The Native Title Act is only the first of 15 rounds in the Mabo saga, according to the retiring chief executive of the Australian Mining Industry Council, Lauchlan McIntosh.
The land-title position was possibly more uncertain now than it was before the Bill was passed. He warned that unless changes were made and complementary legislation passed by the states, investment would go to other countries.
“”Given there is no state with complementary legislation, and all titles are issued by the states, then there is a long way to go because some states are not issuing titles and others are being delayed,” he said. “It will be only six months before it really starts to burn.
“”And even Aboriginal people claiming native title will find the process very difficult, trying to deal with a state that has no complementary legislation. It’s just going to become messier and messier.”
He called on the Commonwealth and the states to sit down in a co-operative way to resolve what amendments and what complementary legislation will achieve a practical outcome.
Unless that were done, all Australians would suffer because titles for exploration and development of mines would not be secure and investment would go elsewhere.
He said, “”As soon as you want to put $1 billion for a new smelter, and the banks says where is the title and you say we’ll get it in two years’ time, the bank will say that’s all very but we have three projects in Venezuela and six in Argentina and we can get a title in a month.
“”No-one’s going to bring forward a big project now. The One Nation statement was all about new projects. Well where are they? We have not had one big new project suggested in the past 18 months and no-one is going to put theirs forward as a test case. And that’s a serious issue for the development of the country.
“”Native title is an extra factor now in development decisions, and I don’t think it had to be. The mining industry is not saying there should not be native title; we’ve never said that, but it’s the process that worries us.
“”We missed a big opportunity in Mabo debate for a co-operative outcome,” he said. “”The Commonwealth steamrolled the states and left them dead in the water and that was unnecessary.”
He said last week that it was important to build on the goodwill created by the passing of the Native Title Act.
“”In the Aboriginal community _ and that’s a very broad definition of a lot of individuals _ feel better as a result of the legislation last year, if feel there has been some accommodation, some reconciliation or whatever, then that’s a good thing,” he said. “”I would hate to think that any of that euphoria of feeling of goodwill will be dashed in the future.
“”Somehow we should be able to build on that better relationship between Aboriginal people and government and the rest of community,” it would be a shame to see that fall apart.”
He criticised the role of the National Farmers’ Federation during the Mabo debate for doing a deal. In return for validating existing titles, they accepted things like the Land Acquisition Fund. But now they are worried that the fund will distort farm prices.
“”In the end your credibility can be ruined if you start going into the dealing game,” he said. “”And I think the farmers are in that position now where no-one knows where the farmers stand because they were all over the place. They were supporting the Government one day and supporting the Opposition the next.”
It was better to have a consistent position. The mining industry could not “”deal” in the political process.
“”It does not say we will accept one thing if you give us something else,” he said. “”Rather we can tell you what we don’t like, or what we like about a given piece of legislation.
“”Politicians find it hard to understand because they work everything on a deal basis, but we can only run things on an issue basis. Sometimes this leaves us in the cold and I accept that.”