Over the years, I have been struck by the similar problems and experiences of First Nations people in Canada and the Aboriginal people in Australia. Any community that is deprived of individual property rights and decent education (but showered with welfare) is poor and dysfunctional. This point was reinforced by Chief Commissioner C.T. (Manny) Jules at a recent talk for The Centre for Independent Studies about the challenges facing his people.
Poverty, underinvestment and mal-investment are an unholy trinity on many First Nations reserves. Although the unemployment rate on the reserves dropped from 25.9% in 1996 to 18% in 2006, it still compares poorly to a Canada-wide unemployment rate of 6.3%. Jules believes this high unemployment rate on First Nations reserves is due to a lack of opportunity.
Instead of thriving personal and communal finances, ‘dead capital’ litters the landscape of reserves. Although many First Nations people would qualify for mortgages, they are unable to borrow funds to either build or improve their own properties or funds to launch small businesses under existing land legislation.
The situation is similar to that faced by Aboriginal people living on Indigenous land in Australia. The communal ownership of Indigenous land means Aboriginal people cannot apply for a mortgage, insure their property, or leave it in their will to their children. Residents on Indigenous lands have no choice but to live in public or social housing.
Jules’ proposal, the First Nations Property Ownership Initiative, is for First Nations land to be a fee-simple based land title system. His proposal has met with some controversy, particularly by those concerned that the free-market approach will allow land to slip away from First Nations control. But as Jules points out: ‘First Nations would also ... have the option of establishing special protections of their own design, such as setting aside certain lands to remain inalienable, or limiting the sale of certain lands to First Nations members.’
In Australia, growing recognition of how communal land ownership has made Aboriginal people ‘land rich but dirt poor’ led the Howard government to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (NT) to facilitate 99-year leases for homeowners. Unfortunately, the legislation is unnecessarily bureaucratic: head leases are not held by communities but by the federal government under the Office of Township Leasing. Consequently, few communities have taken up 99-year leases.
To enable Indigenous prosperity on Indigenous lands, Aboriginal people should not be treated as inherently different to other Australians. As Jules says: ‘The West succeeded because private property and investment were used to create wealth.’ Aboriginal people, like all other Australians, should have the opportunity to become private home and business owners on their own land if they choose.
Sara Hudson is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.