Native title
’Native title’ refers to the recognition that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (ATSI) have rights to their traditional lands. For many years, native title has been an on-going topic across Australia, with many people disliking the concept. However, due to Australia’s changing social values and new concepts of justice, it has now been recently addressed. It is through the legal mechanisms such as the ALRC, the NSWLRC, the parliament and the courts and the non legal mechanism, the media that has been a catalyst for law reform for native title. Such mechanisms, have helped cases like the Mabo v Queensland [1988] HCA, Wik Peoples v Queensland [1996] HCA and Yaegl People v Attorney General of New South Wales [2015] FCA
…show more content…
This would give the Wik peoples the right to camp, hunt and fish on the land, as well as conducting traditional ceremonies. Fortunately, the Wik people were successful as the court found that native title could coexist with pastoral leases, however the ATSI people were disadvantaged as if conflict ever emerged, the pastoral leases would dominate. Although the Wik peoples were successful in claiming native title, many pastoralists had growing concerns that they would have to constantly negotiate with Indigenous people over the use of land. This was addressed by the federal government who responded by enacting the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth) which amended the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). However, this amendment was ineffective and lacked accessibility for the ATSI people as it imposed tougher tests to determine the right to native title and it prioritised pastoralists over the ATSI …show more content…
In 1996, the Yaegl people lodged a claim for native title rights to the National Native Title Tribunal, and despite being successfully granted recognition of their traditional ownership to their land, their battle was a long, difficult and strenuous struggle that ended in 2015. After 19 years of dealing with the federal and state government, the Yaegl people were finally granted recognition of their traditional land, under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). This enabled the Yaegl people to finally have the right to go fishing, hunting, camping and to perform cultural ceremonies. The delay, however brought up questions from the public about the effectiveness and responsiveness of the legal system. Justice Jayne Jagot, the judge who finally allowed the Yaegl people to rightfully claim their land even stated that “the drawn out nature of the process had been shameful” and that "delays of this kind sap away any sense of justice or fairness in the process." (ABC News: June
The Aboriginals had original taught the early settlers how to trap and hunt about the land but in the documents associated with the deed and the land transfer, it was written that “Any claims of Indians too compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement shall be disposed of by the Canadian Government and the company shall be relieved of all responsibility in respect of them.”. Instead of the company leaving land for those who had aided them in the beginning. The singled them out due to racism and did not include them in any of the agreements between the HBC and the Crown in which they would receive land for themselves. This could have also contributed to the prejudice against the Aboriginals in future years because during that time period land was equal to power so those without land were treated as the poor and had no say. The deed also affected those who were against poaching and hunting.
On 3 June 1992 the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Mabo vs The State of Queensland, ruling that the treatment of the Indigenous property rights based on the principle of terra nullius was wrong and racist towards the Aboriginals. The court ruled that indigenous ownership of land has survived where it has not been extinguished by a valid act of government and where Aboriginal people have maintained traditional law and links with the land. This legal recognition of Indigenous ownership called Native Title. The court ruled that in each case native title must be determined by reference to the traditions and customary law of Indigenous owners of the land.
After 10 long years Torres Strait Islander Eddie ‘Koiki’ Mabo has lead indigenous Australians to a victory over the Queensland government. This win this case is a historical moment, as of yesterday, the indigenous Australians have been recognised as the owners of Murray Island. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are known to have resided in Australia, 40,000 to 60,000 years before the British arrived in 1788. When the British took over they decided to take all the land for themselves even though the indigenous Australians were here first. This court case recognises indigenous Australians unique connection to the land and acknowledges that they have the rights to the land.
The government eventually passed the native title in which stated that the laws and regulation for the courts follows in future claims. This had all happened in 1993. Many non- indigenous people did not understand why Mabo had put so much effort into all this when it was just land. They did not realize the issue that Mabo was stating, butF why would the non-indigenous people see a problem.
The three land rights movement, Native title, Mabo and Wik have an essential importance and significance to the Aboriginal people. The Native title: The Native title is of great importance for the land rights movement and for the Aboriginal Dreaming. The Native title recognises the rights of indigenous people on relation to the areas of land and water belonging to their particular
'If there existed any lingering doubt as to the applicability of the principles enunciated in Mabo to mainland Australia, that doubt is, as a matter of practicality, dispelled by the statement of Mason CJ in Coe v The Commonwealth (1993) 118 ALR 193. In the context of an application to strike out a statement of claim, his Honour said (at 200): 'Mabo [No.2] recognised that land in the Murray Islands was held by means of native title under the paramountcy of the Crown. The principles of law which led to that result apply to the Australian mainland as the judgments made clear. ' Mason v Tritton (1994) 34 NSWLR 572 at
[3] The case involved the recognition of native title, which is an important legal principle that recognizes Indigenous Australians' connection to the land. The case overturned the legal fiction of terra nullius, which had been used to justify the colonization of Australia by denying the existence of Indigenous Australians' prior occupation of the land. Recognizing native title in the Mabo case was a significant step towards acknowledging Indigenous Australians' connection to the land and recognizing their rights as traditional landowners. In addition, the case established the principle that Indigenous Australians have a continuing connection to the land and the right to access and use the land by their traditions and customs, which are significant aspects of Indigenous culture and
The High Court hearings concluded in May 1991 and then took many months before the verdict was finally announced in June 1992. By a majority of six-to-one, the High Court ruled a landmark decision that made native title to land recognised by the common law of Australia. This monumental finding overlooked the notion that when the land was, so they say, ‘discovered’ by Captain Cook in 1778 it was terra nullius, or uncivilised
This paper will give an overview of the act and how it impacted the Indigenous community into becoming
Essay Outline The human race that inhabited the lands earlier than anyone else, Aboriginals in Canada had conquered many obstacles which got them to what they are today. In the past, Canadian Aboriginals have dealt with many gruesome issues that primarily involved the Canadians opposing them or treating them like ‘‘wards.’’ The Indian Act is a written law which controls the Indian’s lives and it is often amended several times to make Indian lives either peaceful or cruel but especially, cruel. Aboriginals found the Indian Act a massive problem in their lives due to it completely controlling them and how they lived on their reserve.
They hoped to appease the government in the hopes of keeping some of their land. They did this to try and avoid harassment of the government. As a result of the treaties, the United States gained control over three-quarters of Alabama and Florida, as well as parts of Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky and North Carolina. Some Creeks, Cherokee and Choctaws voluntarily moved to the new lands that the government gave them, but many did not. In 1823, the Supreme Court ruled that, even though the natives could not hold title to those lands, they could occupy lands within the United States.
After fighting a losing battle against the English settlers, Native Americans found themselves cornered with the passage of the Indian Appropriations Act of 1851. Authorizing the creation of Indian areas in what is now Oklahoma, the native population was once again forced into even smaller fields of land called reservations. The U.S. government made several promises to provide the tribal members with food and supplies, but fell short in keeping them. In addition, there were strict limitations on the Native Americans ability to hunt, fish, and gather food. With all of these restrictions in place, the Americans were given the upper hand in terms of controlling the Indians.
In 1788, life would begin to change dramatically as the First Fleet arrived and the Frontier Period began in Australia. This was a period of first contact between European and Aboriginal people and while a time of dispossession, disease and direct conflict; it is important to recognise that Indigenous people continually resisted the violation of their right to land, and its impact on Indigenous cultures and communities. The primary reason of British occupation of Australia was to establish a penal colony. After landing, the British simply ‘took’ the land with no consideration of the Aboriginal people; not believing they had any stake in the land at all. To justify this ‘taking’ of the land with no treaty nor agreement made about land occupation
– National native title tribunal’. ii. The basis of claim for the recognition of native title pursuant to section 223 of the native title act; • Common law rights and interests; It basically means the group or individual rights and interests of aboriginal people or Torres Strait Islanders in relation to land and waters, where; these rights are under hold of their traditional laws and customs observed by the aboriginal people or Torres Strait Islanders. They have connection to the land and waters with those laws. Common law of Australia recognizes these rights and
As a result of colonialism the cultural identity of Aboriginal people has been damaged and has left them with little to no foundation. Colonialism is explained by Alfred (2009), as a theoretical framework consisting of institutions and policies regarding the relationship between European settlers and Indigenous peoples (pp. 45). The impact of colonialism has caused destruction to the livelihood of Aboriginal people. Colonialism implicates exploitation of land, dependency, contamination of culture, and eradication of rights (Alfred, 2009). The restructuring of Aboriginal civilization has undoubtedly stripped their identity, and has left this population questioning who they are, and where they belong.