Aboriginal Land Rights In Australia

In 1992, the doctrine of terra nullius was overruled by the High Court in the case Mabo v Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. After recognising that the Meriam people of Murray Island in the Torres Straits were native title landholders of their traditional land, the court also held that native title existed for all

The Australian Indigenous community hold extremely significant corrections to the land of Australia, of which they refer to as ‘Country.’ Indigenous people acquire deep meaning from the land, sea and the countless resources derived from them. This special relationship has formed for many centuries. To them ‘Country’ is paramount for overall wellbeing; the strong, significant, spiritual bonds embody their entire existence. Knowledge is continually passed down to create an unbroken connection of past,

It also found it was out of step with international human rights and that Aboriginals had been dispossessed of their land rights unlawfully. Native Title Act 1993 After the Mabo case which recognised the existence of native title rights, Land Councils lobbied the Federal Government to legislate to protect any native title that had survived 200 years of colonisation. The Native Title Act 1993 is part of the Commonwealth Government's response to that historic High Court decision.

The case of Mabo decision with Queensland government was one of the most significant legal case in Australia, which recognised the land rights and the original ownership of Murray islanders in the Torres Strait. It was acting by Murray islanders and the High Court upheld. Based on the successful legal case, there are some key issues in the process for Indigenous’ land rights, which were changed in Australia law and affect future rulings in Australia, such as the Native Title ruling of the Aboriginal people’s land rights after the High Court passed the Act in 1993; in addition, due to this alteration of Australian laws, it not only had a big impact of Murray islanders but also on some other groups of Aboriginal people’s land rights reform.

Under the ‘terra nullius’ law, the Aboriginals lost their land, which is now known as dispossession. To justify this dispossession, the English followed the set of beliefs that are now identified as social Darwinism. “Social Darwinism, with its powerful racially based doctrines, ranked Indigenous Australians as inferior to Europeans and provided a rationale for dispossession by drawing on the ‘laws’ of natural selection to justify the ‘inevitable’ extinction of Indigenous Australians in the face of the arrival of the ‘superior’ white race” (Psychology and Indigenous Australians, Foundations of Cultural Competence, 2009, pp. 75). By having their land taken away from them, the Aboriginals lost part of their spiritual connection and their sense of belonging and identity because Aboriginal culture is based heavily on the spirits of the land. These connections that bonded the Aboriginals to the land were never understood by the English settlers, who only saw the land as possible income (Psychology and Indigenous Australians, Foundations of Cultural Competence, 2009.). They also lost a lot of their sacred areas, spiritual areas and meeting places because they were on the land that the white people had divided and fenced of the land that these areas were on and if an Aboriginal was trying to

The case of Mabo v Others v State of Queensland (No.2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 (www.austlii, 1993), rewrote common law as the court ruled in a six to one majority, that the people of

The term ‘Native Title’ refers to the right of Indigenous people to their traditional land. In Australia it has a legal significance of the right to an area of land, claimed by people whose ancestors were the original inhabitants of the land before European settlement. Also who can prove that they have had a continuous connection with the land. Native Title is the term given by the High Court to Indigenous land rights by the Court in Mabo and others v State of Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. The case required

For Aboriginal Australians, the land has a special significance that is rarely understood by those of European descent. The land, or country, does not only sustain Aborigines in material ways, such as providing food and shelter, it also plays a major role in their spiritual lives. As Rose put it, "Land provides for my physical needs and spiritual needs." (1992, p.106). To use Rose 's own term, to Aboriginals the land is a 'nourishing terrain '. (1996, p.7).

Eddie Mabo has had such an impact on today’s society for indigenous people and the Meriam people were facing racial discriminations in their community. Some of Eddie Mabo’s many achievements include “campaigning for better access for Indigenous peoples to legal and medical services, housing, social services and education and establishing the Townsville Black Community School.” (Stephenson, 1989-1999). Mabo believed that it was along for the Australians along with Terra Nullius, a legal document which held that Australia as unoccupied at the time of colonization. “I was sitting in a car breastfeeding my six month old son, who was born the day before I buried my dad, when I heard on the radio we had won the case. I started crying and thinking that if my father was alive he would be dancing. I then heard the sound of thunder and said to my son ‘hear that, he is dancing.” (Australian Government, 2014). Eddie Mabo has contributed to the Australian History a lot with his beliefs. Firstly, he has

The primary issue that the High Court was asked to consider within Mabo was whether the Meriam people essentially had native rights in the Murray Islands, and if the people did in fact have these pre-existing rights, whether the Australian law should guard these rights and interests and thus allow the Meriam people legal recognition to the land in question.

Human rights are inalienable, no matter what ethnicity or culture one belongs to. Every human is entitled to their Human Rights. For a large period of time in Australian history Indigenous Australians were discriminated against, abused and denied their Human Rights. The Bringing Them Home Report significantly advanced the rights of Indigenous Australians as it began the reconciliation process which recognised the injustices which had been done to Indigenous Australians involved in the Stolen Generations, and set out a list of recommendations to create equality in Australia. Whilst an apology was given to the Indigenous Australians the concept of reparations still remains a major topic in the Bringing Them Home Report

There have been many significant cases that have dealt with the issue of jurisdiction. Among these cases was the Sparrow case of 1990. The Court determined that “Aboriginal Rights were constitutionally protected, and that those rights can only be extinguished with First Nations consent.” Moreover, the Court ruled that “Aboriginal rights could only be limited with justifiable reasons and that Aboriginal rights have to be interpreted in a generous and liberal manner.”

The Native Title Act 1993 was legislated following the decision in Mabo (No2). The Act itself extinguished the colonial doctrine of Terra Nullius and instead established native title rights. Terra Nullius as the name suggests is a Roman law concept, which literally means ‘Land belonging to no one’. Brennan J in Mabo decision rejected the doctrine and its early derivative concepts of native title and essentially replaced it with aboriginal customs, traditions and laws which are recognised legally under Australian common law. The 1993Act provides a process through which the indigenous people can lodge an application to seek a determination of native title to their land. There were significant amendments to the Act, including the introduction of a registration test and indigenous Land Use Agreement. This mechanism allows the aboriginal people who assert that their traditional rights have not been extinguished, and also to validate retrospectively the land titles of the occupiers that may have been called into question by decisions. The judgement in Mabo (No2) depicted that until the decision, the Australian law was actually based upon the precept that with the acquisition of sovereignty ownership of all lands would become the Crown’s automatically. So this practically left no room for the common law to recognise any pre-existing aboriginal law in the form of native title. The Mabo case undoubtedly changed this notion by identifying that radical title, rather than absolute beneficial ownership was a concomitant of

The acknowledgement that the Aboriginal people are the traditional owners of the land and the proceeding acts put into legislation where both historic and monumental as they took the first steps in creating a more positive relationship between no only the Indigenous and non-Indigenous people of Australia but also with the government. Unfortunately, this acknowledgement has also fuelled criticism from non-Indigenous Australians and some politicians due to a lack of understanding and knowledge in the area. The first common negative misconception is that the issue of land rights are not relevant to today’s society and consequently shadows the more important and practical problems faced by the Aboriginal people. However, their people lost a colossal amount when the land was colonised this included losing their rights to the land and due to their connection to the land this will always be a relevant issue in the eyes of the Indigenous people of Australia.

For many years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been deprived of receiving land rights within Australia. Before the colonisation of Australia in 1788, they had been faced with an ongoing struggle to achieve legal and moral acknowledgment and possession of land rights (Pascoe, 2012). Their connection to the land and country is an essential part in establishing their cultural heritage, including their social and economic development. It is only through their laws and customers in which they able to connect and adapt to the world and land around them. On 20th May1982, Edward Koiki Mabo an Indigenous land rights campaigner, together with his fellow Mer Islanders, presented a case to the Australian High Court (Pascoe, 2012; Reilly, 2002). Due to Mabo’s fight for the possession and ownership of land rights, the Court stated that Meriam people own rights to their traditional lands and that these rights should be recognised and protected by the Australian law (Pascoe, 2012). After several years of struggling for land rights and ownership, the Mabo decision overturned the notion of terra nullius as the Australian High Court dismissed the idea that Australia belonged to nobody before British Settlement. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across Australia were finally recognised and respected as the ancestors of the land and the first people of Australia (Pascoe, 2012; Reilly 2002). In 1993, the Native Title Act was passed