Land Rights In Indigenous Australian History

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

The law reform process has been effective to a certain extent in achieving just outcomes in regards to native title. This can be seen through both the Eddie Mabo case [1992] and the Yorta Yorta case [2002] as although the cases had been concluded with final decisions, there were still measures that could have been taken, and areas where it could have been improved to achieve a just outcome.

Aboriginals lose a sense of meaning when the connection to the land is broken. There is a been a long history of a land rights struggle for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. In 1992, the high court rejected the notion of ‘terra nullius’ (land belonging to no one). This resulted in the Aboriginals being recognised as a civilisation that had lived on the land with laws for thousands of years before British settlement. The Native Title Act was passed in 1993 which sought to accomplish 4 objectives: acknowledgment of the land, validate past acts, establish a mechanism for determining claims to native title and set standards to deal with the native title in the future. This was significant for the Aboriginal spirituality because of the connection to the land. Many different cultures have their own interpretation of the land. James Price Point on Western Australia’s Kimberley coast has its own interpretation of meaning depending on the culture and

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.

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.

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.

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.

It involved the High Court considering the application of Australian law to the rights of Indigenous Australians, in particular regarding the legal concepts of terra nullius and native title

In 1967, a landmark event occurred for the Indigenous Community of Australia. They were no longer declared Flora and Fauna This means that Aboriginal people would be considered a part of the landscape and not humans in their own right.. In 1967, a Referendum was held by all members of Australian society voting on the issue of allowing Indigenous Australian to be a part of the census and thereby able to vote and be counted as part of Australia’s population. This achieved not only citizenship for Aboriginal people, but put the issue of Indigenous Rights on both the political and social platforms. This essay will look at the lead up to the Referendum, how Aborigines and their supporters communicated their belief in their rights to the

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

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

In the 1980’s the state and government drew back from pursuing more legislations or granting land rights from the indigenous land rights because of the shortage of popular support in different places of the country. The indigenous fear of losing from votes and it began to take over from the state and progress of the indigenous rights, but all of this changed in 1992 from a case called the Mabo case that took place with a High Court. This case was named after Eddie Mabo, who was an indigenous from the Murray Island in the Torres Strait. He was the head of a group of his fellow indigenous Torres Strait people called the Meriam people and lead them into the Supreme Court to challenge the Queensland government for their land rights and ownership,

Over the past years, Canadian courts have repeatedly urged that aboriginal title conflicts should be resolved through negotiation, rather than litigation. The primary reason being that litigation is costly and time-consuming. For example, the decision for the Delgamuukw case took a duration of thirteen years. Furthermore, litigations that deal with the issue of aboriginal rights and title are “generally narrowly focused” and “ultimately leaves the question [posed about] how aboriginal rights and title apply unwarned.” For instance, the courts of Canada repeatedly failed to come up with a clear definition on the legal scope of Aboriginal rights despite the fact that they have several opportunities to do so. The Delgamuuku case clearly illustrates this when the Court “did not define how aboriginal title applied for the First Nations involved.” Instead, the Court came to the conclusion that a new trial was required, which ultimately will be more expensive and take longer.

The 2007 The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) states that ‘Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’. The right to self-determination is born from the legal and cultural acknowledgement of Indigenous peoples as Australia’s first settlers, and is important in the context of the Australian Legal System. Self-determination may be used by the courts to interpret domestic legislation, as well as