THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1978. Queensland’s Aboriginals

Press, 12 April 1978, Page 16

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1978. Queensland’s Aboriginals

The Federal Government would “probably have to recruit its entire Army” if it wanted to take over all Aboriginal reserves in Queensland, the Queensland Premier (Mr Bjelke-Petersen) said last week. The spectre of the Australian Government’s using its Army against one of the states of the federation is frightening and Mr Bjelke-Petersen raised it for his own political purposes knowing that such a move would be next to impossible for the Government to make. Nevertheless, the suggestion reveals the rift between Brisbane and Canberra in the dispute over two Aboriginal communities in Queensland. Although the use of troops seems inconceivable, < the Australian Government must have made some serious threats to cause the Premier to fly to Canberra to discuss the question. The tw o communities of Aboriginals are at the Aurukun and Mornington Island missions, the first on Cape York Peninsula on the Gulf of Carpentaria side, the second further south in the gulf. At the Aurukun mission almost 1900 square kilometres are under mining lease for the 300 million tonnes of bauxite which lie just under the surface. The Aboriginals complain that they were not consulted when the lease was signed, and that the royalties negotiated are inadequate. The Mornington Island mission has been dragged into the dispute because both reserves have been run since the turn of the century by the Presbyterian Church, later to become the Uniting Church. The Federal Government said that the Aboriginals should take over the running of their own affairs and it passed legislation last week to this effect. The Queensland Parliament responded on Friday by passing legislation to abolish the reserves and to declare the area Crown land. It was already Crown land but the effect of the Queensland legislation has been to nullify the Federal legislation, which was worded to apply to reserves. The Federal Government

could rush through some more legislation with different wording, but would look foolish doing so. Yet it is difficult to believe that Mr Bjelke-Petersen’s visit to Canberra will result in a formula that will save face for both him and the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Fraser). What Canberra sees at stake is the treatment of Aboriginals: what Queensland apparently sees at stake is the issue of states’ rights. Queensland has long asserted its independence of Canberra on Aboriginal issues. The Whitlam Government took over responsibility for Aboriginals from states in 1973; the Queensland Government did not agree to the involvement of the Australian Government in state Aboriginal affairs. In 1975 the Whitlam Government passed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act to wrest some control from Queensland but the issue remained unresolved. Strong discrimination continued on reserves, Aboriginals being paid less than other workers, rights of appeal in a court case being dealt with by a Government official instead of a higher court, and a number of other conditions. A generous, way of describing Queensland’s treatment of Aboriginals would be to say that it was paternalistic. Other disputes between Queensland and the Australian Government include rows about mining rights, the development of an island within a national park, and the settlement of the border between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Mr Bjelke-Petersen draws some of his support outside the state from those strongly committed to states’ rights. Within Mr Fraser’s own party, the Liberals, there are some “states righters.” But when he negotiates with Mr Bjelke-Petersen, Mr Fraser has more than his own party, or even his party’s coalition with the Country Party to bear in mind. He has to go carefully lest he find himself talking about the existence of federation itself.