Mabo Decision Of 1992 Essay

The court case consisted of the Queensland government passing an act and trying to pass a law which prevented Aboriginal people, from claiming native title. Native title in Australia being the government recognising the traditional connection that the Indigenous people have with the land and waters. Mabo eventually won this case, the result not being that they could claim native title but that the possibility was

The Yorta Yorta people were one of the first Indigenous groups to make a native title claim in Australia, in February 1994. The Yorta Yorta people claimed native title to an area of land and waters in the Northern Victoria and Southern New South Wales. However, the High Court rejected the appeal, and it was concluded by the judge that the Yorta Yorta people had ceased to occupy their traditional lands with relation to their traditional laws and customs, and that the period of time in between had washed away any evidence and acknowledgement of the practise of their traditional laws and customs. In order for Indigenous people to prove their Native Title rights, they must prove that they have had an uninterrupted connection with the land and the practise of the traditional laws and customs has been maintained since time of colonization. This rule disregards the effects of colonization; that indigenous people have been forcibly removed from their homes, cultures being forcibly altered which all results in an adaption to the new environment and way of life. Therefore, the required burden of proof is quite discriminatory, making it increasingly difficult for Indigenous people to prove

The Mabo decision was a significant event for the civil right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Discuss.

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 1992 Landmarks High Court case abolishing the doctrine of ‘Terra Nullius’; the foundation of Australia’s settlement paved way for the ‘Native Title Act 1993’. Following the 20 year commemoration of the Mabo decision, the 2012 telemovie ‘Mabo’ directed by Rachel Perkins was released. It depicts the life of Murray Islander man and activist Eddie Koiki Mabo and his family in his grueling fight for land rights. Pride comes before the fall – the ego of one stems destruction. Pride is a sense of satisfaction derived from one’s achievements. It is also a feeling of self-worth and dignity. Eddie is of Murray Island decent and this background stems a lot of

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

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

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.

There are still many social adversities that statistically Aboriginals are more prone to than whites such as domestic violence and substance abuse. The government aims to help out the Aboriginal community with even more benefits than the white Australian receives such as free medical care and legal services, help with housing requirements and many payment options to help those in need. Despite all this being Aboriginals on average have a lower level of employment to non-indigenous Australians and have a lower level of education. This is slightly similar to South Africa following apartheid although to less of an extent, poverty levels being higher and land still being owned by whites. It is very much similar to that of USA where their black community on average is more so in poverty than their white counterpart, although they are given the same rights and opportunities theoretically the social barriers still

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.

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

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

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

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.