Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders experience many disadvantages compared to most of the Australian population. The Indigenous people of Australia experiences vast inequality compared to non indigenous Australians including a significantly shorter life expectancy, higher rate of infant mortality, lower levels of health and poorer levels of education and employment. Since the colonisation of Australia by the British in 1778, Indigenous Australians have experienced significant disadvantage, discrimination and injustice. There have been a variety of legal and non legal responses to combat this issue, legal responses including The Intervention, Declaration on the Rights of INdigenous People and the Land Rights Legislation and non legal responses …show more content…
The terms of this intervention apply only to Indigenous people hence treating them differently to non-Indigenous people. Even though the intentions of the legislature are to help Indigenous people, one the consequence of this Act was it removed independence and freedom of Indigenous people. The Intervention was a legal response to disadvantages faced by Indigenous people but was extremely ineffective as it had the opposite effect because it did not meet the needs of the Indigenous society. It created further mass unemployment and exploitation, increased youth suicide in communities, increased incarceration rates among the communities and has little to no improvement in things like housing. The Indigenous community needed more support and acceptance to tackle disadvantage but instead experienced discrimination and had rights …show more content…
This Act allowed blocks of land in the Northern Territory to be granted to land trusts if traditional Indigenous Australian land ownership was proved. This resulted in almost 50 per cent of Northern Territory land being returned to Aboriginal peoples. Some State governments followed the lead of the Australian Government and introduced their own land rights legislation including The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW). This act allowed for the transfer of former reserves or Trust lands to the ownership of local Aboriginal land councils. The Act also provides for claims to be made by land councils of claimable Crown land excluding land that is lawfully used or occupied, or needed either for an essential public purpose or residential purposes. The land rights legislation has been effective in helping combat Indigenous disadvantage in Australia. It meet society's needs because it returned a lot of Indigenous traditional land helping to enrich culture and rebuild their confidence. It was also able to help rebuild and develop the connection Indigenous people have with the Land by restoring areas to the Indigenous people and allowing for this connection to happen. By assisting the Indigenous society in doing this, this Legal response is effective because it means the disadvantage they faced due to loss of connectedness with the land can be
To understand why the Indian Act has had such a negative impact on Aboriginal women in society today we must observe the previous affect it has had on Aboriginal women during the post colonial time period. The Indian Act is a law that European settlers created in 1876 in order to assimilate the Aboriginal population, and therefore we can deem that the Indian Act is law that was created in the post colonial generation. The Indian Act was a law put in place by the Canadian government to intentionally discriminate against the Aboriginal people in order shrink the number of Aboriginals in Canadian society and to reduce the obligations the government had (Cannon and Sunseri 2011: 90). It was very hard for Aboriginals to overcome the discrimination they faced from the Indian Act because major politicians like Sir. John A MacDonald, Nicholas Flood Davin, and Duncan Cambell Scott despised the Aboriginals in Canada and therefore supported the Indian Act in order to assimilate and destroy the culture of the Aboriginal population (ibid: 312-313).
Eddie Mabo, full name Edward Koiki Sambo, devoted a great deal of time in his life to fight for the land rights of his people. He is now a central figure and household name for advocating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land rights and traditional ownership, but the story of his success, and how it changed Australia, has many heroes. Along with Mabo, plaintiffs Flo Kennedy and David Passi were geared up to launch a test case in the courts to dispute the doctrine of terra nullius; the existing law that stated Australia was officially considered empty land before British settlement. However the process of carrying out a test case proved to be difficult and compelled some of the plaintiff’s to withdraw. Later in the year of 1989, Mabo and James Rice was the only plaintiff’s left
However, this was completely disregarded by Australians. ' The native inhabitants of any land have an incontrovertible right to their own soil, however, which seems not to have been understood ‘ was a statement by House of Commons select committees report on Australian Colonies in 1837. This lead to Australians using the concept of ' Terra Nullius’ implying that Australia was unoccupied at the time of ‘discovery’. We now rightfully recognise that there were others here before us that should have rights to their own land that we wrongfully took
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.
The High Court ruled that Indigenous Australians had a right to claim native title to traditional lands that were not legally owned by the
Lisa Bellar explains that the lands council, by failing to protect this sacred country, contributes to the destruction of Australia's land. Through
The High Court said that if native title could survive a grant of pastoral leasing, it would “fracture the skeleton” that gives Australia its land law shape ( Stevenson 1996). Furthermore, ruling that co-existent leasing would be recognised although pastoral lease would prevail (Stevenson, 2014). Additionally, this would also mean that aboriginals who were removed from these areas in the 60’s and 70’s could attempt to claim back their traditional land and that aboriginals who occupied the 42% of land mass would now be recognised as native title (Mark & Clifford, 1997).
Freedom of Speech, the right to vote, and the right to equality in public places. These are all basic rights that everyone in this world should have. All over the world, including in Australia discrimination of these rights occurred for the native people of the land. This happened because of their race and skin colour.
This highlights how the acquisition of rights for Aboriginal people was a fractured process as they still faced discrimination in the wake of changes that were meant to work in their favor. Although the Referendum did not increase the rights of Aboriginal people, it is still important in the Aboriginal Rights movement as it created the possibility for the Federation to create laws that could benefit or support Aboriginal
In each of those cases, laws restricting and curtailing the rights of Aboriginals under the Constitution were defended. A lot of misconceptions and controversy have risen along the positive outcomes of the referendum, as it didn’t bring the equality for Aboriginal people as it was expected. Instead it launched a “blame game” between the federal, state and the territory governments.
This paper will give an overview of the act and how it impacted the Indigenous community into becoming
The implementation of the intervention was highly controversial given its unlawful nature which was not successful for the Aboriginal peoples. Social workers play a vital role in dealing with this issue yet It remains to be seen whether subsequent amendments and longer term Government strategies will be
The Legacy of Eddie Mabo, a Milestone of Hope for Indigenous Australia Introduction The life and legacy of Eddie Koiki Mabo continues to be one of the most influential and hopeful milestones in the reconciliation of Australia’s indigenous people. Against all odds, Mabo strived and succeeded in claiming back land rights that were taken away by settlers and brought significance to the land claims of indigenous people. However, this was not a case of one man’s right to land, but a case of many cultures’ right to hope. Eddie Mabo’s legal victory against the Australian government provided hope for the future of culture, traditions and custodians of Indigenous Australia.
The colonists believed that the land was empty and therefore they had the right to claim it for themselves. This idea resulted in Indigenous Australians being removed from their land. Although Indigenous peoples were already living on the land, the British claimed ownership over Australia in 1770, when Captain James Cook claimed the land on behalf of the British Crown. The British government passed laws, like the Terra Nullius doctrine, that denied Indigenous Australians the right to their land while it allowed European settlers to claim and occupy it. The Aboriginals were forced off the land that they had owned for years and were forced to live in missions or
The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines the term “Aboriginal” as “inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists; indigenous” The indigenous people of Australia have been roaming the barren lands of the Outback, hunting game and establishing villages for centuries before the colonists arrived in the late 1700s. The Aboriginals came to Australia literally by the boat load from South East Asia, and during the 1900’s, the Englishman started abducting the Aboriginal children by the boat load and they still are to this day. The English parliament are wanting to change a huge part of Australian history for reasons that are not so clear. Geographically speaking, Australia could be considered