The Aboriginal Heritage Office was given an initial time period of five years to complete a range of tasks beneficial for the protection of Aboriginal sites of importance, create awareness and to improve the equity and local services for the Aboriginal people leaving in the North Shore area (Aboriginal Heritage Office, 2006). After its first few years of operations multiple other councils joined the Aboriginal Heritage Office. Lane Cove, North Sydney, Manly, Warringah, Willoughby, Ku-ring-gai and Pittwater councils are all involved in The Northern Sydney Aboriginal Social Plan (Northern Sydney Aboriginal Social Plan,
They claimed that their rights to the land had not been extinguished by the Crown when their islands were taken over or annexed by Queensland. They still had a legal right to the land based on the legal concept of ‘native title’ – right of ownership based on traditional ownership of the land. The Queensland Government’s response was to pass the Coast Islands Declaratory Act, 1985.
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.
In 1967, after ten years of campaigning, a referendum was held to change the Australian Constitution. Two negative references to Aboriginal Australians were removed, giving the Commonwealth the power to legislate for them as a group. This change was seen by many as a recognition of Aboriginal people as full Australian citizens.
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
A policy within the affairs that was adopted was self-determination where the Commonwealth would support the decision making of the indigenous communities and relinquishes the paternalistic control after the previous government had over the lives of the indigenous people. The government perused to empower the indigenous people to claim back their rightful land, to have more of an input into the policy making and to abolish all discriminatory practices that was limiting them from their freedom, justice, rights, and opportunities that were denied to them for so
Self-determination is one of the most recent trends for aboriginals In 1973, Australians agreed that they would transfer policy making and coordinating functions to the commonwealth and aboriginal affairs. This can led to the development of many government agencies for aboriginal self-determination including the Aboriginal Development Commission and the council for aboriginal
Attempts have been made by the Australian government to protect Aboriginal culture, beginning in the late 1920s with the creation of special reserves. Aborigines are now officially recognised as Australian citizens, and
In 1967 a referendum changed the way Aboriginals were treated, this was when Aboriginals were first given the right to vote and allowed to be counted in the census thereby allowing the Commonwealth to create laws for them. (Abc.net.au, 2015)
One of the possible origins traced back to an African American man named Benjamin Darling. In 1794, he bought Horse Island which is now known as Harbor Island, located near Malaga Island. All of Darling’s descendants and families started to live on the island, but Fatima Darling Griffin and Henry Griffin were the first ones to live on Malaga Island.
-addresses a number of issues impacting ATSI communities, including the establishment of Community Justice Groups, establishment of Community Police Officers, entry to trust areas, the regulation of alcohol possession and consumption in community areas, and the establishment of the Island Industries Board.
With the change from Keatings progressive labour government to John Howard's’ conservative Coalition government, came resounding regression to the Native Title act, with the 10 point plan, and the coinciding Wik decision nine months after. The Wik VS Queensland case (1996) established that in cases of conflict between pastoral leases and native title, pastoral leases override and can successfully extinguish native title , which was adopted with the change of legislation and introduction of the Native Title amendment Act (1998). If there is no conflict, they can coexist. Many cases of Native Title extinguishment has occurred, and only approximately 600 areas hold Native Title in all of Australia, with less than 1% in NSW. As a procession from the Native Title declaration, this legislature has digressed justice to the ATSI community , and as further iterated by Sydney Morning Herald has “undone the good of the Mabo decision”. ATSI discrimination following the legislation of the Native title Act (1996) significantly rose in the public discourse with renowneded personalities claiming they could “take their backyards”, and an unspoken deeply-rooted fear for many, dating back to Australia’s colonization; that Australia could be declared completely under Native Title, and the sovereignty of the Crown could be questioned . For ATSI peoples’, the introduction of the 10 point plan, and the Native Title Ammendment Act (1998) marks a significant national regression upon achieving justice for their community as they sought to pour “"bucket-loads of extinguishment" on the native title rights of Indigenous Australians. Law reform, in this case has been dominantly ineffective in achieving justice for the ATSI peoples, and rather revoking
Arguably one of the most notable cases conducted in the Australian High Court, Mabo and others v Queensland (No2) (1992), or shortened to Mabo 2, holds prominent significance in Indigenous Australian history as being the first legal recognition of land rights for Indigenous Peoples under the common law system. Despite the court ruling in favour of Mabo, and additional legislation protecting First Peoples native title claims, little buffer presently exists to prevent land claims from being extinguished. The recent McGlade v Native Title Registrar (2017) decision stands to counter Indigenous Peoples’ rights, as well as amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 Cth to impeach on Indigenous communities’ livelihoods by the restriction of their entitlement
Western Australia created the Land (Titles and Traditional usages) Act 1993. This Act was to end the common law of native title. Also, this Act was purposely created to deal with disputes between mining companies and indigenous people over the right to certain areas of land.