Land title and land rights.(Letters)(Letter to the Editor)

SIR: Some of the assertions made by Helen Hughes in her letter (July-August 2005) should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

Hughes seems to conflate two different pieces of legislation and to draw erroneous conclusions as a consequence. For example, she asserts she does not deny leases are possible under "Native Title Legislation", but the Native Title Act of 1993 makes no provision for leases by native title holders, merely a "right to negotiate" and a "right of entry". On the other hand, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of 1976 vests inalienable freehold rights in Aboriginal communities and allows them to lease or otherwise deal with the land. In the case of the Land Rights Act, land councils represent the traditional owners whereas in the case of Native Title Legislation diverse individuals, families and groups of Aborigines can initiate action leading to numerous conflicting claims and a lawyers' picnic.

On the other hand, where a land council handles matters, pursuant to the Land Rights Act, these are usually dealt with by in-house salaried lawyers who are paid very poorly (about half the salary of a first-year solicitor in private practice). Moreover, it is not the "land council members" that derive the benefits from any commercial development on Aboriginal land but the traditional owners. Under the legislation, land councils are required to make distribution in accordance with the instructions of the traditional owners, and such distributions are subject to external review. The allegations of corruption that Hughes referred to did not involve a land council but rather distributions made by family associations.

Hughes asserts that it is the existence of "Native Title" legislation that makes it impossible for most Aborigines to access and own land on the same terms as other Australians. What she fails ...