Native Title Analysis

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 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.

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

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.

The Mabo decision took place in 1974, it was a significant event for the civil right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Before the Mabo case, indigenous people did not receive the basic human right in Australia, they have to fight, in order to vote, paid equally, to be served in shops and go to public places with the white Australian. In 1974, Eddie Mabo discovered that the island they live in does not belongs to the Meriam people, so he decided to claim the land right through the Australia court system. The Mabo case causes lots of changes to the indigenous people, but there are still some challenges remains for them.

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 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

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

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.

According to the Cornell University Law School’s ‘Legal Information Institute’, self-determination ‘denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order’. As a major concept of international law, self-determination gives people the right to control their own fates under certain fundamental criteria, and can be claimed by a minority that bases its lifestyle on an ethnic identity that is distinguishable from regular society, with a strong desire for cultural preservation. It has been considered to be a framework with the ability to guide legislative reforms within Australia, with an underlying ‘rights- based’ approach to Indigenous Issues. Self-determination is considered to be an important aspect of the legal system in regards to Indigenous Peoples, as it provides them a process of choice, to guarantee the practice of Indigenous social, cultural and economic needs.