David Ross and the Central Land Council argue that "Traditional Owners" living in their "Traditional homelands" communities do NOT have:

- right for family to live with them ;

- right for family to visit them ;

- right for friends to visit or stay with them ;

- right for qualified tradespeople to visit and conduct repairs ;

- right to run a business under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions;

- right to construct or live in a house (under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions) ;

- right to obtain a fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions lease for their home (constructed with government monies) ;

- right to work (under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions) ;

- right to receive legal assistance to have legal issues arising considered judicially ;

Ross & CLC object to Land Trusts -as the private land owners, being required to issue tenants with valid leases for their homes.

Homes constructed mostly with public funding still refusing their tenants valid leases, claims for leases unreasonable...

Elsewhere such approach quite rightly deemed repugnant and racist.

.

In the 1980s, the now disgraced WA premier Brian Burke held an inquiry into whether land rights should be granted to Aboriginal people. Then as now, I argued that their land claims should be assessed in essentially the same way as those of other Australians: grant private freehold title over the most important, most significant smaller parcels of land (for Aboriginals, this would mean hills, rivers, rock outcrops, special sections of coastline, etc; for people other than Aboriginals, this would mean their homes and work environments, etc) but leave the vast areas of infrequently used land in public ownership (for Aboriginals, this was their 'walkabout' country; for others, this would be national parks, state forests, etc).
If this system had been adopted, then I would have supported the use of permits to control non-Aboriginal access to the smaller parcels of land which would have been 'owned' by Indigenous people. After all, no one should trespass on on another person's most sensitive, important land. But free access to the remainder of the land would have been allowed, subject to conditions, just as we can visit national parks and forests but can't damage the environment, etc.
David Ross highlights problems if the permit system is removed, but two wrongs don't make a right. If as Noel Person says Aboriginal people are suffering because of the lack of economic opportunities in their communities, then the permit system is entrenching this problem. If people with bad intentions visit an Aboriginal community, they should be hit by the full force of the law. But as we are seeing in WA with the restrictions on alcohol sales in one Kimberley town, Aboriginal people who want grog will simply move to another.
..... see next post

One of the solutions to the currently terrible living conditions of many Indigenous communities is their reliance on 'sit-down money' and their inability to take advantage of the many economic opportunities that a free market can provide. Removal of the permit system, while making sure that areas or sites genuinely significant to Aboriginal people are protected, will help Indigenous communities to more quickly adapt to the changing world they live in.

Most state governments appeared happy to hand freehold Torrens style titles for all unalienated crown lands over to "previous occupants" or nominee companies acting for them.

Problem was creating new perpetual land titles, whether to prevent land being reclaimed for public purposes (despite just compensation), along with attempts create independent kingdoms with land and residents not bound by same legislation as others.

My grandparents once had, so I must keep forevermore...

People having (prior) interests recognized through shareholdings in corporations holding titles was, and it seems remains, far to alien to many purporting to help.

Sorry for wrongs previously done, yet expected to accept, to tolerate same/similar wrongs still being committed...

--start cut and paste--
EVICTED FOR BEING WHITE
11.02.2008
By ANDY PARKS andy.parks@northernstar.com.au TERRI FRANKS was still mourning the death of her husband when she was given notice she and her five children were to be evicted because of the colour of her skin.

Terri and her family have lived in their Goonellabah home for 10 years, a house which is owned by the Bundjalung Tribal Society. Terri’s husband Barry Franks was a Kamilaroi man who met all the criteria for subsidised housing through the society. He died unexpectedly on November 21 and two weeks later Terri was told she would have to attend a meeting to discuss what was going to happen to the house.

“I was told that because I was not Aboriginal, I might not be able to stay,” she told The Northern Star.

“I went to the meeting and was told we would have to move out by May 4.”

Mrs Franks took her friends Norton and Mim Bolt along to the meeting for support, as well as her children, but they were told they weren’t welcome. Eventually Norton was allowed to stay.

Mrs Franks appealed to the society to reconsider. She asked if there was a way to put the lease in her eldest son’s name because he satisfies three of the four criteria in the housing policy.

But she was told it was an old policy and her son didn’t fit all the criteria in the new policy.

“They didn’t want to listen. They wouldn’t reason,” she said. “When I asked for a copy of the new policy they said ‘no’ because I was white.”

--end cut and paste--

For entire article see Northern Star: http://www.northernstar.com.au/

.