Aboriginal Rights Case Summary

The lengthy period, undertaken by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, shows the resource inefficiency in relation to the Native title law reform. The Mabo V Queensland began in 1985 and concluded in 1992 where the High Court ruled the Australia was not terra nullius, reinstating the original Indigenous Australians with native title over the land. This case lead to the Mabo V Queensland (no 2) which resulted in the legislation Native Title Act 1993. This case took place in the High court of Australia proving very inefficient in the way of time and money, due to the high costs and long trial period. This legislation met

On June 3rd 1992 The Mabo decision changed lives of Aboriginals all around Australia. It was the first time that Aboriginals where acknowledged as the traditional owners of the land, and their customs and traditions recognised. It also made improvement between the relationship of Aboriginals and Non-aboriginal people. The Mabo decision also led to the declaration of the Native Title Act in 1993. The Native Title Act is the recognition of Aboriginal’s having rights and interests in certain land because of their tradition laws and customs.

The native title act inspired by the mambo case enabled and encouraged the aboriginal people in the past, present and future to stand up for their culture, community and land. The mambo case allows me to understand the fight the aboriginal people fought for. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rights to land, the Court held that these rights, where they exist today, will have the protection of the Australian law until those rights are legally extinguished (HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA,2017).

Aboriginal women of Canada have struggled since 1967 to have their right to identity and their civil and political rights recognized. Part of this battle included changing century-old provisions in the Indian Act which banished women from their families and communities by forcing them to give up their Indian status, Band membership, and, essentially, their identity as Aboriginal women if they married outside their race (Leslie and Macguire 25).(f.1) The Tory government amended the Indian Act in June 1985 through Bill C-31. Aboriginal women 's struggle continues, however, as some Indian Chiefs are trying to overturn the amendments in court, claiming they interfere with their jurisdiction to determine membership in their own communities. It is my position that the civil and political rights of Indian women are fundamental human rights, and that they are Aboriginal rights which are now recognized under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.(f.2) These rights have never be extinguished and they continue to exist.

In this article, McIvor discusses the history of Aboriginal Land Claims in Canada, and how they have been handle in the past. The article also suggests that the Canadian government’s plan to extinguish Indigenous people’s interest in their lands is wrong, and they should instead, recognize Aboriginal Title. This suggests that the Canadian government should adopt a new policy that is coherent with the principles underlying the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Dr. Bruce McIvor is the principle of First Peoples Laws, that is an organization that is dedicated to defending Aboriginal Rights. He has practiced law for many years, and therefore is qualified to write his opinion of the subject. My study focuses on issues

In this article, Heuser discusses one of the main issues with Aboriginal Land Claims today, and how the government handles them. One of the main issues mentioned was the time it takes to fulfill Aboriginal Land Claims. For example, the Algonquins of Ontario launched a land claim against the provincial and federal government in the 1980s, and it is still being discussed today. Heuser is a journalist for several newspapers including the National Post. Heuser has graduated from the University of Toronto with a J.D. in the faculty of law, as well as receiving her B.A., making her qualified to form valid opinions on government issues. The arguments presented in this article are well stated, and proved with recent government land-claims to back them

There has been a great deal of contention over Aboriginal Rights in Canada. Much of this conflict can be said to stem from the differences in both the philosophy and cultural systems of Aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, with much of it originating from the time of the original European settlement of Canada (UBC Law, 2009). The focus of this conflict has been primarily on the rights to land, sea and resources, as well as how the law is to apply to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada (UBC Law, 2009).

The Native Title Act 1993 is landmark legislation that recognises the rights and interests of Aboriginal people to their land as well as has had a profound impact in Australia and been instrumental in advancing reconciliation (smh).

For decades, Controversial and intrusive piece of federal legislation governed almost all aspects of Aboriginal life, from the nature of band governance and land tenure systems to restrictions on Aboriginal cultural practices. Most critically, the Indian Act defines the qualifications for being a “status Indian,” and as such has been the centerpiece of Aboriginal anger over federal attempts to control Aboriginal identity and membership. Since being passed by Parliament in 1876, the Indian Act has been the touchstone for Aboriginal affairs in Canada. Few documents in Canadian history have generated as much debate, anger and sorrow as the Indian Act. Yet the legislation persists as a central element in the management of Aboriginal affairs in the country. While Aboriginal anger with historic and current terms of the Indian Act is deep and powerful, Indigenous politicians and governments remain strongly divided as to the value and purpose of the legislation. This is hardly surprising, given that the political structures and political cultures of Aboriginal communities across the country have, for generations, been created and distorted by the imposition of Indian Act government systems

However, this did not come without challenge: native title claims could also be contested in the Courts as is the case with Wik Peoples v Queensland. In this ruling, the Wik Peoples controversially prevailed and successfully demonstrated that common law, in this instance, would protect native title claims despite the presence of the State’s existing land ownership. This case implicates the objectives of the Native Title Act 1993 Cth to protect native title, shown in this context through the Courts ruling native title could co-exist with the State’s holding of pastoral land8. A significant decision, which is cited to have “changed the relationship between settler and Indigenous Australians” and make its contributions to the growing reconciliation movement within Australia . However, whilst the case was a substantial indication for which rights common law would protect, it also demonstrated which rights it didn’t protect – namely, it was additionally ruled that when land entitlements are inconsistent between native title and State land holding, native title rights would come secondary8 . Thus, it is demonstrated that while previous legislation seeks to uphold the rights of First Peoples by granting native title rights, this theoretical precedent does not work

It has been proven that Canada’s legislative and administrative protection given to fund Aboriginal territory has not been working in regards to addressing Aboriginal political status, land claims and entitlement, resource development and territory jurisdiction. Canada most recently has been attempting to municipalize Aboriginal lands and delegate them under municipal control. First Nations citizens want their own self-autonomy and not to be ruled by municipalities.

A “two-track” approach to obtain self-government was adopted by the Federal government in 1985. One path was through constitutional negotiations, while the other was through “community-based negotiations with Indian bands, and a tripartite process between the federal government, provincial government and Metis and Non-Status Indians” (Wherret & Allain, 1999, 3). This approach led to a new policy on Community-Based Self-Government Negotiations by the federal government which helped extend the control and the ability for bands to facilitate legislative self-governments contracts. Self-government for aboriginal people was also being attainted through the negotiations of comprehensive lands claim agreements. These agreements based on unextinguished Aboriginal title where not constitutional protected as “the government preferred to negotiate self-government arrangements separately from other matter in order to avoid entrenchment under s.35(3) of the Constitutional Act, 1982 (Wherret & Allain, 1999,

Terra Nullius was once apparent in Australian society, but has now been nullified with the turn of the century and the changes of societal attitudes. With the political changes in our society, and the apology to Indigenous Australians, society is now witnessing an increase in aboriginals gaining a voice in today’s society. Kevin Rudd’s apology as described by Pat Dodson (2006) as a seminal moment in Australia’s history, expressed the true spirit of reconciliation opening a new chapter in the history of Australia. Although from this reconciliation, considerable debate has arisen within society as to whether Aboriginals have a right to land of cultural significance. Thus, causing concern for current land owners, as to whether they will be

Representatives of indigenous and Torres straight islanders were hoping to get protection for land under native title act to not be extinguished, to actually get their land and to have the commonwealth issue the native land.

The Native Title Act was created so that Aboriginal people could consult to determine recognition of Aboriginal peoples’ connection with their land. The Act has created a separation within Aboriginal societies as it is usually misinterpreted. The party bringing forward a case of native title must be able to prove the ongoing connection to the land that they are claiming for. This is extremely hard to do therefore many cases aren’t successful. An obligation of the Act is that the claimants must prove a continuity of traditional laws and customs on the land that is being claimed since European