The National Native Title Tribunal today said landholders in South Australia would lose none of their rights by entering into discussions about native title applications in their region.
Tribunal President Graeme Neate said the 13,000 landholders who this week received notices from the Tribunal about nine native title applications had the full protection of the law.
"Federal legislation and Court decisions have made it clear that native title cannot take away the valid rights and interests of other citizens, including pastoralists and other lease or licence holders."
"There is widespread myth and misunderstanding about native title which often raises unnecessary fears," he said.
Mr Neate said that the best way for people to be kept informed and involved in the mediation process was to become a party to the application that affected their interests.
"Mediation is aimed at exploring whether an agreement can be reached which respects everyone's rights and interests. It costs nothing to become a party to these native title applications if it's done before 1 November 2000. Landholders who want to do this should fill in the form enclosed in the Tribunal's letter and forward it to the Federal Court in Adelaide."
Mr Neate said native title could not be claimed on private freehold land, but could exist on vacant Crown land, state forests, national parks, public reserves, beaches and foreshores, land held by Government agencies, and any other public or Crown lands.
He said native title may exist alongside some leases and licences, but it did not provide any right of veto over development.
Mr Neate said the nine native title applications which were the subject of the Tribunal's letter to landholders had to be resolved whether or not the South Australian Parliament passed the government's native title validation legislation.
"Passage of the legislation would have meant the Tribunal would have written to fewer people as affected interest holders, but the State's 26 native title applications would still have to be settled - whatever areas of land they covered."
"The only question is whether they are settled by negotiation, or the more costly and adversarial alternative of litigation." |