/ 1 January 2002

Court rules that Aborigines don’t have mineral rights

In a blow to Aborigines, Australia’s highest court ruled on Thursday that they do not have rights to oil or minerals found under tribal land now being used by mining companies.

The ruling was part of a complex decision by the High Court in Canberra on a 1994 claim by the Miriuwung-Gajerrong tribe for a special property right known as native title over 7 900 square kilometres of land and water.

The area in northwestern Australia includes the Argyle diamond mine, the world’s largest.

Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said that ”at face value” the decision appeared to say that native title rights did not exist over minerals and petroleum under the ground.

”It appears to establish a great precedent in providing some … confidence in terms of resource exploration and development,” he said, adding that government lawyers would be studying the 406-page decision over the next week.

Wayne Bergman, a senior Aboriginal leader from the area, called the ruling, which allowed Aborigines limited rights to hunt and visit sacred sites on the land, ”offensive and discriminatory.”

He said the court was saying to Aborigines, ”nice little black fella, you can go hunting but you don’t have any control over who goes on the land.”

Bergman called on the government and mining companies to sit down with Aborigines to set up a better way of sharing land than resorting to court action.

Ian Head, a representative for Rio Tinto, which owns the mine, said the Melbourne-based company was still studying the ruling and had no immediate comment.

Referring to the Argyle mine, Chief Justice Murray Gleeson said: ”All native title rights and interest in respect of the land within that reserve had been extinguished before the Argyle mining lease was granted.”

However, Gleeson also said that the decision was not a complete success for any parties to the case. The court also found that some cultural rights under native title continued to exist over the lands.

Chris Davie, from law firm Clayton Utz, said the ruling was a disappointment to both Aborigines and mining companies because it did not fully clarify many questions over the exact nature of native title rights.

Native title is a form of property right that was only outlined by the High Court in 1992 under a decision known as Mabo, when it overturned a 200-year-old legal fiction known as terra nullius – which said Australia was unoccupied before Europeans arrived.

Native title does not give Aborigines ownership of ancestral lands, but rights of use for traditional practices such as hunting, fishing and visiting sacred sites. Aborigines had hoped the Miriuwung-Gajerrong case would also give them ownership of minerals under their lands.

Under laws passed in 1993, Aborigines have the right to negotiate with development industries such as mining and tourism for a share in profits, but cannot veto development.

Although Thursday’s ruling covers only a part of Australia, the case is expected to set precedents for dozens of land rights claims by Aborigines throughout the country.

Aborigines, who number about 400 000 among Australia’s 19-million people, are the poorest, least healthy and most often jailed section of society. – Sapa-AP