Australia Based On The Doctrine Of Terra Nullius

the land they claim, it simply gives them the right to a say in the

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

It is a commonly known issue in Australia that as a minority group, the people of Indigenous Australian ethnicity have always been treated, or at least perceived, differently to those of non-Indigenous disposition. This can be applied to different contexts such as social, economic, education, or in relation to this essay – legal contexts. Generally, Indigenous Australians face issues such as less opportunity for formal education, less access to sufficient income, more health issues, and higher rates of imprisonment (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service

Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.

Buchan and Heath argue that the term terra nullius was used to create a false construct of Australia and it’s Aboriginal people. Terra Nullius resulted in Britain justifying illegal colonisation of Aboriginal land and denigrating Aboriginal Australians by ignoring their sovereignty despite failing to either conquer or form treaties with Aboriginal Australia people.

After many years of European settlement in Australia, many Aboriginal people had been removed from their families and placed into schools with white Australians. This was due to the ‘protection policy’ laws that encouraged the removal of Indigenous children. Because fewer indigenous children were able to learn about their own culture, there was a slow decline in the culture of the indigenous people. As a result of this, there were continued tensions between the free settlers and Indigenous people as they had no roles in the government and couldn’t vote. This made them feel as if they were excluded from greater society and had long term negative impacts upon their sense of belonging to the new

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since 1945 with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about a change from oppression to equality. Unfortunately on the other hand, some rights and freedoms have not improved at all or have even worsened.

Indigenous Australians have been fighting for their civil rights since European colonisation in 1788, in particular, for their rights to land ownership. Prior to the Mabo land rights case, there was very little success when it came to indigenous Australians making claims. The Mabo case took land rights to the highest court in Australia. It succeeded in achieving land rights and overturning Terra Nullius. The Mabo case helped to continue to chip away at the barriers of civil rights. The Mabo Case was a step towards Indigenous equality.

In the early 1890’s, protectionism gave way to state and commonwealth government regimes of segregation. In the development of the constitution, politicians included sections specifically excluding Indigenous Australians, such as the white Australia policy, ensuring that racism became entrenched in the new nation’s future. Reserves and missions were set up far from white settlements, to exclude and control Indigenous Australians, especially those of mixed descent (Hampton & Toombs, Racism, colonisation/colonialism and impacts on indigenous people, 2013).

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 Effectiveness of the Law in Achieving Justice for Indigenous People In relation to Australia, the term ‘Indigenous peoples’ refers to two distinct cultures of people who inhabited the land prior to European settlement – The Aboriginals and the Torres Strait Islanders. This population declined dramatically over the 19th and early 20th century due to the introduction of new diseases from European settlement, Government policies of dispersal and dispossession, the era of protection, assimilation and integration causing a cultural disruption and disintegration of the Indigenous peoples. In the 20th century the recognition and protection of Indigenous peoples land rights and human rights have been

When European colonists settled in Australia they treated the Aboriginal people extremely different to that of their fellow white men. The Aboriginals were not seen as first class citizens through the European eye and as a result were victims of extreme oppressions and had nearly no rights or freedoms. Since then Aboriginal people have fought to be treated equally to the white men through various different ways. I will discuss the previous struggles faced by the Aboriginals, the Australian strife for equality and finally the level of success and degree of rights and freedoms given to Aboriginals in modern Australia.

Terra Nullius was once apparent in Australian society, but has now been nullified with the turn of the century. 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. Described by Pat Dodson (2006) as a seminal moment in Australia’s history, Rudd’s apology was expressed in the true spirit of reconciliation opening a new chapter in the history of Australia. Considerable debate has arisen within society as to whether aboriginals have a right to land that is of cultural significance and whether current land owners will be able to keep their land.

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

Human rights are the rights of humans, regardless of nationality, gender, race, or religion. We should all have this in common as we are all part of humanity. However, Indigenous people did not always have these rights (Ag.gov.au, 2015). Aside from basic human rights, Indigenous people also have their own rights specific to their culture. Before 1967, Indigenous people had different rights in different states and the Australian federal government did not have any jurisdiction over Aboriginal affairs until Australia’s constitution was amended for this purpose in 1967 (Moadoph.gov.au, 2015). Between 1900 and the present time, there have been significant changes to the rights of Indigenous Australians. The effects of the European Settlement on the Indigenous people of Australia have been devastating. When white people began arriving in Australia, the Aboriginal people believed them to be ghosts of ancestor spirits. However, once they realised the settlers were invading their land, the Aborigines became, understandably, hostile (Slater & Parish, 1999, pp.8-11). In 1788, the total Indigenous population was believed to be between 750,000 and one million. By 1888, the Indigenous population was reduced to around 80,000 Australia wide (Korff, 2014). The three main reasons for this dramatic decline were the introduction of new diseases, violent conflicts with the colonisers, and settlers acquiring Indigenous land (Digital, 2015). In 1848, the Board of National Education stated that it