Native Title, a legal recognition of Aboriginal rights over an area, is set to cover 60 per cent of Australia’s landmass in the next 15 years – as Labor announces an inquiry into the legislation’s ‘inequality and unfairness’.
Native title holders can get compensation for things the government has done to stop them from exercising their rights, such as building a bridge or a road.
A map prepared by the National Native Title Tribunal shows that almost 50 per cent of Australia is currently under native title. The sections are divided by dark and light green to distinguish between ‘exclusive’ and ‘non-exclusive’ zones.
A further 12 per cent of land is being assessed for native title, with these areas coded in blue patches or stripes.
That means that native title will cover 60 per cent of Australia’s landmass within the next 15 years.
However, less than nine per cent of Indigenous people are members of a native title corporation and only half of these companies generate any money due to strict laws governing how the land can be used, according to the Australian Financial Review.
On Tuesday, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus announced a $550,000 inquiry into the Native Title Act, with the Australian Law Reform Commission tasked with identifying any ‘inequality, unfairness or weaknesses’ in the legislation.
A stunning map has revealed native title extends over half of Australia with more claims currently being assessed in other parts of the country
It is important to note that native title can only be claimed for Crown land and is not applicable to privately held properties.
When a native title determination specifies ‘exclusive’ rights, it means the Indigenous group has exclusive ownership and control over the area in question, excluding all others, including government authorities and non-Indigenous individuals or entities.
Non-exclusive native title in Australia grants Indigenous groups shared rights and interests in land without exclusive control.
It can grant native title holders the right to local cultural practices, such as the right to live in the area, hunt, fish, gather food or teach law and custom on country.
It does not, however, give them rights to minerals: those rights are reserved by the Crown.
Less than nine per cent of Indigenous people are members of a native title corporation and only half of these companies generate any money due to strict laws governing how the land can be used
Shadow Indigenous affairs minister Jacinta Nampijinpa Price(pictured) has called for reform to the Native Title Act for the ‘land rich, dirt poor’ Indigenous communities
And since their rights relate to traditional laws and customs they would not be able to build a casino like first nations people in America.
To claim native title, it is necessary to show an enduring connection to the land through pre-European settlement tribal laws and customs.
Claims are registered with the National Native Title Tribunal and determined in courts, including the Federal or High Court and state Supreme Courts.
After the inquiry was announced, Shadow Indigenous affairs minister Jacinta Nampijinpa Price called for reform to the Native Title Act for the ‘land rich, dirt poor’ Indigenous communities.
‘In terms of native title, while it was well intended, and it’s all very nice to be able to have, you know, access to your land as a traditional owner to fish and hunt. It was very narrow in terms of what else Indigenous Australians could do,’ Senator Price told Sky News.
‘Ideas such as economic development, economic independence, the opportunity to generate wealth from one’s own land. It was a very limited scope to be able to do that to begin with.’
She added: ‘I’ve always said, that traditional owners, you know, they’re land rich, dirt poor, and need to be able to be job creators in their own right, on country, instead of continually being dependent on welfare and on government.
‘We’re effectively landlocked in how we can and cannot use our land.’
Not everyone agrees, however.
Last year, Senator Pauline Hanson pushed for a royal commission into native title, but her bid was soundly voted down, with only five other Senators supporting the motion.
She argued that two-thirds of Australia could potentially be controlled by less than two per cent of the population under native title legislation.
‘Under current law, there is an infinite time period during which claims can be initiated, she explained.
‘That means groups could still be initiating claims in 100 years.’
Senator Pauline Hanson (pictured) has previously argued that two-thirds of Australia could potentially be controlled by less than two per cent of the population under native title legislation
She said by removing federal funding from respondents but continuing to provide money to those claiming native title the Albanese government had created a very unequal playing field.
‘There are many thousands of these native title and other land claims all over Australia,’ she told Daily Mail Australia last September.
‘I suspect that many people living in those areas yet to be determined don’t even realise that they are at risk of having their communities come under native title.
‘Native title claimants get all their legal costs fully funded by the Australian Government but not the organisations which must respond to these claims, because Labor has abolished the Native Title Respondent Funding Scheme.
‘So if your community comes under a native title claim, the Government will be funding it with your taxes.’
She said because native title claimants must reach a more strict standard of eligibility than those who claim Indigenous heritage, two-thirds of Australia could potentially be controlled by less than two per cent of the population.
‘Native title holders directly receive income in the form of mining royalties and other uses of land under their control.
‘These are just more examples – along with the Voice to Parliament – of the Albanese Labor government treating Australians unequally based on race.
‘From the beginning of my political career, I have been calling out this unequal treatment based on race. I will always fight for equality for all Australians.’
Meanwhile, a decade-long feud over two native title claims is reaching an end with First Nations traditional owners aiming to take ownership of 7,800sqkm of Australia.
The Barada Kabalbara Yetimalara People are bidding for native titles for two areas in Central Queensland with the Federal Court of Australia set to deliver its verdict soon.
It had been reported in local media that they had won the legal battle, but the Federal Court has confirmed a final decision has yet to be made.
On Tuesday, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus announced a $550,000 inquiry into the Native Title Act, with the Australian Law Reform Commission tasked with identifying any ‘inequality, unfairness or weaknesses’ in the legislation. An Aboriginal protester is pictured at a Perth rally
One plot of land covers more than 7,512sq km between Sarina and Rockhampton while the second encompasses 294sq km of land and water north of Rockhampton.
The applications for Indigenous ownership were first filed in July 2013.
They are the first to affect the Isaac region, west of Mackay, in a number of years.
Native title differs from land rights, which only exist under laws in NSW and the NT.
Land rights mean a local land council can claim freehold ownership of any unused or misused Crown land as compensation for historical dispossession.
These claims are assessed by government departments.
Both land rights and native title can coexist on a piece of land, and they may even bring traditional owners into conflict.
Traditional owners have won land right freehold ownership of 50 per cent of the Northern Territory, including 85 per cent of its coastline.
There have been over 3,000 successful land rights claims in NSW, but almost 40,000 are yet to be assessed.