home | news l

At the crossroads of the permit debate

By Tara Ravens

12 July 2007 - To get into an Aboriginal community, journalists, tourists and almost anyone else has had to go through an often lengthy process.

First, they have to contact the relevant land council, usually based in Darwin or Alice Springs. They have to explain where they want to visit, detailing the dates and reasons for going.

Then, up to several weeks later, they can get a reply - approval or rejection - and no reasons are given.

That is, until the Howard government announced last month that the permit system that has controlled access to Aboriginal land for the past three decades would be scrapped as part of the crackdown on indigenous child abuse.

Canberra has long wanted to abolish the system which prevents unwanted visitors from entering Aboriginal land across almost half of the NT and areas in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia.

Federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs Mal Brough, when releasing a discussion paper on the topic last October, claimed it created "closed communities" where Indigenous people were denied the normal advantages of mainstream society.

He said it prevented external scrutiny which could help in the battle against violent and anti-social behaviour.

Prime Minister John Howard lobbed into the debate saying most Australians were uncomfortable with the idea that they could be stopped from entering land.

"(They) operate on the view that providing they are going about their business and their life in a lawful fashion, they should have the right to move freely around the country, subject of course to respecting rights of private property," he said.

But most Aboriginal people see the matter in a very different light. They argue the permits offer them "a shield of protection" which preserves their privacy and culture.

Many are also questioning how the government has linked the scrapping of the system to the protection of children, when critics feel it will only open the doors to unscrupulous people, drug runners and paedophiles.

Such is their confusion and their anger, the NT government along with both major territory land councils this week flagged legal action over the seizure of 73 Aboriginal communities and the abolition of permits.

"This is critical to Indigenous people in these communities ... that permit is a signal to everybody else that they own that land," said NT Attorney-General Syd Stirling.

"If that is taken away, and the views are that this is the first step, then you are beginning to unwind Aboriginal land rights ..

"If your rights are taken away there is generally a legal recourse and a legal challenge."

Aboriginal people embraced a number of Canberra's reforms, such as bans on alcohol, drugs, pornography and a focus on school attendance - "where there are perceived links to the abuse of children," Mr Stirling said.

"But there is no acceptance and no understanding of any link between land acquisition, permits and the protection of children."

As the dust starts to settle in the wake of Mr Howard's momentous announcement and his teams of police and health workers roll out across the territory, attention is now turning to the grittier and more complicated aspects of the reforms.

Northern Land Council chief executive Norman Fry said the scrapping of permits and the compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal land was discriminatory, reckless and legally questionable.

Rampant tourism would be the result, instantly turning sacred lands into one of the world's most sought-after backpacker destinations.

"Compulsory acquisition of private property without consultation is discriminatory and cannot be justified ...

"This short-sighted approach polarises complex issues and will inevitably lead to High Court legal action, international complaint and universal opposition from traditional owners and communities," Mr Fry said.

Aboriginal people were entitled to the same rights as other Australians, he said.

"This must include ensuring that tribal Aboriginal people are not subjected to rampant tourism or rampant journalism.

"Beaches and rivers in communities will be packed with sunbathing backpackers, four-wheel drives, recreational fishers and campers - at the expense of fragile ecosystems and the interests of Aboriginal people."

But Mr Brough, a former military man, is not backing down.

In his eyes, all Australians should play by the same rules, and he is determined to open up the communities - their public space, main roads and airstrips.

Sacred sites and private homes will not be affected by the system's abolition, which currently does not apply to some visitors, such as politicians and police.

"(The system) has failed to protect children in Indigenous communities from abuse," Mr Brough said this week.

"The NT Police do a wonderful job but are under-resourced and overstretched and find themselves having to rely on a failed system that would not be tolerated in any other part of Australia."

But officers on the ground feel very differently about the situation, said NT Police Association president Vince Kelly.

"The federal government, in my view, has not yet made it clear what the connection is between the Aboriginal land permit system and the sexual abuse of women and children in these communities.

"They simply have not made out a case ... clearly they have some control at the moment of who comes into the (communities). To simply remove the permit system would mean there would be no requirement for any monitoring of what goes on, so it'd be open slather."

Stop the Land Grab protests will be held this Saturday in Alice Springs, Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, New Zealand and Canada.

Organiser Hilary Tyler, from Alice Action, said while people welcomed genuine steps to protect children they wanted an explanation as to why the solution involves tinkering with hard-won land rights.

"The absence of such commitment renders the federal agenda unclear," she said.

"The Howard government is orchestrating a land grab - a re-invasion - under the guise of child protection.

"Aboriginal land is to be defended and protected."

Two recent reports - the NT child sex abuse inquiry which prompted the federal government's intervention and a Senate investigation into carpetbagging in the Aboriginal art industry - recommended retaining the system.

Why then, people are asking, has the government chosen to ignore them?

"We are concerned with some of the legal issues that could affect people's rights," said president of the NT Law Society, Allison Robertson, who says the legal fraternity has serious misgivings about the legitimacy of the government's reforms.

"We have the same concerns as Attorney-General Syd Stirling ... nobody again can give us a convincing link between removing permits and assisting and reducing child abuse."

But the Northern Territory QC appointed to Mr Howard's Emergency Response Task Force, John Reeves, has rejected claims the intervention is anything other than a solution to child abuse and a push for across the board reform.

Nine years ago Mr Reeves called for permits to be removed in a report he prepared for the federal government reviewing the NT Aboriginal Land Rights Act, which is expected to be amended to pave the way for the reforms when parliament next sits in Canberra.

Communities were already inundated with undesirable people, evidenced by the recent report into child abuse, Mr Reeves said, while adding that five-year leases opened up the possibility of ownership for all Aboriginal people and not just a select few with legal ties to the land.

"What's being proposed ... is to provide the members of Aboriginal communities on Aboriginal land with the opportunity to secure title to that land," he said.

"It was always intended under the Land Rights Act that the land would be granted not only for the benefit of traditional owners but also for the benefit of Aboriginal people living on the land." - AAP 

Source: National Indigenous Times

Further information: permit system / child protection inquiry issues page - includes news index and external links