Kaanju traditional owners living at Chuulangun recognise three main impediments to the claim: the State, the Native Title Representative Body, and the nature of the claimant group and its representation. The native title process itself has been at the heart of and/or exacerbated these problems. The nature of the native title process is such that it has enabled our claim to be dragged out for eight long years while (1) the State takes its time to come to an agreement with us on land tenure, land use and management arrangements, (2) our Native Title Representative Body pauses then attempts to organise itself, and (3) claimants whose actual connection to the claim area is questionable continue to dominate proceedings to the detriment and exclusion of Kaanju families actually from the area under claim.
During 2001 the registered native title claimants were approached to prepare a negotiating position relevant to the tenure resolution of Batavia under the framework of the State Lands Dealing Project. We spent considerable time, money and energy, meeting and synthesising three years worth of planning material compiled by planners, environmental scientists, anthropologists, and other professionals who have worked with the Kaanju people. The resulting report, the Batavia Downs Aspirations Planning Report (BDAPR) (Kaanju People and Salmon 2000) set out in detail our plans and aspirations for the management of our homelands under claim. This report is based on Kaanju Indigenous governance and land and resource management principles and practices that have been passed down over many thousands of years through Kaanju bloodlines to the current generation of Kaanju land owners, land managers and law makers living on country. It also addresses major land management problems not of our making, including weed and feral animal infestation and the destruction of sensitive ecological areas and desecration of important cultural sites due to prolific and unregulated public access to and use of our homelands.
In September 2001 we presented our report to the State government. While the report suggested an extremely high probability for a successful tenure resolution, which would satisfy the needs of all stakeholders, we never received a response from the State. Instead, 12 months later in September 2002, when we were under the impression that our claim might be close to resolution, the State, under the guise of the State Land Dealings branch of the DNRM, announced that they had to produce a ‘Land Evaluation’ report on the claim area, a process that would take up to 18 months. The native title process was essentially captured by DNRM’s ‘Land Evaluation processes’.[7] Up until that point we had the impression that we had been dealing in good faith with a State framework aimed at the rapid resolution of a long-standing land issue of critical importance to us. However, with no formal notification or explanation regarding a change of process we were left guessing about the status of our land and the State government’s intention in relation to it. We had no clear picture of departmental responsibility for an expedited dealing on Batavia. There was even some confusion amongst government officers as to the status of our dealings on Batavia. It was even suggested to us that Batavia was no longer ‘on the table’ for dealing’.[8] The sentiment of one senior Traditional Owner when the CYLC advised that claimants should question the State about the bureaucratic hold-up over Batavia was: ‘I don’t want to keep talking and wasting my voice.’[9]
Indeed, the land tenure history of Batavia Downs has been uncertain from the start. The whole area has been a pastoral lease at some stage so according to government, native title to most of the country has been extinguished due to previous interests. However, the CYLC advised claimants at a Steering Committee meeting held in September 2003 that the State was uncertain about extinguishment of native title on Batavia. We were advised that native title determination was still of value particularly as there were no current leaseholders.[10] We were further advised that based on the extinguishment of native title scenario if the claim went to court the best determination we could expect over Batavia Downs would be non-exclusive determination of native title. However, Aboriginal Freehold under the Aboriginal Land Act (ALA) was seen as a lot more valuable than non-exclusive native title, so we pursued the former option. Nevertheless, there was still (and still is) the question of whether native title has really been extinguished over the area.
We waited for the State’s Land Use Evaluation Report. When we expected that the report would be finished we spent considerable time and energy making numerous inquiries to DNRM about the report. Our repeated requests to view the Land Evaluation report were ignored. Although at a National Native Title Tribunal Mediation Conference held in Cairns on 24 July 2003, the State’s representative did state that he would seek Ministerial approval to release the report to parties to assist with the process of tenure resolution over Batavia Downs.[11] However this was to no avail. Finally, in late 2003 through our contacts within an Australian conservation organisation which accessed the report through Freedom of Information legislation we were finally able to access this report, albeit a very poor quality facsimiled copy. To date, the DNRM has not provided Kaanju Traditional Owners living at Chuulangun with a copy of this report.
My initial impression of the report was that it was merely a ‘desktop study’ and a very poor one considering the amount of time it took to produce it. The authors undertook a ‘site inspection’ over only four days, holding meetings with caretakers at Batavia and Moreton, and Bramwell Station (not even in the claim area). No attempt was made to meet with Kaanju people on homelands. The authors make assumptions and generalisations about the land and associated resources that indicate a very poor understanding of the area under claim. They also do not seem to have read very carefully the claimants’ submission (BDAPR). My comments are centred on a number of issues as discussed below.[12]
Overall, the report makes a lot of assumptions and simplifies considerably and to our disadvantage, Kaanju people’s aspirations with regard to the area under claim. For example, it notes that the Traditional Owners ‘have a strong interest in seeing Batavia Downs return to a viable cattle enterprise’. This is completely false, and the Batavia Downs Planning Report (the submission we sent to DNRM for the purpose of informing the State of our aspirations) does not say this at all. The only mention our report makes about cattle is the need for management of land degradation caused by cattle and the maintenance of a ‘killer’ herd for local use. The assumption that Kaanju people want to run a viable cattle enterprise, along with the very strong support for pastoralism on Cape York (e.g. submissions from Agforce, Peninsula Cattleman’s Association, Cape York Live Export Group, Cook Shire, Cape York Peninsula Development Association, as well as some pastoralists) only supports the State’s plans for pastoralism in the region and justifies (from their point of view) their discussion on and recommendations that the majority of the holding be pastoral.
For Batavia to return to a viable cattle enterprise would involve considerable financial resources, which would be provided by whom—the State? The report does mention the considerable distance of Batavia from markets and the poor nutritive value of native vegetation (Sinclair 2003), which are only two factors against pastoralism (there are many more), but it does not consider these when recommending that the majority of the holding return to pastoral use. This recommendation they base on the findings of only one document, which was produced by the Department of Primary Industries. Further, Aboriginal people do not ‘belong to cattle’; it is an industry that was forced upon us. There is a widespread assumption that because a few of our old people were ‘cattlemen’, all Aboriginal people want to do with the land is run cattle. This is completely false.
The State’s Land Evaluation Report seriously misinterprets and misrepresents core Traditional Owner aspirations with regard to the claim area. It is not our intention to return Batavia to a viable cattle enterprise. We intend to resume our customary management of this area, which is our obligation under Kaanju law. This management will involve, amongst other considerations, repairing the considerable damage caused by the cattle industry, as well as by the prolific access and use of our homelands by third parties, and weed and feral animal infestation, as part of the framework of the IPA.
The report also recommends that Moreton Telegraph Station remain under the management of Cook Shire. There is absolutely no consideration of the Kaanju people’s aspirations with regard to the area (again detailed in our submission to the State). Our position in the case of Moreton is ignored or seen as irrelevant. Cook Shire’s stake in the area of Moreton Telegraph Station is seen as more important than that of the Traditional Owners.
The report does not acknowledge that Indigenous rights and obligations with regard to land and resources extend beyond cultural considerations. The State’s assumption is that our management is only relevant in the case of significant cultural sites, in this case Malandaji or what they call ‘Wenlock Falls’. In the Report the State recommends transferring the area around the ‘Wenlock Falls’ to traditional owners under the ALA. Perhaps they think that this will satisfy our obligations to ‘look after’ our country.
Further, the State sees ‘nature’ conservation and sustainability as the domain of conservation groups and government themselves.[13] They recommend that any land transferred to Traditional Owners or taken up by Traditional Owners as pastoral lease be subject to conservation arrangements and restrictions on tree clearing. Under customary law, Kaanju people do not clear trees, and today we would only clear land if it was absolutely necessary for our homelands development, say for an airstrip for access to essential services. But even before clearing trees for an airstrip there is a process of customary obligations to be undertaken in order for that activity to be sanctioned under Kaanju law. Again the State assumes that Indigenous people cannot manage the land in a sustainable manner and that our land use and management regimes have no legitimacy in contemporary society. This equates with the view of some of the diaspora and even local Kaanju people who are of the opinion that traditional Kaanju governance should belong to the past.
The State needs to recognise that Kaanju people’s obligations with regard to the management of our traditional lands and associated resources encompasses more than merely cultural aspects. Our BDAPR report outlines in detail the background and key principles of Traditional Owner land use and management responsibilities for Batavia. It states, ‘the natural and cultural values of … [Batavia] cannot be separated’. Further, ‘how people want to use and manage land is often informed by their particular responsibility to and for places, as well as a responsibility to generally manage country responsibly’ (BDAPR 2000:30).
After several years of guessing about the status of our land and the State government’s intention in relation to it, the State finally put their position to us at the 24 July 2003 mediation. The State’s position at the time of this meeting was that the acquisition of the former pastoral lease and also the Moreton Telegraph station had extinguished native title (being most of the claim), and that it would like to settle the claim in the following ways:
a pastoral lease for native title holders of the area to the west of the Wenlock River;
the area east of the Wenlock River to be ALA Freehold grant, and
the northern part to be part pastoral lease and part National Park (the reason for this was so the government could do a deal for National Park around the Olive River Area).
Further, the State wanted a conservation agreement to be made over certain areas and a common management regime over the rest of the area.[14]
It is my impression that the State had already made their decision on where they wanted Batavia to go and that the ‘land evaluation process’ and preparation of the Land Use Report was just a way of formally getting the support needed to justify the position they put to us at the 24 July 2003 mediation meeting. Further, there appear to have been only three players in this whole process: the government, the pastoral lobby and the conservation groups. Core Kaanju Traditional Owners have been pushed aside in this process and our case as major stakeholders and legitimate owners and managers of the land and associated resources has not been recognised from the start of the process. As Traditional Owners of the land under question, we are infuriated at the State’s arrogance in presuming that our homelands are theirs to make deals over. Aboriginal people are repeatedly being asked to prove land ownership to government; what about government proving that they own the land?[15]
The CYLC outlined our two options regarding our claim at a Steering Committee meeting held on 1-2 September 2003:
progress Native Title, the possible outcomes being a) non-exclusive determination of native title, b) no native title outcome and further mediation; or
propose a deal with the State (as above).
The Native Title Claimants Proposal for Tenure Resolution over Batavia Downs was submitted to the then Minister for Natural Resource and Mines, Stephen Robertson, on 3 September 2003. We confirmed our desire for the State to move to a speedy resolution of tenure issues on Batavia and stated that we were prepared to negotiate an outcome with the State based on the following:
that the area to the far north west of the claim area be set aside for a National Park;
that the majority of the area be transferred to Traditional Owners as Aboriginal Freehold with conservation agreements over identified areas; and
that an area on the north west portion of the claim area be leased for pastoral purposes and that any such a pastoral lease be made available to Traditional Owners.[16]
Our overall position was that if it is the case that native title had been extinguished over much of the area, these areas should become Aboriginal Freehold under the ALA. From there conservation agreements and land management arrangements may be negotiated, with the bottom line being primary Kaanju management and decision-making regarding the land and associated resources. Further, our proposal to establish an IPA over the claim area would satisfy the State’s proposal for conservation agreements over much of the claim area.
Throughout almost the entire period of the claim the role of our Native Title Representative Body, CYLC, has been problematic. For example, during the whole process of the dealings with the State it was not able to access the State’s report on Batavia Downs (or if it did access the report it did not make it known to the Traditional Owners). Numerous requests made by the author of this paper to the lawyer heading the claim that CYLC obtain a copy were all but ignored, or at least from our perspective it seemed they made little effort to obtain a copy. Throughout the whole process of the dealings with the State as described above the CYLC appears to have been taking a minor role, waiting for the government to call the cards rather than acting in the interests of the people they are supposed to represent.
In June 2004 the CYLC contacted native title claimants for the Batavia Claim explaining why they had not heard from the Land Council in such a long time and also to provide an update on what had been happening with the Batavia claim.[17] The letter explained that there had been a large turnover in staff and they were making a number of changes as action on decisions made by the Executive Council.[18] One of those changes was to develop a native title claims policy. In their words:
This policy provides a way to manage the work of the Land Council. It is simply not possible for us to deal properly with more than two dozen claims, as we have at the moment. Everyone involved in native title and land work understands that we need to work out which matters need to be given more attention now, so that all traditional owners groups across the Cape benefit in the long run.[19]
It was decided that the most complex matters—Wik and Eastern Kuku Yalanji—needed to be completed as soon as possible so that staff and resources could be freed up for pushing other claims along in the future. It was noted that finalising those claims should pave the way for sorting out other applications, ‘for everyones’ benefit’. They asserted, ‘Based on that policy, we need to prioritise our work on applications and put the necessary resources against the matters which have the highest priority’ (Brooks 2004).
The Land Council hence put Batavia on the back burner while they concentrated on more complex claims. Only recently have the Land Council contacted claimants about Batavia. This has come at the same time as negotiations over a proposed gas pipeline that will pass through Cape York Peninsula.[20]
As discussed earlier, under the Kaanju land tenure system particular families or clans are particularly associated with or ‘come from’ particular tracts of land or clan estates within the overall umbrella of the Kaanju homelands. Further, based on hierarchy particular individuals within these families have authority to speak for the land, while others do not. What this means is that not all people who identify as Kaanju come from the entire (Northern) Kaanju homelands. However, the native title process is such that, although the claim is only to part of the Kaanju homelands north of the Archer River and therefore covers only particular clan estates, people who identify as being Kaanju people from north of the Archer River are listed as claimants. This presents a number of questions for the core Kaanju families who are actually from the area under claim. How can people who are not even from the area under claim be listed as claimants on the native title claim? How is it that a number of these people speak for the land under claim at mediation and steering committee meetings when they have no right to do so under Kaanju law and custom? Further, in formal discussions and negotiations regarding development proposals concerning the area under claim, these people also speak for the country, as has been the case with negotiations over the gas pipeline.
What this translates to is that there are claimants on our claim who are not from the area under claim, and therefore people speaking for our land when they have no right to do so under Kaanju law and custom. This has been particularly evident at a number of the mediation meetings at which I have been present, where claimants who actually live on country have been obstructed in having a say by Tribunal staff who have given preference to claimants who do not live on the peninsula, who are not from the particular area under claim, and indeed whose claims to being Kaanju people, according to Kaanju people living on homelands, are questionable.[21] It is the inadequacy of the claims process that has allowed this to happen. ‘The land does not belong to them’ is the sentiment of the focal Kaanju people from the claim area.
Our understanding is that when the claim was first lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal it was rejected, due not only to amendments to the NTA, but also to there being a small claimant group. This original claimant group was a more accurate indication of the Kaanju people connected to the area under claim than the present claimant group that is made up of people who identify as Kaanju north of the Archer River, but not necessarily as Kaanju belonging to the actual area under claim. To reiterate, a number of the claimant families may identify as Kaanju, but they do not come from the actual area under claim. Herein lies another of the failings of the native title process, being that it does not recognise that Indigenous land tenure systems are very localised. The native title process, particularly the Native Title Representative Body in that process, takes a regional and sub-regional approach to land tenure systems that is inappropriate and non-Indigenous and thus inherently problematic and goes against the proper recognition of native (Indigenous) title and governance. As noted by Bauman and Williams, ‘broadly defined regional native title systems can overlook specific localised and individualised rights and interests as representatives of the broader group are seen to have an equal say in making decisions about matters which may not be their primary concern’ (2004: 11).
The Batavia Native Title Application identified the claimant group in the following terms:[22]
The Northern Kaanju claimants identify themselves, and are identified by the other Aboriginal people of the Central Cape York Peninsula region, as the group of people whose native title rights and interests under Aboriginal law and custom, are to that area of land associated with the Kaanju language which lies north of the Archer River and extends north to the area of the Moreton Telegraph Station. (CYLC 1999: 1).
The application outlines current membership of the group as being primarily through the principle of cognatic descent, that is, descent traced through both male and female ancestors. Further, members traced their descent from a limited set of persons recognised in the regional Aboriginal community as having been Kaanju occupants of the claim area (CYLC 1999: 1). Thus the current membership of the Northern Kaanju peoples, according to the application, comprises a number of cognatic descent groups or families who are identified by their main surnames together with the apical ancestors from whom they trace their descent cognatically (CYLC 1999:1). The application lists 21 Northern Kaanju families and their apical ancestors. Notably, the ‘descendants of George Moreton Snr and his wife Mary Ann (both deceased), being members of the Moreton/Nelson Family’ is the first listed cognatic descent group. However, the application does not indicate that not all the Kaanju families listed are from the actual area under claim, nor does it indicate that particular families and individuals within those families have the right to speak for particular tracts of land within the claim area, while others do not. It has been a ‘boxed up’ claim from the start which today is not necessarily the perspective of core Kaanju families living at Chuulangun for that area of their homelands.
This approach to the formation of the claimant group is supported in the draft Connection Report. As Smith notes:
… it is my conclusion with regard to the Batavia Downs native title claim that the proper ‘social scale’ at which the claim be determined is that of the ‘macro-grouping’ of one or more (in this case, three) contemporary language-named or place-based ‘tribal’ groups (despite the fact that a number of claimants might not regard this as the most significant social scale at which customary interests are articulated among the indigenous people of the region). This conclusion is based on native title case law and the contemporary and continuing forms of local custom and law pertaining to the claim area, both of which lead me to conclude that this is the most proper way in which the native title holding group for the Batavia Downs area can be recognised (2006: 8, 10, emphasis in original).
At the same time in the draft Connection Report Smith acknowledges the importance of the principle of patrilineal descent to a number of Kaanju families:
[A]n emphasis remains among many members of the ‘home population, on the ‘proper’ principle of patrifilial recruitment or ‘patrilineal descent’ … whilst Northern Kaanju people recognise both descendants of Northern Kaanju men and women as Northern people, and as ‘proper’ Northern Kaanju claimants in Native Title claims … there remain vestiges of the greater weight placed on patrifilial recruitment … this remains a matter for decision and negotiation between and within Northern Kaanju families rather than a hard and fast rule (2006: s. 5.2.6).
Smith (in an earlier version of Chapter 6) notes the difficulties apparent in ‘reified codifications of such groups that anthropologists, lawyers and others inevitably create in the production of “connection reports”, prescribed bodies corporate and other statements of the relationship between Aboriginal people and their “traditional land”.’ Claimant groups are seen as ‘categorically defined, bounded and non-negotiable’ (Bauman and Williams 2004: 11). The problem with such groups is that what is presented on paper does not necessarily reflect what exists in reality on the ground where the action is taking place in terms of land management and Traditional Owners living and working on country. From our perspective as Traditional Owners living on homelands the claimant group is an artificial group, but has become legitimised by the native title process. Bauman and Williams (2004: 11) note that the ‘need to define groups categorically does not account for differentiation within and across groups’, which ‘creates fertile climate for disputes concerning who has the greater claim or authority over the country and the appropriate grouping to which native title should be attributed.’
Foley (Chapter 7) alludes to the ‘usurpers’ who, through the power structures of specific land councils, are given legitimacy under New South Wales statute law and become custodians in European terms over issues of native title. Similarly for the Batavia claim, a number of claimants have had their position as Kaanju people, and in the case of named applicants on the claim, as people who hold authority to speak for the land under claim, legitimised by the native title process. Thus while under government law their identity as Kaanju people and authoritative people to speak for land is recognised, under proper Indigenous law they are not recognised. This situation of being recognised under government law but not under Indigenous law further fuels the view of local people that these claimants see government law as superior to Indigenous governance. This is reinforced by the NTA itself. As noted by Muir, ‘the “determination process” established by the NTA takes us full circle to a situation that again supports the notion that the Australian law is the only legitimate law’ (1998: 3).
As noted by Smith what comes across as problematic in land claims is the marked difference between how local people and diaspora people assert connections to country. ‘Diaspora people often reject a distinction between their connection and those of local families, asserting that, regardless of location, they hold equal interests in (and connection to) the country of their forebears’ ((2000: 2; see also Smith 2000: 4). However, in the case of Batavia Downs who their actual forebears are is also questioned by local people.
While for a significant number of local people ancient or ‘classical’ forms of governance and associated kinship and territoriality remain, for diaspora people, the shift towards a tribal identity has been far greater (see also Smith 2000: 4). Within such a model, ‘diaspora people tend to presume that each tribe holds homogenous rights over a “tribal area” of language-associated country’ (Smith 2000: 6).
Again as noted by Smith in the draft Connection Report:
Given the existence among Northern Kaanju people of a widespread assertion of customary connections to the broader Northern Kaanju homelands area, and the requirement under Native Title law to recognise such wider connection, rather than delimiting the membership of claim groups to those asserting a particular or primary connection to a claim area within such broader assertions of connection, the description of the Northern Kaanju group for the purposes of this (and other) claims necessarily includes the wider set of ‘Northern Kaanju’ families (2006: 10).
This situation is made worse by the philosophy that can be summarised as: ‘get your land back first and then sort through internal issues after that’. One of the justifications for this idea is that it is not the business of the government where the Aboriginal boundaries are within the claim area, only where the external property (government) land boundaries are. However, this creates problems for legitimate Traditional Owners (that is, the focal claimants) who have to ‘pick up the pieces’ and dismantle the obstacle of the imposed government-sanctioned prescribed body corporate (PBC) or land trust in order for the unobstructed carrying out of land management rights and obligations.
Under the NTA an incorporated native-title body, a PBC, is required to hold the native title rights and interests that form the ‘title’ once the claim is determined, or in the case of the Batavia Claim an ILUA is established (once tenure arrangements issues are resolved). Like other corporations the PBC (or land trust) requires a constitution outlining the rules and objectives by which the corporation will function. We anticipate problems when at the determination of the claim or tenure resolution a PBC or land trust is formed that includes all members of the current claimant group. How will a constitution be drawn up and how will the constitution, if at all, address issues concerning management and decision-making of the land? And particularly how will it deal with the issues of which members of the group hold the authority to speak for country? We anticipate serious problems in this regard.
It is useful here to refer to Glaskin’s contribution to this volume (Chapter 3). Glaskin focuses on the discussions concerning the development of a PBC for the Bardi and Jawi native title claim in the north-west Kimberley region of Western Australia. She notes that as claimants discussed the constitution for their PBC, one aspect that they felt had to be incorporated within the rules concerned the role of the madja-madjin (‘Law bosses’ or senior ritual experts) within their society. While it might be useful to incorporate such a consideration in the constitution for the PBC or land trust for the Batavia claim determination, the problem of differing opinions on who are the proper people who hold authority will inevitably be hotly debated as the situation is now. Glaskin (Chapter 3) notes that from the view of the claimants the formation of the PBC was closely linked with the development of a particular kind of constitution that adequately upheld Bardi and Jawi ‘Law, language and culture’. Glaskin cites Sullivan’s (1997: 139) description in relation to the Rubibi constitution as being ‘nothing less than an attempt at a self-governing structure reflecting customary Aboriginal law’. But what happens when different claimants have differing views on what that is, as is the case for the Batavia claim?
Again as Glaskin describes in Chapter 3, another group of claimants maintained a position that principles of land ownership (recognising specific interests in country, with reference to estates) should be made clear in the constitution for the PBC. Such a principle would be of considerable importance in the drawing up of the constitution for the native title holding body for the Batavia claim based on the current claimant group. However, the drawing up of a constitution that considers the existence of specific interests in country and the association of particular families with particular estates has been slowed down by decisions made at a March 2006 meeting organised by the CYLC. Agenda items for this meeting included the identification of ‘all the Kaanichi Kaanju Elders’ and confirmation of ‘traditional laws and customs of the Kaanichi Kaanju People in relation to their tribal lands and decision-making processes’. Notwithstanding the seriously questionable process by which the meeting was organised and the process and context of the actual meeting itself, at the meeting, after the ‘Elders’ were identified, one of the decisions made by the Elders was that ‘there are no special sub groups rights’ in the consultation or decision making processes for the Kaanichi Kaanju People.[23]
We have concerns about the ability of native title to recognise that our sovereignty has been taken out of the land by the colonisation process and successive series of government policies and practices past and present, that saw Kaanju people forcibly removed from homelands and centralised in towns and government orchestrated communities. When we were taken out of our land, the sustainable management of the land and associated resources were severely disrupted. Associated with taking the sovereignty out of the land is the prevailing assumption that the land is ‘empty’ and Indigenous land and resource management is no longer effectual, no longer exists or is not relevant in today’s ‘modern’ society.
However, Kaanju land and resource management does exist and permanent Kaanju communities are being re-established on our homelands, including in the area subject to the Batavia claim. Focal Kaanju Traditional Owners have developed a comprehensive Land and Resource Management Framework and an IPA Management Plan that sets out in detail the management of our lands and associated resources. Like our BDAPR report these documents are based on Kaanju governance and land and resource management principles and practices that have been passed down over many thousands of years through Kaanju bloodlines to the current generation of Kaanju land managers and law makers living on homelands.
When we were forcibly absent from our homelands other management regimes had taken over (namely by government) in the form of pastoral and mining leases, National Parks and forest reserves. Due to the inappropriateness of these regimes we now face a myriad of land management problems not of our own making, including weed and feral animal infestation, land degradation, the destruction of important ecological environments, and the desecration of cultural sites by prolific and unregulated public access.
What the NTA needs to recognise and enforce is that our sovereignty is still in the land and that Traditional Owners need to be compensated, in the form of funding and resources, in order to carry out obligations as primary land managers and decision-makers and return the land to its sustainable state. This includes support for homelands and economic development. However, what will need to be reinforced is that any funding and resources that are forthcoming would have to be spent on country. During recent negotiations over the proposed gas pipeline the issue of compensation or royalties was discussed. From the perspective of Kaanju people living on homelands any royalties from the gas pipeline would have to go into a trust or incorporated body as described above and be spent on country for the benefit of the land through which the pipeline passes, for example, on land management projects such as weed and feral animal control, biodiversity conservation and fire management. The way that Kaanju people would benefit financially would include being actively engaged in these projects on homelands and be paid wages for their work.
Further, the legal system does not recognise commercial rights under the NTA, only traditional rights, therefore we often have to negotiate with government and other stakeholders to make agreements in order to get what we want. Apparently, ‘Native Title is about rights and interests not ownership’[24] and as such does very little to accommodate Traditional Owner plans for homelands and economic development, and aspirations for the improvement of our health, social, spiritual, and economic well-being.[25]