Lessons for Wik in miners' battle 100 years ago

By Barry McGowan

The question of co-existence is central to the Wik debate. It was also central to another debate in New South Wales some 100 years ago over access to private land for mining - a matter that had been in dispute since the first gold rush days.

Minerals were found either on Crown or on private land. On Crown land, access was automatic if certain conditions and charges were met. On private land miners had to endure additional charges, some of which were extravagant, and sometimes irksome restrictions such as where and how they could mine. In numbers of cases the lands were closed to the miners altogether, despite the indications of payable minerals.

The matter was of sufficient concern to be reported on by the Gold Fields Royal Commission of Inquiry in 1871, which reaffirmed that gold was the property of the Crown, and was discussed in Parliament in subsequent years. However, the matter may have continued to lie relatively uncontested but for the severe economic depression and accompanying unemployment of the early 1890s.

A Mining on Private Lands Bill - providing for access and compensation to the landowner - was introduced in October 1892. There was almost unanimous support for the principle of the bill in the Assembly, with George Reid, the Opposition leader, declaring it was the only measure which the government had "before the house which will enable us to give some immediate relief to the working classes".

The bill was introduced into the council in March 1893, where it drew a hostile and emotive reaction. One member stated that "the Crown ... had no right whatever to allow the soil to be confiscated by a mass of irresponsible diggers" or a paddock to be overrun by men "who were utterly irresponsible, who did damage and who did not possess a red cent".

The rejection of the bill by the Council brought almost instant condemnation. From March to September there were mass meetings throughout the main gold-mining centres in the Colony to protest at the Council's actions and form branches of the Mining on Private Property League. A major conference on the issue was held in Sydney in September 1893.

By the time the bill was reintroduced into Parliament in October, unemployment was proving an intractable problem and gold mining was increasingly seen by many as the only cure for the ills besetting the economy. The debate in the Council turned out to be as emotive as before. However, on this occasion the bill passed the second reading stage, only to be obstructed in the committee stage, every clause fiercely debated and many fundamentally altered.

The bill finally become legislation in June 1894. However, as so many had predicted, it was virtually a dead letter due to the amendments introduced and the administrative delays in preparing leases. The Council's actions were criticised strongly in the Legislative Assembly and in the press, many suggesting that the Council's days were numbered. However, an important point of principle had been established - that miners could mine on private land, both landowners and miners having separate title.

Amendments to the legislation were submitted to parliament in 1895, the main change being that the miner - armed with no more than a miner's right - could, on paying compensation to the owner, commence mining without waiting for a lease to be issued. The bill was rejected by the Council in late 1895 and reintroduced in September 1896. It was shunted between the Council and the Assembly before being finally resolved in a conference between both houses. The amendments had an almost immediate impact and the following year there was a marked increase in the level of gold mining in the Colony.

Further important amendments were introduced into parliament in 1900. They too were rejected by the Council until finally passed in 1902.

The similarity between that debate and the one now being fought over native title, almost 100 years to the day, is striking. Both concern the coexistence of title and the successful, albeit tardy, resolution of the one can give hope for the other.

With regard to the 1890s debate it should be noted that what was at stake was not ownership of the land, but rights of passage and usage - or the coexistence of mining, pastoral and agricultural title.

That title to the land (which in many cases was freehold) would always remain with the owner, was never in dispute. On the basis of logic there should have been a speedy passage of the legislation, particularly as the measure was being introduced during extremely high unemployment and economic distress.

However, logic seemed to have very little to do with it. The debate was fought almost entirely on emotions, and obstructionism was the order of the day.

The debate was not only fought in parliament and the media but in mining communities and the cities.

Eventually, legislation was passed and most of the original aims satisfied, if not improved upon. Important compromises were made by both sides - reluctantly, but made nevertheless - and access to the land was shared as a result.

It is an interesting aspect of the current Wik debate that we seem to have forgotten some of the lessons of history so comprehensively.