John Howard's Ten-Point Plan

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).

The Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) was a law that changed Indigenous Australian lives forever. The act enabled the New South Wales Board for the Protection of Aborigines to essentially control the lives of Aboriginal people. It was the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) that had major provisions that resulted in the containment and suffering that Aboriginal people endured. This suffering included the practice of forcible removing Indigenous children from their families. These major provisions help us understand what the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) involved and the impact it has had on the daily lives and cultures of Indigenous Australian peoples today.

The Northern Territory Intervention and the Closing the Gap initiative are two Federal Government strategies that were designed to end the disparity between the health of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

The policy of assimilation of Aboriginal people was first developed in 1937, by all of the Australian States and the Commonwealth Government during the Aboriginal Welfare conference. During the course of the meeting, the Western Australian Chief Aboriginal Protector, Auber Octavius Neville, concluded that, “In 50 years we should forget that there were any Aborigines in this country” . This proposal meant the total annihilation of Aboriginal people. At the conclusion of this meeting, the agreed desired outcome was for Aboriginal people to be assimilated into white society.

Another challenge to land ownership was the Tent Embassy on the parliament house lawns. This constant public pressure caused the government to express interest in giving land rights to Aboriginals. This was completed with Justice Woodward’s report in 1974 that recommended that Aboriginal reserves are to be returned to Aboriginal ownership, that Aboriginals had claim to vacant land if they could prove ties with the land, that Aboriginal sacred sites were protected. This was great as it gave power to the Aboriginals. It did however also mean that if they had sacred land that was already owned if not even used would not be returned to them. This was passed in 1976 when the Aboriginal Land Rights Act was passed. Later in 1981 the Northern Territory government opposes land rights and attempts to amend the land rights act to stop claims of owned stations and property.

In 1976 the Fraser government passed the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Several state governments passed their own Land Rights Acts, which recognised aboriginal and Torres Strait islander claims to land and guaranteed them royalty payments from mining companies working there. Some laws enforced by the government became challenging for most indigenous people to abide by. Through the analysis of this information we understand the impacts the government and its laws had towards the indigenous society of

Each example given has also shown how self-determination was and continues to be a major struggle for Aboriginal people. Beginning with the Whitlam government, the Land Rights Act was going to be the national recognition that Aboriginal people had been waiting for, however the swift dismissal of the government and subsequent changes to the bill meant that an uninformed government would dictate claims of Aboriginal land rights. This was continued in the Heritage Protection Act for Western Australia in which no monitoring of abuses of power within the authoritative ministry was assessed; hence damage to heritage sites for the development of industries occurred. Finally the Racial Discrimination Act although making racial discrimination illegal has clearly been violated by the government in the Northern Territory interventions and hence is not valued by Australia despite the international commitments made to recognising Indigenous rights. Although legislation has been introduced to recognise Indigenous rights, there seems to always be a catch. A final reoccurring theme in the legislation discussed is the uninformed views of the non-Indigenous government as decisions are made on behalf of Aboriginal people; hence two major statements were discussed that precisely define Aboriginal self-determination by Aboriginal

The impact of British colonisation resulted in Australia being declared 'terra-nullius' 'land belonging to no-one' and Aboriginal peoples were subject to policies of dispossession and protectionism in a bid to the eventual demise of all facets of their traditional culture. (http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2005/3/2/5583/41950, 2005) The policy of 'terra

of the Act as the rights and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders observed under

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 change in legal affairs for the indigenous was a result of the change in rights and freedoms. Throughout the 19th century white settlers moved the Aboriginal people off their land and into reserves. This resulted in Aboriginal people experiencing dispossession, which meant that they didn’t exist. In the early 1970s the Whitlam government began to work on

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.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, I am here to discuss the effects that Neville Bonner had on the land rights and freedoms of aboriginal Australians. Australia has a history of discrimination. This is proven by the amount of effort it took to change the rights of indigenous Australians. One of the most effective aboriginal Australian’s was Neville Bonner, who I will speak about today. Neville Bonner had a significant impact on the rights and freedoms of indigenous peoples due to his involvement in parliament and his determination to live freely as an aboriginal. We will discuss throughout the speech Neville’s background and childhood, the changes he made to the rights of aboriginal peoples and who they impacted, as well as why he decided to make a difference to the lives of aborigines.

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

64, Commonwealth of Australia 2011). Policy then moved towards more assimilationist strategies in which attempts were made to convert Aboriginal Australians into ‘responsible citizens’ (Gilbert 2005, Haebich 2000). The protectionist and assimilationist policies share the core values that Aboriginal culture is inferior and on its way to an ‘evolutionary end’ (Gilbert 2005, p. 64).