Despite huge demographic differences, parallels in policies between Australia and South Africa addressing inequalities regarding indigenous populations appear mired in similar controversies.
It is common knowledge that, as a mechanism to uplift the previously disadvantaged, B-BBEE has failed. While enabling a small elite to become obscenely rich, it has entrenched unemployment, exacerbated poverty and deterred foreign investment. According to Professor William Gumede of Wits University, it is conservatively estimated that R1 trillion has moved between the politically connected since 1994 (Daily Friend, May 30, 2025).
Like the ANC’s adherence to the Freedom Charter, which seeks the return to the indigenous majority all natural resources forfeited during minority white rule, under the Native Title Act of 1993 the Aboriginal Australian minority may seek the restitution of lands seized under colonialism on the basis of spiritual, customary, historical, cultural, social and economic significance.
Although the Aborigine population of 984,000 comprises only 3,8% of the total population, as of June 2024, 16% of Australia (4,3 million square km) was subject to Aborigine rights or interests. Whereas in South Africa, land restitution and state ownership of natural resources is supposed to be for the benefit of the demographic majority, the reverse is happening in Australia.
The most prominent instance of that was finalized in March 2021 in Western Australia. The entire southwestern block of land from Perth to the southernmost reaches of the state – some 200,000 square kms – is now a preference region for the Noongar people. Nearly $1 billion has been earmarked for developments they desire over the next decade.
Just as a small black elite is making billions in South Africa through B-BBEE, so elements in the tiny Aborigine population are exploiting the Native Title Act. In 2016, the Ngaliwurru and Nungali groups were awarded $2,3 million as compensation for damages caused by infrastructure developments in their Timber Creek lands of the Northern Territory. In addition, they were awarded $1 million for “spiritual harm” incurred.
Mining companies have found that unless they make land use deals with these interests, they face expensive lawsuits mounted by Aborigine Corporations. In February this year, Fortescue Iron Mining was sued for $1,1 billion by the Yindjibarri Ngurra Corporation for severely damaging ancestral lands in Western Australia.
In 2023, the government of Western Australia was obliged to repeal its Aborigine Heritage Site Act and revert to 1972 legislation because of fierce opposition from the Western Australian Farmers Federation. “Every new farming activity we undertook would require a new heritage survey. The Act was unworkable,” said the CEO, Trevor Whittington.
The implications of the Native Title Act are spelt out by the leadership of the First Nations People: “We want our people employed and our businesses preferred for economic development on our land.” As Aborigine land claims mount across Australia – 38,000 currently outstanding in New South Wales – the Native Title Act has become politically divisive. But for Aborigines, since 58% of Australia’s critical minerals are situated in their lands, the Act promises to be the gift that keeps giving.
Whereas the application of a sunset clause to the Native Title Act is politically unforeseeable, at least in South Africa, B-BBEE is recognized as an economic albatross which faces strong legal challenges and foreign investment resistance.
Add Comment