When the Europeans first arrived in Australia, Indigenous Australians lost all their land rights. This was mainly due to the Europeans claiming that Australia was Terra nullius. Terra Nullius was a international law stating that if territory was not owned, it was to be given to the first nation to discover it and entitled to take over. The Europeans did not recognise the Aboriginals and Torres Strait islander people as the traditional owners of Australia and therefore took all there land rights. The indigenous people were then constricted by the terra nullius rule from 1788 to 1991.
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.
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
United States, 1989, which was a fact that was considered in the decision to reverse the disallowance of education deductions in favor of the petitioner to allow the education deductions. This case, also, points out the “common sense" of determining if the education would qualify the student to perform significantly different duties than they could prior to the education, then the education would qualify for a new trade or business and would not be deductible. In the above case of Wiertzema v. United States, 1989, this was not the case. The petitioner was already doing welding on the farm, a necessary skill for the farming operation, which if they could not do this skill they would have had to hire outside help to do. There was no question that the education received improved this petitioner’s skills in performing his present trade and the education deductions were
The colonists had become accustomed to a limited degree of British regulation of trade. The Navigation Acts of 1660, for example, stipulated that no goods or commodities could be imported into or exported out of any British colony except in British ships. Later legislation stipulated that rice, molasses, beaver skins, furs, and naval stores could be shipped only to England. Duties were also imposed on the shipment of certain articles, such as rum and spirits. However, the Stamp Act was the first direct tax, a tax on domestically produced and consumed items, that Parliament ever levied upon the
In the chapter “Yali’s People” (Chapter 15), Jared Diamond discusses the interactions between Australia and New Guinea. The Torres Strait is a mere 90 miles and contains islands populated by farmers who resemble New Guineans. The strait additionally separates Australia from New Guinea. One would think innovations that arose in New Guinea would travel across the narrow strait over into Australia, but that is not the case. Aboriginal Australians never developed farming, herding, metal, bow and arrows, writing, and chiefdoms.
Recently a controversy was being raised about changing the date of Australian Day, as it is considered the day when aboriginal lost their land and freedom. The issue is being discussed by the Yarra Council Mayor Cr Amanda Stone, who took the initiative to not only commemorate the British invasion of Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders land. Her main point in that article is to basically identify the Australian Day as a date which symbolizes loss of culture, language and the identity of ingenious people. This makes sense to us that the people affected by this issue are mainly Australian citizens (Aboriginals). Following this response, another article was published called, ‘Changing the date of Australian Day won’t change our past’ by Joe
The White Australian Policy is introduced to prevent individuals who weren’t white from entering Australia that draws upon the concepts of race and stereotype. The Stimulus (Creative Spirits, 2017), looks at a timeline that refers to the Indigenous Australians while the White Australian Policy was active and it shows how the Indigenous Australians were receiving policies that are able to protect them. The reason why I see this relevance to myself is the irony in that, how the Australian Government is only accepting white British settlers into Australia and wouldn’t allow those who distributed the race and stereotype of non-whites. Yet while this Policy is active the government assigns “Queensland Aboriginal Protection Act in 1904, The NSW Aborigines Protect Act in 1909” as stated in (Creative Spirits, 2017). It does not make sense in the ways the Government excludes one race and ethnicity and yet employs new laws and legislation to protect another.
This was not a decided movement but an inevitable cause of the colonies’ geographical features. This correlation between environmental features and a community’s culture is related to the mere presence and outcomes of several historical events. An example of this would be a South Carolina slave revolt along Stono River. Had the Stono River not existed, or the slaves proximity to freedom been much further then geography had determined the Stono Rebllion would have never occurred. They may not have ever been caught if the land had been set up differently.
The Alien Land Law Act in 1913 prohibited "aliens ineligible to citizenship" from owning or leasing land. This act was placed to Asians specifically and implies that Asians are unable to gain citizenship. There were loopholes that allowed Japanese to continue farming in California, but a 1920 ballot barred those altogether. The term "white" was ambiguous from the Naturalization Act of 1790, and with blacks gaining citizenship from the Naturalization Act of 1870, there was a possibility open for Japanese to become naturalized citizens. The Chinese had been restricted from entering America due to the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882.
On 27 May 1967 a Federal referendum was held. The 1967 referendum did not give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the right to vote. That right had been legislated for Commonwealth elections in 1962, with the last State to provide Indigenous enfranchisement being Queensland in 1965. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have had multiple campaigns to try and uphold the same rights as white people. The 1967 referendum was a public vote to determine the public 's opinions of two aspects of the Australian constitution (a written statement which outlines the country 's rules and regulations) that related directly to Indigenous Australians.
In 1992, the High Court of Australia rejected the notion of terra nullius, and legally recognised the occupation of Indigenous People’s before and during the process of British colonisation. It was the first time, in the eyes of the law, that Aboriginal people had been acknowledged as the traditional custodians of the land.
The verdict stated that Indian lands were claimed by the federal government; therefore Indian’s sovereignty over their territories was restricted, although existent. The second case that reached the Supreme Court concerning land ownership happened on 1831 and was given the name of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. This case’s ruling expressed that Indians did not have a United States nationality, but they were not members of foreign states either, which ultimately appointed their tribes to be “domestic dependent nations.” In other words, although there was a distant relationship between the U.S. and the Indian tribes, the United States was still responsible for imparting well-being advantages, needs, and services for the natives since they were entitled over the Indian
On 18 January 1788 the First Fleet arrived at Botany Bay, which Joseph Banks had declared suitable for a penal colony after he returned from a journey there in 1770. Captain Arthur Phillip, the fleet 's commander, brought a small party of marines and seamen ashore, but found the location unsuitable because the harbour was unsafe and the area lacked fresh water. (The Oxford Companion to Australian History). The fleet then relocated to Port Jackson. On 21 January 1788 Phillip, with a party of officers and marines, landed at an unnamed place, believed to be the beachfront at Camp Cove (known as 'cadi ' to the local Cadigal people).
For: The main objective of finders’ law is to reunite the true owner with their lost property. As Cheapa and the Queensland Police proved unsuccessful at doing this, the general rule of ‘finders keepers’ may apply. Rules and obligations of the finder can be extracted from Parker v British Airways Board. Lord Justice Donaldson states that: 1. “The finder of a chattel acquires no rights over it unless (a) it has been abandoned or lost…” 2.