Barb Shaw was not in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday. Her voice was not heard in the words of legal argument of the judge and the barristers. But her battling spirit was there; the battle of an individual against coercive government power; the battle of one person representing the battle of many.Before I go on to describe yesterday's events, dear Networker, you might like to take a peek at this video clip from The Juice Media.
Outside the Federal Court friends of Barb Shaw
turned up in support.
Robbie (top left), Cheryl, and Joe spoke in support.
The signs said it!
The banners took a bit of managing
on a very, very cold and windy
Melbourne day.
Barb Shaw's case is being considered
in the Federal Court of Australia
before Judge Alan H Goldberg AO.
Barb Shaw is being represented by Jonathan B R Beach QC
Peter Gray SC appeared for the majority of the housing associations which manage the Town Camps in Alice Springs. Not all housing associations were respondents because there were housing associations without an interest in this matter.There was a live video link to the Federal Court in Darwin where the Northern Territory Government was represented by a Ms Brownhill.
I sat in court for the initial presentation by Jonathan Beach QC.
Barb is arguing that her rights as a tenant of the Mount Nancy Housing Association have been impinged. Housing associations are established with the purpose of being sympathetic to tenants. Understandable, given the experience of Aboriginal people in the mainstream rental market. Tenancies are legally sub-leases. There is a query surrounding whether Barb's tenancy is a periodic tenancy or a permanent tenancy. Beach QC said that the Court did not have to resolve this question but in his view Barb's tenancy fell somewhere between the two.
You can see, dear Networker, the detail that has to be considered: details of clauses in the constitution of the Mount Nancy Association; details of clauses in Barb's lease and so on. What is of concern is that when and if the Commonwealth Govt take over the leases from the Mount Nancy Association they will then be in the hands of the Executive Director of Town Leasing.
Under this new regime there will be no intrinsic sympathy to tenants. While in many respects the tenants of the Mount Nancy Housing Association enjoy what is tantamount to permanent/lifetime tenancy, under new town leasing arrangements tenants could be given 42 days notice to vacate the premises. The question is whether the Mount Nancy Housing Association can give away its tenants rights without consideration or notification.
As the argument was laid out, the co-ercive nature of the Commonwealth Government's take-over of Aboriginal land became clear.
If more evidence of co-ercion is needed, consider the presence of legal representation for the Housing Associations. Their support will not be for Barb's argument. They will be arguing in favour for the forty-year leases. Why? Because the alternative is so unpalatable, so unthinkable. The alternative is compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal land.
When Aboriginal people speak of a land grab,
they are not exaggerating.
What amazes me, dear Networker, is why the Commonwealth and Territory Governments could not have put on an innovative thinking cap. Public Private Partnerships (P3s) are common practice in modern governance - and I have many doubts about them. However, why could both governments not have explored with thorough and well-advertised Aboriginal consultation a public private partnership with Aboriginal communities and organisations to renew and build public housing on Aboriginal land. They could have even taken the opportunity to explore the possibility of a new way of tenure, of holding the land.
Innovative forms of holding Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory are not new: Aboriginal Land Rights; Territory Freehold for instance. If no existing form of tenure was satisfactory to all parties, why not develop one that met the needs and rights of all? Sure, time would need to be taken but surely the value of a strong Aboriginal partnership would be worth the effort.
The Howard and Rudd Governments, to Australia's shame, have taken us back to the 1950s and the failed assimilation policies inflicted on a voteless Aboriginal population.
Well - it is not quite the same. From the government side, not much has changed. Little or no meaningful consultation with Aboriginal people and organisations; imposition of whitefellas "solutions" on Aboriginal people; whitefellas ripping off budgets which are supposedly in place to benefit Aboriginal people. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
However, some things do change. Aboriginal people can now vote. In the Northern Territory Parliament, Aboriginal Members of Parliament as a proportion of all Legislative Assembly Members are there in roughly the same proportion as Aboriginal people in the total Northern Territory population. Not that all Aboriginal people agree on all things - and neither should they.
All this Intervention horrible-ness is now impacting on the Northern Territory Government. Will it implode or will it not? Alison Anderson departs and Marion Scrymgour returns.
It is high time that the Northern Territory Government stood up to the Commonwealth Government on the Northern Territory Emergency Response (The Intervention). Paul Henderson got himself into this difficult situation because of poor political judgment and an early election last year by which he whittled away a solid majority to a majority of one. Now, Aboriginal public policy issues could destroy his government.
Does the Rudd Government want this? Would they prefer to deal with a Country Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory? Perhaps they would.
Who would have believed that so-called progressive social democratic government/s would have got itself/themselves in this mess? Such is the path of natural justice. Chickens come home to roost and they roost in quite amazing places sometimes!
Further reading:
The background to the Barb Shaw campaign is not as straightforward as Miss Eagle would think. The Native Title holders of Alice Springs, for example, are opposed to her campaign, as are many other Aboriginal leaders and organisations. Some figures behind her campaign are not quite as presentable as Ms Shaw. The arguments for government intervention are quite strong, and there is widespread resentment amongst town campers themselves about the tactics and dominance of one family group. It is difficult for people in Melbourne to see or understand these issues, as most people are reluctant to get involved with a public slanging match with this family, which is very adept at winning fights.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI have moderation on the blog and am always reluctant to let Anonymous comments through but I can understand from your comments why you might wish to be anonymous. As well, you don't sound like a nutter.
I wouldn't underestimate the knowledge of people in Melbourne on the issues. True some of us might never have lived in the NT. Except in this case, you are speaking to an old Territorian from the desert country who still goes back and still stays in touch. I was back there, including in Alice, in March/April. I am not the only one with Territory experience in my Network.
I don't expect Aboriginal people to speak with one voice. Whitefellas don't speak with a united voice - why should Aboriginal people? Only I have to say that there is a body of opinion down here drawing on diverse sources within the NT which believes that there is a 50/50 division of opinion on income management but that the majority of opinion (if not all) finds other aspects of the intervention burdensome and racist.
So when you come to this Network you will find that we try to balance our views with on the ground details and the larger pictures of human rights; ensuring that governments deliver services to Aboriginal people which are taken for granted by white Australians;true and effective consultative practices are in place; and the reinstatement of the Racial Discrimination Act.
I sat in Court yesterday and heard the arguments as did another member of The Network with strong NT contacts. Barbara Shaw has the right, as a citizen, to bring this action and it will be determined for right or wrong in public in the judicial arena where not all arguments are won either.
It greatly concerns me that the government has stuffed around and, apparently, frittered away $30m+ dollars without a house being built or a nail hammered in. People in the Territory are watching this, both black and white, and we must hold the government accountable.
If you can advise me of houses that have been built or even refurbished (where, when, how much money was spent) under Ms Macklin's administration, I would be pleased to hear it and I would publish such corrections.
However, my authorities who talk about the failure of the Fed & NT Govt's are quite impeccable so I would be surprised if I have to publish a retraction.
I know there are many Aboriginal people, communities and organisations longing for the funding that has been promised but do souls have to be sold to get what should be basic entitlements.
There is clearly only one way to skin a cat in the govt's eyes - their way.
I have spent most of my life living in and around significant Aboriginal communities in North Qld and the NT. I am disgusted with what is happening and it breaks my heart. But let's move things along and on the right path. And only an active electorate can keep govts honest in this regard.
All the best to you.
If you wish to write to me off blog and give me your picture of events please write to misseaglesnetwork(at)gmail(dot)com - but I would prefer to know who you are and I would keep it confidential. In return, I would tell you who I am and what my background in the NT is.
Blessings and bliss
Miss Eagle