Ninety per cent of Australians would be concerned if employment opportunities were reduced by the Mabo decision, according to a national survey conducted by the Australian Mining Industry Council.
However, it found 41 per cent thought Aborigines should be compensated if land cannot be handed back because it is being used by others. But 56 per cent said they should not be.
The survey showed very high awareness of the decision and very high levels of concern about it, but also widespread ignorance of related matters.
In other Mabo developments yesterday, a plan by the Western Australian Premier, Richard Court, for a referendum on native title was branded an illegal act of racial discrimination by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Robert Tickner.
The Leader of the Opposition, John Hewson, said a referendum would be divisive, but uniform legislation was needed to clarify titles.
The survey was commissioned jointly by AMIC and the Western Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy and done by AMR:Quantum. 1,506 people were interviewed by telephone.
Of them, 79 per cent said Aboriginal people should be treated in all respects the same as other Australians and 74 per cent believe land rights for Aborigines should be the same as other Australians.
The questions did not make clear whether respondents were saying that Aborigines should buy land from the Crown or other people like non-indigenous people or whether everyone’s property rights (including native title recognised by a court) should be respected.
The survey said 89 per cent would be concerned if Mabo put at risk existing property titles of other Australians. (The decision makes it clear that freehold and long leasehold are immune from native-title claims, though the position of miners’ and pastoralists’ right to search or graze is unclear.)
Ninety per cent said they would be concerned if unemployment opportunities were reduced or prevented; 88 per cent if economic development was delayed or prevented; 85 per cent if it discouraged mining investment and 82 per cent if it resulted in large areas of Australia being claimed. Seventy-one per cent said Aboriginal people should not be able to claim ownership rights to public areas such as national parks, beach areas and river foreshores.
The deputy executive director of the Australian Mining Industry Council, Geoffrey Ewing, said “”To date governments and interest groups have had the running of the issue. If there is to be a real prospect of finding workable solutions to the realities of Mabo, the opinions of the whole community must be taken into account.”
The survey included all states and the Northern Territory, but not the ACT.
It found 72 per cent of people thought at least some Aboriginal claims should be met; only 17 per cent said no claims should be met. The bulk of opinion suggested cases should be looked at on individual merit according to it being genuine tribal land with proven sacred sites.
Fifty per cent said Aborigines should not be able to prevent mining on their land; 35 per cent said they should be able to.
The survey found that two-thirds of people had no idea of the proportion of Aboriginal people in the Australian population. One third admitted as much, the other third guessing over 5 per cent or under 1 per cent. One third correctly identified between 1 and 5 per cent. In fact it is 1.5 per cent. 63 per cent had no idea what land Aborigines already controlled. Only 15 per cent knew mining rights (at least pre-Mabo) were vested in the Crown in right of the states.
On Mr Court’s referendum proposal, Mr Tickner said, “This was his own contribution; it was a calculated act to take away the property rights of indigenous people,” Mr Tickner said. “”It would be a clear breach of the Racial Discrimination Act.”
It would the exactly the same thing that the then Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke- Petersen, had done that had triggered the Mabo case in the first place.
Mr Tickner said he had written to the president of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sir Ronald Wilson, and the Federal Race Discrimination commissioner, Irene Moss, alerting them to “”a threatened breach of the Racial Discrimination Act”.
Ms Moss has already condemned Mr Court’s idea.
Mr Court said a national referendum would be best, but if the Federal Government did not do that Western Australia would have its own referendum.
He did not say precisely what question would be asked.
The Leader of the Opposition, John Hewson, rejected the idea as divisive, but he called for a common legislative approach by the states and the Commonwealth to give security of title following the High Court’s decision in the Mabo case last year that indigenous people who could show a continuous link with the land could claim the land under native title, provided that no-one else had since been granted freehold or long leasehold or other inconsistent title to the land.
Dr Hewson said that every day without legislative action increased fear, turmoil and uncertainty.
Mr Tickner said he hoped to head Mr Court off at the pass. The referendum itself would be a breach of the Act, and certainly any resulting legislation that attempted to take away title would also be.
Mr Tickner said he hoped it was just a weekend news generator and that Mr Court was not serious at going ahead.
The South Australian Premier, Lynn Arnold, said Mr Court was “”a spoiler”.
The Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, suggested on Saturday that suburban homes were at risk. Mr Tickner dismissed this a nonsense. The Mabo case had made that clear, he said.