Where does this lead to? If not interest in land or land titles, how is justice to the Aborigines to be provided?
Absolute justice is an unrealisable idea. Justice is best represented by the pair of scales. In almost every situation, justice involves balancing of interests where there are competing claims. There are merits and demerits on both sides.
The scales of justice are associated with a court of law which dispenses interpersonal justice - justice between individuals.
Justice (i.e. social justice) involving group claims is much more complex. Judicial or bureaucratic actions under law which attempt to dispense social justice often lead to arbitrariness. The arbitrariness is often invisible to the member or supporter of the group who cannot see beyond their problem.
An attempt to provide justice for groups (as distinct from providing justice for individuals) invariably leads to more injustice, than the injustice which is addressed and which is sought to be redressed.
The views of Yunupingu quoted above demonstrate that policies tried to date by governments have failed. He argues that land rights for the Aborigines will also fail. He demands a separate State for the Aborigines. This is the logical extension of some of the welfare and anti-discrimination policies of the past, the present and the Mabo Edict.
The Mabo decision arguably continues the fundamental flaw in Aboriginal policies. The plight of the Aborigines has been worsened rather than improved by throwing money, appointing bureaucrats and acting on ideologically based assumptions. The people (politicians, bureaucrats and academics responsible for these policies) seem to think that land rights, money and re-education are all that is necessary. What is required is a fundamental rethink of the policies and formation of new policies.
The best hope for Aborigines to better their conditions and join the mainstream Australian community life lies with special education and health programs and self-help. This was demonstrated by the Aboriginal community which voluntarily adopted a "work for the dole" campaign which lifted the morale of the people to a point where many non-economic problems such as alcoholism and juvenile delinquency were substantially reduced.
There is much that can be done in the area of health and education for Aborigines. If only a fraction of the vast amount which has been spent by governments has reached the Aborigines and catered to their basic needs of health and education, and the money had not been creamed off by bureaucrats, researchers and activists, the problems of the Aboriginal population would have been less acute.
The Aborigines are part of the Australian nation. The way forward is to treat them in the same manner as other members of the nation. There are welfare policies for minorities, the dispossessed, the poor and the uneducated. The way forward is by extending to all underprivileged people (whether Aborigine, white, yellow, brown or black) the same rights, benefits and welfare services.
The question may well be asked whether since welfare has failed, welfare is the way forward for the Aboriginal people. There is a multi faceted answer to this question.
Welfare has failed and there is no reason to believe that land rights will make a difference.
The argument in favour of land rights is partly predicated on the view that welfare is destructive of the work ethic, self esteem, personal character, creativity and purpose. But conferring title on land for no consideration or contribution from the recipient (except the guilt of the giver and the sufferings of the ancestors of the receiver) cannot be beneficial. Receiving land for nothing does nothing to help the work ethic, self esteem, personal character, creativity and purpose.
People who receive something for nothing are also unlikely to provide the hard work and motivation which is required for development (quite apart from the inherent injustice in receiving something for nothing).
The real problem lies with the thinking behind government welfare policy (supported by politicians, academics, bureaucrats and interest groups) that by pouring money and regulation into a problem (or an extension of providing money giving land) human problems can be solved.
The way forward lies (i) in changing the culture of welfare and in (ii) in the realms of morality and spirituality. These are dimensions which are spurned by those who make decisions and provide the agenda within which decisions are made. Part 2 contains two chapters "The Reality of Welfare and Welfare Rights" and (ii) "A Christian approach to Aboriginal Culture and Welfare and Land Rights".
This is the way forward for a nation. This is the way in which the Aborigines can be part of a nation. Any other way will create festering discontent. There are Aborigines and Aboriginal leaders who recognise this. Unfortunately the aggressive pro Aboriginal rights militants and the media do not provide opportunity for exposure of the views of the Aborigines who do not support the Mabo Edict and land rights claims.
Aboriginal leaders do not necessarily represent all the Aboriginal people. Paul Keating or John Hewson do not represent the Australian people or even the ALP and the Liberal Party respectively. Trade union leaders do not represent the workers. Feminist leaders do not represent women. So called spokesmen for the environment do not necessarily represent the people of Australia. Big business leaders do not represent small business people and small farmers. Whom do radical environmentalists represent? The people are becoming less influential as unrepresentative elites and interest groups control the agenda of debate and decision making. Democracy is the main victim.
The agenda of debate and decision-making in Australia is controlled by a tiny elite of politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, academics and leaders of special interest groups.
If Australia aspires to be a democracy on the issues raised by Mabo and a host of other issues, the people must be consulted and their views taken into consideration.