John J. Hilary Martin
There were many aspects to the Interventiion of June 2007, the most important of which was changes in land ownership and the management of communities. Using the page entitled: How to make a submission to the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) Review, nine questions were asked, I wish to comment on #7 and #8
# 7 asks, Will the NTER lay the basis for sustain able and better future, etc.
I submit that the answer must be no, it will not, lay a basis. The processes of the Intervention have removed local control and initiative from Aboriginal people by imposing an appointed Administrator with ill- defined and broad powers over many (72) aboriginal communities. Whatever local planning was in place was undercut by this action and local responsibility was removed.
The Mabo judgment of the High Court said that native title to lands existed in Australia which meant (or implied) that some form of communal ownership (if not freehold in the usual sense of the term) existed. The ability of Administrators to allow sub-lease of property within lands with traditional communal ownership for long terms, for starting a small business or owning a home, in effect, overturned what the Mabo judgment had decided. There is no obvious limit to what the licensee might do with his/her license. (A factory, an intrusive motel, a theme park, for example, could be introduced changing the character of remainder of the communal land or the rights of the people on that remaining land.) There is every reason to believe that future generations of such a community will continue to press for a return of all of its lands whatever a previous Administrator may have decided. This will leave an unhappy legacy and a source of future litigation.
#8 What alternative measures should be considered?
I submit to the Minister the following:
a) In communities where it is appropriate, (and we assume all communities be appropriate unless a Court says otherwise) replacing appointed Administrators with a small committee of local people under a Chairperson, chosen by them (either a local person or someone chosen by them from outside).
b) The members of the small committee could be elected or chosen in some customary way acceptable to all.
c) This is not the place to draw up a set of guidelines for the Chairperson so chosen, but to clarify the matter guidelines might include some of the following.
i) The selected local committee members should be familiar with local customary arrangements and sympathetic when carrying them out.
ii) Elements of infrastructure should be decided following local needs and custom;
iii) Everyone who is physically able should be employed and/or be offered suitable training;
iv) school curricula could be monitored and responsibility for attendance lie with the committee;
As an appendix to this submission:
I suggest that the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 be restored.
John J. Hilary Martin