined with dollars in the pockets of a new generation? We would like to hear Fred Chaney's views. We believe his life has been devoted to the welfare of the first Australians. We trust him. We don't necessarily trust those who want to exploit the minerals or those who want the big tax revenues from global sales. Surely the ILUAs are a chance for the original Australians to get a foothold in the economy and not forever have to survive on handouts.

Chaney's resignation is a sad endictment and reflects the deliberately feeble legislation that goes no way towards establishing a fair deal for indigenous land owners.
Stephen Hagan highlights the injustice well. The situation is a far cry to that of the New Government's efforts to recognise Maori ownership and breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. While the fact that the treaty existed was a major stepping stone to introducing fair legislation in the form of the act that supported tribunal hearings and decisions, the treaty itself was based on historical deception that still exists today but which, with the increased economic strength of established ownership combined with present legislation, is harder for the Government or private organisations to inflict. The Natural Resources act also incorporates a strong need for true inclusion and negotiation with Maori.
As a young woman during the 1980's I worked as a journalist on the Ngai Tahu claim. My phone was tapped during a large phase of this period and my home was entered on a couple of occassions - the phrase 'breaking and entering' does not apply here as the door had been opened without any breakage. The only thing that went missing from my home was the Mining File on West Coast mining.
There are mighty forces and investments at stake. The indigenous people who have traditionally owned the land need strong clear voice with real legal backing - something that is not incorporated in the present legislation.
Kia Kaha

Sorry the above refers to the New Zealand Government's efforts (though a New Australian Government prepared to take on these challenges in a genuine way would surely advance a fair deal for indigenous Australian land owners).