The Wik ruling: is the High Court's ruling that native title and pastoral leases can coexist tenable?


Echo Issue Outline: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said
`Native title will be presumed to exist everywhere. The onus is going to be on leaseholders everywhere ... to prove that they have exclusive possession which has extinguished all native title rights'
Mr Donald McGauchie, president of the National Farmers Federation'

`[The decision] is like a gateway to say what you feel about your land, your ceremonies, your ways, your language, practices in hunting and gathering ... You have a right to say of who you are. Before it wasn't like that'
Ms Tybingoompa, a senior Wik woman

On December 23, 1996, the High Court of Australia, announced its ruling that native title can coexist with pastoral leases.
The ruling was in response to an appeal made by the Wik and Thayorre people of Cape York against an earlier Federal Court decision that pastoral leases extinguished native title.
The High Court ruling has led to much debate, with farmers, the National Party and some state premiers claiming that leaseholders' security of tenure has been greatly undermined and that the High Court ruling is not sustainable.
Aboriginal groups, on the other hand, see the Wik ruling as giving practical meaning to the previous Mabo ruling. They appear to believe that some real substance has now been given to the previous acknowledgement that Aboriginal people were in possession of Australia before white settlement.

Background
The High Court ruled on the Wik appeal that the rights of the pastoral leaseholder do not automatically remove the rights of Aboriginal people claiming a title to the land.
Under the Wik ruling both sets of rights can coexist or exist at the same time.
The High Court's ruling on the Wik appeal was not a unanimous one. The majority view was supported by four of the seven High Court judges.
The ruling maintains that pastoral leases and native title can coexist expect where there is a conflict between Aboriginal interests and pastoral interests. Where there is a conflict of interests the rights granted by the pastoral lease take precedence.
Some of the key features of the ruling are:

  • Future native title claims will be determined with reference to the terms of individual pastoral leases and the claimed native title rights of traditional occupants.
  • Pastoral activities permitted under the terms of a pastoral lease have precedence over the traditional activities of native title holders.
  • Farmers may have to negotiate with Aboriginal groups before undertaking some projects on leasehold property.
  • Though no Aboriginal native title holder is able to prevent a farmer with a pastoral lease building on a property for pastoral purposes, a farmer may have to pay compensation.
  • It is possible to avoid court action over disputed native title claims, or other related matters, if pastoralists and native title claimants (or established native title holders) negotiate on land use.
  • The Wik and Thayorre people will now have the application of their rights determined by the Federal Court.

    A brief history of the dispute over native title and pastoral leases.
    The history of the current dispute is probably as old as European settlement of Australia, however, specifically it dates from June 3, 1992.
    On June 3, 1992, in its Mabo ruling, the High Court judged that the previously accepted view that Australia was technically unoccupied, or terra nullius, before white settlement was a legal and administrative fiction.
    It was initially unclear what effect this would have on native title claims to land.
    In December, 1993, the Federal Parliament passed the Native Title Act. This established a framework for dealing with native title claims and confirmed that native title was extinguished by most other forms of title.
    The position of pastoral leases was less clear, however, the preamble to the Native Title Act seemed to indicate that valid pastoral leases also extinguished native title.
    In September, 1995, the federal government amended the Native Title Act, toughening the criteria for registering a native title claim. This was largely in response to concerns of the mining industry.
    In November, 1995, the Federal Court ruled that a pastoral lease extinguished the native title of the Waanyi people on the site of the giant Century Zinc project in north-west Queensland.
    On January, 29, 1996, the Federal Court handed down a similar ruling with regard to the Wik people and their claim over pastoral lease land on Cape York. The Federal Court judged in this instance also that pastoral leases extinguished native title.
    The Wik people appealed against the Federal Court ruling before the High Court.
    The High Court finished hearing the Wik case in June, 1996, however, its ruling was not brought down until December, 1996.
    The High Court ruled that pastoral leases and native title could coexist. The Wik people must now have their claim reconsidered by the Federal Court.

    Arguments in support of the High Court ruling that native title and pastoral leases can coexist
    There are four main arguments offered in support of the proposition that native title and pastoral leases can coexist.
    The first argument is a combination of legal interpretation and established practice.
    According to this line of argument, pastoral leases were never intended to abolish native title. Those who hold this view also maintain that, in practice, many Aboriginal groups have continued to access their traditional lands.
    This is the argument that was put by the senior judge of the majority decision in the High Court, John Toohey.
    Justice Toohey has argued that pastoral leases were intended to preserve the rights of Aboriginal occupants.
    Justice Toohey has cited Earl Grey, the mid-19th century British imperial secretary of State.
    Earl Grey judged that pastoral leases were intended to give `only the exclusive right of pasturage in the runs, not the exclusive occupation of the land, as against Natives using it for the ordinary purposes.'
    Justice Toohey also referred to Earl Grey's advice that `(l)eases are not intended to deprive the Natives of their former right to hunt over these Districts, or to wander over them in search for subsistence, in the manner to which they have been heretofore accustomed ... except over land actually cultivated (or) fenced in for that purpose.'
    Justice Toohey has also claimed that the pastoral lease was not primarily a residential lease, but one intended to give access to large tracts of land for pastoral purposes.
    Justice Toohey has argued that Australia's special circumstances in the 1830s and 1840s resulted in `new forms of tenure'. According to Justice Toohey the type of tenure given by other forms of lease in common law is not conferred by pastoral leases.
    A similar argument has been put by Dr Henry Reynolds, a senior research fellow in history and politics at James Cook University.
    Dr Reynolds refers to what he terms is `the actual history of the pastoral lease, which dates back to the 1840s'
    According to Dr Reynolds also, the pastoral lease was developed by the Colonial Office to suit the particular conditions existing in Australia at the time. Dr Reynolds claims that one of the functions of this particular form of lease was to protect Aboriginal access to the land.
    Dr Reynolds states, `Above all, it was designed to limit the rights of squatters to activities relating to pastoralism and to ensure that traditional owners would retain the right to live on their land. It was a tenure premised on the idea of concurrent rights [that is, rights shared by leaseholder and native title holder].'
    The second argument offered in support of native title and pastoral leases coexisting is the claim that it is possible for both the farmer and the native title holder to use the same tract of land without the rights of the pastoral leaseholder being reduced.
    Mr James Fitzgerald, who represented the Wik people before the High Court, stated after the ruling was announced, `There is no loser today - the rights of pastoralists are secure.'
    Those who hold that native title rights will not damage pastoral leaseholders, point to the High Court's ruling that where there is a conflict between pastoral and native title interests, the pastoral interest will prevail.
    Justice Toohey has judged that two factors are crucial - the original terms of the pastoral lease and the degree of consistency between the rights claimed by native title holders and the rights of the pastoral leaseholder, as conferred by the lease. In the event of inconsistency, Justice Toohey found that the pastoralist's rights took precedence.
    It has further been claimed that pastoral leaseholders are in no danger of losing the use of the lands granted them under their leases.
    Rick Farley, former executive director of the National Farmers Federation, has stated that the Native Title Act ensures that pastoral leases are automatically renewed when they expire, on the same terms and conditions as when they were originally granted.
    Mr Farley has further noted that native title claimants cannot prevent pastoral leases being renewed.
    Mr Farley claims that the Wik judgement maintains this same provision for automatic renewal of pastoral leases.
    This view has been summed up by Mr John Sheehan, a spokesperson for the Australian Institute of Valuers and Land Economists.
    Mr Sheehan has said, `... little has changed ... the property rights of pastoral lessees continue no less certainly than before.'
    The third argument offered in support of pastoral leases and native title being able to coexist is that in the event of a dispute, it will not be necessary to go before a court to determine the respective rights of the leaseholder and Aboriginal claimants.
    A number of key Aboriginal groups have said that their preferred method of settling any dispute is negotiation.
    Two types of negotiation have been referred to. One is case-by-case negotiation between disputing parties, the other is regional negotiation resulting in regional pacts or settlements. (A regional settlement is an agreement about native title involving areas of land covered by more than a single pastoral lease.)
    Regional pacts are apparently being considered in Victoria.
    According to this line of argument it should be possible, by formal and informal discussion, to settle any contested native title claims or any disputes resulting from shared title between pastoral leaseholders and native title holders.
    Mr Noel Pearson, a key Aboriginal negotiator before and since the passage of the Native Title Act, has argued that negotiation is the best method of resolving disputes. The same view has been put by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC).
    Justice Robert French, the president of the National Native Title Tribunal, has also called for negotiation. `I think it will be appropriate for governments and peak industry bodies as well as indigenous groups to try to get together and work out common approaches to negotiate these things because very often it's a question of trying to manage a relationship ... at a very practical level ... There's going to be talk about gates and fences and fire and vehicles and camping(rights) ... very basic things like that.'
    Mr John Purcell, the president of the National Cattlemen's Union of Australia, has claimed that an agreement reached between Aboriginal groups and farmers on the Cape York Peninsula demonstrates that native title claims can be settled outside court.
    According to this view, disputes can be settled fairly and amicably with the minimum of legal intervention.
    The fourth argument offered in support of native title and pastoral leases coexisting is that any attempt to extinguish native title is likely to be time-consuming, expensive and possibly unsuccessful.
    The National Party, the National Farmers Federation and a number of state premiers have called for native title to be extinguished by Federal law.
    Opponents of this move have noted that it would face a number of obstacles.
    Firstly, it is claimed, such a law would be unlikely to pass the Senate. The day after the Wik ruling was announced, Greens senator, Margaret Dees, indicated that her party would oppose any legislative bid to extinguish native title claims against pastoral leases.
    Ms Dees declared that, `Any such move goes against respect for our indigenous people and basic human rights and would be illegal under the Racial Discrimination Act.'
    If, as anticipated, both the Labor Opposition and the Democrats also opposed legislative attempts to extinguish native title then the passage of such a bill through the Senate would depend on the support of the two independent senators. The two independent senators have not yet stated their positions.
    Secondly, it is claimed, if native title were extinguished by law (a move which would also require amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act) then the Commonwealth and the States would probably have to pay Aboriginal groups huge amounts in compensation.
    The Federal Cabinet was advised by the Attorney-General's Department, in April, 1996, that extinguishing native title would probably require the Commonwealth to pay `significant' compensation which might exceed the commercial value of the land.
    The same view has been put by former federal attorney-general, Mr Michael Lavarch.
    Mr Lavarch has cited a National Native Title Tribunal judgement that Aboriginal groups would have to be compensated not simply for the freehold value of the land, but for `an inability to complete initiation rites, inability to gain and enjoy full tribal rites, loss of ceremonial function, inability to take part in matters of spiritual and tribal significance, and loss of social standing in a tribe or clan.'
    Mr Lavarch has warned that compensation in such terms could cost the Commonwealth a great deal.
    Some estimates have suggested that the Government could be facing a compensation bill of billions of dollars.
    The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tim Fischer, has suggested that the compensation bill could be met by raising taxes. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has indicated that he finds this option unattractive.
    It has also been noted by opponents of extinguishment, that it would be no final solution.
    Key Aboriginal groups have indicated that they would challenge before the courts any bid to extinguish native title.
    Some Aboriginal spokespeople have also indicated that they would attract international attention to their case by protesting during the 2000 Olympics to be held in Sydney.
    It has further been claimed that any attempt to extinguish native title by statute would put Australia in breach of a number of international conventions to which we are signatories and would damage our international reputation.

    Arguments opposing the High Court ruling that native title and pastoral leases can coexist
    There are four main arguments against the High Court's majority ruling that native title and pastoral leases can coexist.
    The first argument offered is that the ruling is not tenable or sustainable in law.
    Chief Justice Brennan, the senior High Court judge of those who brought down the minority judgement, has claimed that common law with regard to leases will not allow two sets of property rights to coexist with regard to the one piece of land.
    Chief Justice Brennan has claimed that the Queensland statutes dealing with pastoral leases `use the language of lease'. Chief Justice Brennan argues that therefore the rights they confer on lessees should be those normally associated with a lease.
    One of these rights, Chief Justice Brennan claims, is exclusive use. Chief Justice Brennan further claims that leasehold granted by the Crown, therefore, extinguishes any native title.
    Chief Justice Brennan has pointed out that in 1849, the Colonial Land and Emigration Office rejected the view that a pastoral lease merely allowed stock to be run over land in fact owned by the native title holder.
    Chief Justice Brennan concluded, `The law can attribute priority to one right over another, but it cannot recognise the co-existence in different hands of two rights that cannot both be exercised at the same time.'
    This judgement suggests that there is a constant conflict of interest between pastoral leaseholders and native title claimants.
    It has further been suggest that the Wik decision may have undermined more of land law in Australia than was initially thought.
    The Western Australian and Queensland governments have suggested that types of title other than pastoral leases may be subject to native title claims. It has been suggested, for example, that national parks and Crown land may also be open to native title claims.
    Critics have claimed that only freehold property and residential leases were absolutely exempted from native title claims under the terms of the Wik ruling.
    According to this line of argument up to 70 per cent of Australia could be subject to native title claims.
    The second major argument against the Wik ruling is that it is impracticable.
    According to this line of argument it is not possible for two different groups to successful share use of and access to the same piece of land.
    This position has been put by a columnist for The Australian, Mr Frank Devine.
    Mr Devine writes, `Land cannot have two owners. Families have been ruined and countries destroyed on that issue. It is unrealistic to think that Aborigines will - or should - be content with enjoying informal access to pastoral leases for traditional activities while meekly keeping out of the way of the pastoralist.'
    Mr Devine argues that the interests of the native title holder and those of the pastoral leaseholder are fundamentally incompatible.
    One of the suggested reasons for this is that native title holders are likely to seek full ownership rights.
    Mr Devine suggests that ownership, rather than shared use and access is the objective of key Aboriginal groups.
    Mr Devine claims, `The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander position ... is that holders of native title stand in the same relation to leased land as holders of freehold title who sell leases. The freeholder owns the underlying title.'
    In terms of practical detail, farmers have claimed that having to share their leaseholds with native title holders will limit their ability to make land management decisions about where to place dams, fences and access roads.
    It is also anticipated by some that there may be difficulties regarding leased land not currently used for pastoral purposes.
    It has further been suggested that any attempts by pastoralists to diversify their land use, by doing things other than animal husbandry, will raise problems . For example, it has been suggested that pastoralists who want to use some of their leased properties for tourist projects will have to reach an agreement with any native title holders as such land use will not have been envisaged under the terms of the pastoralist's lease.
    In addition, it has been suggested by some that the current practice of allowing mining on pastoral leases may be impeded by the Wik decision. (The provisions of the Native Title Act and some elements of the Wik ruling appear designed specifically to prevent any impediment to mining.)
    Thirdly the claim that disputes will be readily resolved by negotiation has been challenged by those opposed to the Wik ruling.
    There have been a number of concerns expressed about any negotiation process.
    One of these concerns is the difficulty of determining who is entitled to speak for and make decisions on behalf of native title claimants.
    This concern has been put by Age columnist Padraic McGuinness.
    Mr McGuinness has asked the following questions. `What is native title? Who holds it and how are we to discover who has the right to negotiate with respect to it? Who has the right to speak for the Wik, the Waanyi, the Jawoyn and so on?'
    Those who are worried about the supposed absence of clearly appointed representatives to act for Aboriginal groups are also concerned that decisions may be made without the full knowledge and consent of all interested parties. They are further concerned that as a result decisions made via negotiation may turn out to be not binding on all interested parties.
    It has also been suggested that agreements made via negotiation are likely to led to on-going legal challenges.
    Columnist for The Australian, Mr Frank Devine, has said, `If [negotiated] agreements are slovenly in their detail their principal product will be litigation in perpetuity.'
    It has further been alleged that some Aboriginal groups claiming native title rights have a doubtful relationship with the land on which they are making a claim.
    The MacDonald family is contesting a native title claim, the validity of which they dispute, mounted by the Gunggari tribe.
    The McDonald family are leaseholders of a large property in Western Queensland. Mr McDonald's father bought the lease in 1921 and the family maintains, `There were no Aboriginal people in the area with any connection to this lease for some time previously and there have been none since.'
    The likelihood of disputes ultimately having to be resolved in court has been a general criticism of the Wik ruling. It has been suggested that legal costs are likely to prove very damaging for pastoral leaseholders and that they may be ruined by court costs even if their exclusive right to the use of their leasehold is upheld.
    The president of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Donald McGauchie, has claimed that the result of the Wik decision will be that every leaseholder in Australia will have to go to court to defend their property rights.
    Mr McDonald has expressed the view that `the lawyers are going to have a field day and cost this country a fortune.'
    The recent breakdown of negotiations between mining company CRA and the Queensland Government, on the one hand, and Aboriginal representatives, on the other, over the Century Zinc project has been claimed to indicate the probable failure of any negotiation process mediated by the Native Title Tribunal.
    The twelve native title claimants had been offered a $90 million compensation package, however, six of the groups making native title claims rejected the offer.
    The dispute is now likely to move onto the next stage, arbitration, and it is anticipated that the Century Zinc project will not get underway before the end of the year.
    Finally, it has been argued that native title claims could have damaging economic consequences for Australia.
    The federal Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer, has claimed, `If every significant project is going to take years, as has been the case with Century, the Australian economy will grind to a halt - to the detriment of all Australians.'
    Senator Parer has further suggested that the supposed uncertainty surrounding native title claims could result in mining companies going overseas and harm to Australia's export prospects.
    Senator Parer has quoted from an August 1996 Productivity Commission report. The report apparently stated, ` The main source of heightened uncertainty about land access in Australia identified by mining companies is the lack of certainty about native title.'
    The premier of Queensland, Mr Borbidge, also referring to the collapse of the Century Zinc negotiations, has claimed, `This is a black day for Australia. If the agreement had been signed ... there would have been 1500 jobs by Christmas and the world's largest zinc mine would have been proceeding.'

    Further implications
    The further implications of this issue are enormous and subsequent developments are difficult to predict.
    The Prime Minister is under pressure from a number of state premiers, the National Party and the National Farmers Federation to take legislative action to extinguish ,or partially extinguish, native title.
    Some of Mr Howard's remarks have shown him to be not totally averse to doing this. The Prime Minister has discussed, for example, the prospect of amending the Racial Discrimination Act. (Some of the current provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act would prevent amendments to the Native Title Act or other legislative attempts to extinguish native title.)
    However, there a number of significant obstacles which may prevent any attempt to amend the Racial Discrimination Act or to pass laws largely extinguishing native title. It is far from certain that such bills would pass the Senate. It is certain, however, that proposed legislation of this type would attract enormous opposition from Aboriginal Australians and other interested groups.
    Some Aboriginal Australians have already indicated that they would use the 2000 Olympics in Sydney as an opportunity to protest against any government attempt to extinguish native title or reduce Aboriginal rights.
    Currently Aboriginal spokespeople have been quite moderate. The Northern Land Council, for example, has proposed a three year moratorium on native title claims so that wide-ranging discussions can take place. However, it is difficult to imagination such a moderate approach continuing if the only response it receives is opposition.
    One possible resolution of the native title question from the federal government's point of view, might be to hand the problem over to the states to deal with. However, the states would not be able to take the action that most appear to want unless the Racial Discrimination Act were amended. As already noted, the likelihood of the RDA being amended is remote.
    Fundamental to much of this debate appears to be fairly general uncertainty about what native title means. The Wik ruling does not appear to have been very helpful in this regard.
    Justice Toohey has claimed that native title rights cover a wide range of possibilities. He has suggested that they may `approach the rights flowing from full ownership at common law'. On the other hand he has suggested they may be as little as the entitlement `to come on to land for ceremonial purposes, all other rights in the land belonging to another group.'
    Justice Toohey appears to believe that the degree of entitlement conferred by native title can be determined on a case-by-case basis, with reference to original statutes and leases and to the traditional extent of Aboriginal access to and use of a particular piece of land.
    Opponents of this position do not seem to believe that leases and original statutes will provide sufficient protection for leaseholders.
    On the one hand the National Farmers Federation is demanding an upgrading of the status of pastoral leases so that they clearly confer rights of exclusive occupancy. This is unlikely to happen as it would result in the farmers having greater control of leaseholds than they did prior to the Mabo ruling.
    Such a strengthening of leasehold would also probably not be appreciated by mining groups. Currently they have an automatic entitlement to come on to pastoral leaseholds for exploration purposes. They might lose this entitlement if pastoral leases were strengthened.
    On the other hand state and territory leaders have suggested that legislation be used to confine native title rights to access to leasehold land for hunting, fishing and ceremonial purposes.
    It would be interesting to note whether such a limitation would be acceptable to Aboriginal people.
    Overall there is the real risk that unless this issue is well and fairly handled it will do enormous damage to attempts to achieve reconciliation between Aboriginal Australians and the rest of the Australian population.
    A further consequence of the Wik ruling is that there have been unprecedented attacks on the High Court. There have been calls to exert greater control over the selection of High Court judges. There has also been vigorous debate about the role of the High Court. There have been accusations that the High Court is not interpreting law but making it and thus taking over the function of the Parliament.




    Sources
    The Age
    24/12/96 page 1 news item by Laura Tingle, `Ruling fails to end title conflict'
    24/12/96 page 4 news item by Ben Mitchell and Paul Chamberlin, ` Reaction to Wik decision divided'
    26/12/96 page 1 news item by Gervase Greene, `Senate may stop native title moves'
    26/12/96 page 14 editorial, `Justice and land rights'
    28/12/96 page 11 comment by Henry Reynolds, `Good decision, poor advice'
    16/1/97 page 15 analysis by Laura Tingle, `Wik judgement resurrects idea of coexistence'
    20/1/97 page 1 news item by Laura Tingle, `Wik: legal risk revealed'
    21/1/97 page 3 news item by Laura Tingle & Ben Mitchell, `Blanket end to land title ruled out'
    22/1/97 page 15 comment by Martin Flanagan, `The journey that has only one way to go'
    23/1/97 page 2 news item by Ben Mitchell, `Aborigines offer to halt claims if the Government talks'
    23/1/97 page 2 news item by Laura Tingle, `PM leaves options open on native title'
    23/1/97 page 15 comment by Gatjil Djerrkura, `How Wik reconciles law with the land'
    25/1/97 page 5 news item by Ben Mitchell, `Avoid native title quick fix: groups'
    25/1/97 page 31 comment by Padraic P McGuinness, `Breaking rules and making law for native title'
    1/2/97 page 10 news item by Laura Tingle, `Farmers push to quash native title'
    8/2/97 page 7 news item by Ben Mitchell, Paul Chamberlin & Greg Roberts, `Taxpayers must fund Wik: Nats'
    11/2/97 page 3 news item by Laura Tingle & Ben Mitchell, `Wik plot feared by black leaders'
    12/2/97 page 7 news item by Ben Mitchell, `Kennett to renew push for native title pacts'
    12/2/97 page 15 comment by Barbara Hocking, `A land not quite for all of us'
    17/2/97 page 5 news item by Laura Tingle, `Talks on Century project collapse'
    17/2/97 page 14 editorial, `A turning point for reconciliation'
    20/2/97 page 9 news item by Laura Tingle & Ben Mitchell, `No ATSIC funds for Aboriginal mine fight'

    The Australian
    24/12/96 page 1 news item by David Fagan, Fiona Kennedy and John Short, `High Court's decision angers farmers, miners'
    24/12/96 page 1 news item by Georgina Windsor, `Spirits soar with dance of delight'
    24/12/96 page 4 news item by Jamie Walker, `No easy answers, says tribunal chief'
    24/12/96 page 4 news item by Fiona Kennedy, `Pastoral possession not exclusive right'
    24/12/96 page 4 news item by Georgina Windsor, `Aboriginal reconciliation dead, says NFF'
    26/12/96 page 1 news item by Jamie Walker, `PM calls talks on native title challenge'
    26/12/96 page 8 editorial, `Wik finding needs much clarification'
    26/12/96 page 9 comment by Rick Farley, `Negotiation will seal the best deal over native title'
    28/12/96 page 13 analysis by Bernard Lane, `Title fight'
    13/1/97 page 1 news item by John Short, `PM told: 70pc of land open to claims'
    15/1/97 page 2 news item by David Fagan, `State plans to cut title negotiation rights'
    20/1/97 page 1 news item by Scott Emerson & John Short, `Payouts to surge in State plan for title cuts'
    21/1/97 page 13 comment by Michael Lavarch, `What price native rights?'
    22/1/97 page 6 news item by Maria Ceresa, `True test for mines, not farms, says priest'
    22/1/97 page 6 news item by Nigel Wilson, `Give blacks a living area: Mining lobby'
    22/1/97 page 6 analysis by Brian Woodley, `One small step becomes a giant leap'
    22/1/97 page 11 comment by Peter Yu, `A solution that gives rights to all'
    23/1/97 page 1 news item by John Short, Fiona Kennedy & David Nason, `Blacks slate PM in race Act row'
    25/1/97 page 2 news item by Fiona Kennedy and David Fagan, `Aborigines refuse to give ground on mines'
    30/1/97 page 2 news item by Georgina Windsor, `Policy on blacks echoes "assimilation"'
    30/1/97 page 11 comment by Frank Devine, `Only legislation can put Wik on firm ground'
    31/1/97 page 4 news item by John Short and Georgina Windsor, `Native title deters investors'
    1/2/97 page 2 news item by Carolyn Collins, `Spirit of the land touches graziers'
    7/2/97 page 3 news item by Georgina Windsor & David Nason, `Round-table proposal to resolve Wik'
    8/2/97 page 1 news item by John Short & Scott Emerson, `Wipe out native title, says Fischer'
    6/2/97 page 6 news item by Scott Emerson, `After a year of compromise, Borbridge can't afford to bend on Wik'
    15/2/97 page 2 news item by John Short & Georgina Windsor, `Minds fail to meet on Wik'
    15/2/97 page 2 news item by Scott Emerson & Richard Sproull, `Racial warning over Century "black day"'
    17/2/97 page 5 news item by Ian Henderson, `Century reinforces resolve to change Act'
    18/2/97 page 4 news item by Natalie O'Brien, `Claim tests native title over parks'
    19/2/97 page 11 comment by Elizabeth Fysh, `Don't farm out guilt to bush'

    The Herald Sun
    24/12/96 page 2 news item by Kim Sweetman, `Doubts on Wik win'
    24/12/96 page 2 news item by Karl Malakunas, `More land now open to claim: lawyer'
    16/1/97 page 21 analysis by Paul Gray, `Wik is a bomb for PM'
    21/1/97 page 17 comment by Tony Parkinson, `Heads in the sand on native title'
    31/1/97 page 19 comment by Tony Parkinson, `Dancing around Wik"