Law Reform on Native Title

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.

The Canadian government has great control of where the aboriginals are situated and what resources and services are made available to them. In 1876 the Indian act was created by the Canadian government (Indian Act). “The Indian act is a Canadian federal law that governs and matters pertaining to Indian statuses, bands, and Indian reserves”(Indian Act). A part of the Indian Act made the government give some crown land to the Aboriginals; the

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.

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

The NSW Native Title Act 1994 was introduced to ensure that the laws of NSW are consistent with the Commonwealth legislation on future dealings and validates past

A more recent case that should be considered is the Haida Nation v. British Columbia (2004) case. The Haida people “have claimed title to all the lands of Haida Gwaii and the waters surrounding it for more than 100.” However, their title was not legally recognized. The issue of whether British Columbia had a legal duty to consult and possibly accommodate the interests of Aboriginal people was brought before the Supreme of Canada in 2004. The Court held that the Crown had a duty to consult with the Haida people. This particular case provided “broad guidelines for the negotiation and definition of aboriginal title in BC.” The Supreme Court of established that “a general

It is important to understand both the origins and impact of the Indian Act. The Indian Act reflected the core assumptions held about Indigenous peoples by the dominant Euro-Canadian society in the mid to late 19th century. Its basic premises, summarized as providing for “civilization, protection

“Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human History. We reflect on their past

Previously the Commonwealth Government tried to keep away from the conflicts between State Governments over indigenous land rights. However, the then PM Paul Keating of the Labour Government wanted to find a way to help those in need of rights. There was a risk with this decision as some other State Governments might try to legislate to stop indigenous land rights as Western Australia had done. This led to the Commonwealth Government putting forward its own legislation. The Act that was created was the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth). It was passed in late December 1993 and began in force in January 1st

The integration of Aboriginal customary law into the Australian legal system is not a problem as far as the Australian constitution is concerned. Acts that currently exist include the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act (Cth) 1976 which allows indigenous claims to Crown land in the NT to be made on the basis of traditional concepts of ownership, also in existence is the Aboriginal Communities Act (WA) 1979, allowing aboriginal communities to make their own (customary law) by-laws. The Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Protection Act (Cth) 1984 is the corner stone of more than 20 Commonwealth, State and Territory enactments that protect Aboriginal heritage sites and other property.

Aboriginal land rights issues started with European settlement. Land was taken from Aborigines without reparation. The land systems of the two cultures clashed immediately. The Aborigines thought of the land as "a necessity of existence, cultural integrity, and identity" (9:12). This is very different from the white settlers relationship with the land. Aborigines understood their environment and nature and used the resources with caution and knowledge. But the British land management system consisted of ownership and exploitation, things that didn't exist in Aboriginal society at that time (9:16). Aborigines were continually forced off their tribal land and onto reserves or missions and away from their heritage, mostly for mining or other European purposes. Nothing could change until the Aboriginal people spoke out.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people occupied Australia before the British arrived in 1788. The United Kingdom depended on this principle to claim possession of the Australian continent. It was declared that before the arrival of Europeans Australia was Terra Nullius, a Latin term meaning “land belonging to nobody”, they deemed the continent as a tract of territory unoccupied, lacking settled inhabitants and settled law. Under the British colonial law, Aboriginal Australians did not obtain a recognisable legal system which included fundamental concepts about property rights. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are two distinct Indigenous Australian cultural groups, they obtain definite rights as Australia’s First Inhabitants. This

There is a conversation on this website that would be useful, but it is too large to fit in this textbox.

away from the metropolis, seen as marginal and that have been suffering the process of