ABC NEWS ONLINE Friday, September 27, 2002.

Australia's largest ever native title claim has been settled, with the Western Australian Government handing back desert land the size of England to its traditional owners.

Federal Court judge Justice Robert French flew to the remote Parnngurr rockholes in the Pilbara in outback Western Australia to conduct a formal court hearing marking the handover. Dressed in full robes, Justice French re-established the Martu people as the land's rightful owners, seven years after they staked their claim and 50 years since white people drove them off.

The claim covers 136,000 square kilometres and takes in part of the Gibson Desert and the Great Sandy Desert. The Martu, who speak 12 distinct Aboriginal languages, continue to live a traditional lifestyle and the ruling gives them rights to hunt, gather, fish and to use natural resources such as ochre, soils, rock and stones, flora and fauna.

But their rights stop short of ownership of minerals and petroleum and the Rudall River National Park. Previous courts have ruled nature reserves and mining concessions extinguish native title.

Western Australian Deputy Premier Eric Ripper says the title claim was granted because the Martu people had demonstrated they were the traditional owners and had maintained those ties since Western Australia was colonised in 1829.

ABC NEWS ONLINE Friday, September 27, 2002.

The Western Australian Government has called for an overhaul of the Federal Government's spending priorities so that native title claims can be settled faster.

A ceremony has been held today to settle the biggest native title claim in Australia, giving the Martu people rights to 136,000 square kilometres of land in the western desert area of the state's Pilbara region.

Acting Premier Eric Ripper says it has taken the Martu people seven years, and many twists and turns, to finally recognise their rights as traditional owners.

He says the Commonwealth Native Title Act is a 400-page obstacle course, and the Federal Government has to reassess funding priorities to ensure Australia's 600 native title applications are settled faster.

Mr Ripper says ATSIC determined that $85 million a year is needed to properly fund the process, however the Federal Government has allocated just over half that amount annually for the past eight years.

Restoring identity - achieving justice for the stolen generations

Remarks by Dr Bill Jonas at the launch of Restoring identity, a report on consultation and research for a reparations tribunal for the stolen generations. Launched in Sydney on Friday 27 September.

Acknowledgement of traditional owners.

It is now more than 5 years since the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission completed its national inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families with the publication of Bringing them home.

Those five years have seen a wave of emotions for the stolen generations ranging from feelings of vindication as their experiences have finally been publicly recognized, right through to great distress due to the acrimonious debate that has taken place about the report and the experiences of the stolen generations.

That debate has thankfully died down over the past nine months, but rather than leading to resolution and peace of mind for the stolen generations it has largely been replaced by silence and disinterest from the broader community.

The injustice of the response of all governments to the report and experiences of the stolen generations remains, yet it is slowly fading from the public agenda as a matter of priority and concern. And perhaps ironically, as debates continue about dealing with issues of abuse within the churches, there has been even less focus on the role of churches in responding to the experiences of the stolen generations. The lack of focus on the role of the churches in making reparation to the stolen generations is a particularly scandalous silence of recent years.

The report that we are launching here today, Restoring identity - the final report of the Moving Forward consultation project, faithfully reflects the ongoing dimensions of the distress and lack of healing that continues to exist for those forcibly removed from their families and communities.

In recognition of the deficiencies of the public policy responses to the impact of forcible removal policies the Public Interest Advocacy Centre proposes an all-encompassing tribunal process to provide a package of reparations measures to affected individuals and communities. There are three main things to be said about this proposal.

The first is that I support. It is a manifest truth that issues of great importance to people forcibly removed from their families have not been dealt with through the package of practical measures adopted at the federal level. What we are missing in the current approach is humanity. This tribunal process seeks to provide such humanity and dignity to the way that we respond, as a society, to one of the most ill-conceived and destructive policies ever introduced by governments in Australian history.

The second is that this model is innovative. It poses a great challenge to governments at all levels to address outstanding issues of grief and trauma head on, rather than turning the process into an administrative and legal nightmare or - as is currently being done - simply doing very little at all. The pivotal features of this model are that it is based on acknowledgment, recognition; atonement; and healing. It recognizes that the process of telling your story is one of the most powerful and important to the stolen generations. It is not merely a matter of empty symbolism, it is a vital component of the reparation process. Until that is understood there will be no peace or settlement for the stolen generations.

The third is that perhaps tribunal is the wrong word for this process as it immediately conjures an image of a process dominated by legalism. This image has been mischievously used by the federal government to reject the tribunal approach in the past. So again, there is a need to see beyond a black letter law approach and instead enter the realm of justice. It is patently clear that our legal system as it currently stands is not equipped to deal with the claims of the stolen generations. Rather than restate this unjust truth, let's do something to change it.

To conclude, in supporting the recommendations of the report, I want to make some comment specifically on the first two recommendations of the report. These relate to the monitoring framework for government responses to forcible removal policies. I have argued for some years that the monitoring framework that has been agreed for the implementation of Bringing them home is inadequate due to the lack of accountability and transparency of the process.

It is now at least 18 months, possibly longer, since it was announced that the Ministerial Council of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs - or MCATSIA - would be providing a monitoring role for Bringing them home. Work has thankfully commenced on this task, but the delay is wholly unacceptable. From what I have seen of the monitoring process is seems to replicate problems of implementation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in that it is not rigorous, independent or proactive in its approach. And yet, at the same time, serious allegations have been raised by stolen generations groups that existing funding is not reaching those in greatest need and is being allocated without any sense of partnership or collaboration with stolen generations people.

This monitoring framework needs to be reviewed through regular, public reporting; and with full participation and consultation of stolen generations groups. The current process makes a mockery of the federal government's rhetoric on practical reconciliation - as deficient as that approach already is.

'Government approach to reconciliation lacks direction and accountability' states Social Justice Commissioner

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Dr Bill Jonas, has expressed disappointment at the federal Government's response to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation's blueprint for reconciliation.

The Government's response was released on Thursday 26 September 2002, almost 22 months after the Council released its final report and more than 28 months after the release of the Australian Declaration Towards Reconciliation and Roadmap towards reconciliation at Corroborree 2000.

Dr Jonas welcomed the Government's commitment to work collaboratively with States and Territories to address Indigenous disadvantage through the framework of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), through the COAG Communiqué of November 2000 and recently announced initiatives for trialing whole of government approaches in ten sample communities. 'These initiatives are of vital significance for the improvement of Indigenous livelihoods,' Dr Jonas stated.

Dr Jonas also welcomed the Government's support for processes to acknowledge the special place of Indigenous peoples in the life and history of Australia in Commonwealth ceremonies and for a referendum to repeal section 25 of the Constitution. 'Despite these positive features, I remain concerned that the government's response demonstrates a distinct lack of commitment and direction to making reconciliation a reality into the future,' said Dr Jonas.

'We have waited nearly two years for an official response to the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation's agenda and for a detailed programme of implementation for the reconciliation process. What we have now got is underwhelming and minimal. The government spent more time detailing what it is opposed to rather than what it is committed to.'

'Even on issues that are compatible with the Government's extremely limited 'practical reconciliation' agenda, we have been provided with nothing more than generalised statements of commitment. After six years of practical reconciliation, where are the targets, benchmarks and performance monitoring frameworks?'

'These have been promised for some time. Without them, the government remains unaccountable for the rate of progress in addressing Indigenous disadvantage.'

'I am particularly disturbed by the ongoing failure of the government to spell out in explicit, clear terms what it is committed to achieving. What are its expectations for addressing Indigenous health, education, housing and employment issues? What is the actual rate of progress that it considers would be satisfactory given the level of expenditure? Within what timeframe does it expect to have achieved lasting improvements across a variety of economic indicators? We do not know the answer to any of these questions' said Dr Jonas.

'From the work of the Reconciliation Council and the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission's 2001 report on indigenous funding need, it is clear that the Government has an unprecedented level of information at its disposal to commit to detailed plans of action for implementing its agenda' said Dr Jonas.

Dr Jonas also expressed concern at the treatment of the human rights components of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation's agenda throughout the government's response. 'The Government's claims about the current level of protection of Indigenous peoples human rights is extravagant and in some instances simply untrue. There is a large gulf between the reality of enjoyment of rights by Indigenous people and the claims of the government' said Dr Jonas.

Dr Jonas expressed hope that the current inquiry of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee into national progress towards reconciliation would address the deficiencies in the Government's current approach.

The inquiry, established in August this year in response to Dr Jonas' Social Justice Report 2001, will examine inter-governmental funding arrangements, benchmarking, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, as well as the consistency of the Government's approach with the aspirations of Indigenous peoples.

ABC NEWS ONLINE Tuesday, October 1, 2002.

The Town of Port Hedland, in north-west Western Australia, and the Pilbara Native Title Service will enter into a native title agreement with the Kariyarra people today.

It will set down a process for future negotiations which will be directed at developing a more substantial and binding agreement in the form of an indigenous land use agreement.

The agreement identifies the town's native title goals, key areas of business affected by native title issues, and related issues that assist or hinder the town when conducting normal business.

Under the agreement, the town and other parties agree to carry out further negotiations, but can pull out of the agreement at anytime by giving 14 days notice.