Paul Keating Injustices

In 1992, the doctrine of terra nullius was overruled by the High Court in the case Mabo v Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. After recognising that the Meriam people of Murray Island in the Torres Straits were native title landholders of their traditional land, the court also held that native title existed for all

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

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.

What are impacts of the wave hill dispute and how it affected the aboriginal right?

The Mabo decision challenged the Australian Legal system and fought for recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait islanders being the traditional owners of the land. The Mabo decision was a 10-year case and on the 3rd of June 1992 the High Court declared that the term ‘terra nullius’ should not have been applied to Australia when first discovered by Captain James Cook. The decision saw that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People have rights to the land, rights that existed before the British settlement took place. This decision acknowledged the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander Peoples unique connection with the land and acknowledged their traditions and customs. Evidence that support this is Source 1, a newspaper article from The Age 1993. “It also ensures that Aboriginal title holders will have un-impeded access to pastoral leases for customary

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 referendum campaign effectively focused public attention on the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians were second class citizens with all sorts of limitations - legislative and social - on their lives. This decade-long campaign to change the Constitution came to symbolise the broader struggle for justice being fought during these years. Activists presented the case for a Commonwealth government

Eddie Mabo was a revolutionary figure in the rights of Australia’s Indigenous people. With the introduction of white people to Australia in 1788, they followed the idea of terra nullius which was a Latin term meaning ‘land belonging to no one’. The white settlers ripped the Indigenous people’s land from under their feet therein making the original Australians a displaced group of people. Mabo’s court case enabled the Aboriginal people to have ownership of their own land. By taking the request for land rights to the High Court of Australia, Eddie Mabo brought the plight of the landless Indigenous people into the public spotlight.

The inherent malleability of section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution, also known as the ‘race power’, suggests the continuing historical and institutional racism against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. To overcome discriminatory laws to be passed against Indigenous Australians and to allow the advancement of their situation, it is necessary to amend the race power. This article will propose the amendment of s 51(xxvi) to only allow beneficial laws to be passed with regards to Indigenous Australians, the replacement of s 51(xxvi) with an anti-discrimination power and the replacement of s 51(xxvi) with a new head of power with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These proposals will be analysed considering the judgements in Kartinyeri v Commonwealth and the recommendations made by the Referendum Council.

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,

Many people protested the return of crown land if they had business or agricultural on the land which had led to protests and a lot of people against the Mabo decision. The Queensland cost island declaratory act attempting to take ownership of land in Torres straight for the purpose of government income, prioritising greed over the rights of indigenous people.

Source 2, Prime Minister Paul Keating’s Speech on December 10th 1992 included the Mabo Decision. In his speech he supports the Mabo Decision and says it is a building block of change. “Mabo is an historic decision – we can make it an historic turning point, the basis of a new relationship between the indigenous and non aboriginal Australians” this extract from the speech shows how The Prime Minister is trying to create a positive relationship between the indigenous an expresses that to the crowd he was presenting to. He talks about how the aboriginals have made remarkable contributions to Australia. ‘We have to give meaning to "justice" and "equality" … The Mabo Judgement should be seen as one of these”, this extract from the speech portrays how the Mabo Decision has become a key example, for the Prime Minister to show how Australia has and can achieve equality and justice. This speech recognises that Aboriginal people are important to how Australia is today. This assists the Aboriginals, as they are finally getting the positive recognition for being part of

In 1982, Eddie Mabo and four other Torres Strait Islander people went to the High Court of Australia claiming that their island, Mer (Murray Island), had always been under their name and right, therefore making them the “true owners” (Australianmuseum, 2015) of the land. They acknowledged that the British Crown had exercised authority when it invaded the islands, but claimed that their land rights had not been validly extinguished. On June 3 1992, the High Court decided in favour of Eddie Mabo and other petitioners. But Eddie Mabo was never able to hear the ruling, as he unfortunately died of cancer in January of that year.

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

A treaty should not be seen as an alternative to constitutional recognition. Though, a reform of the constitution itself will only yield a partial resolution for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders – due to its symbolic nature. A critical analysis of Zia Akhtar’s article, ‘Aboriginal Determination: Native Title Claims and Barriers to Recognition’, will emphasise the importance of recognition and self-determination to the Indigenous. This essay will explore the notions that reconciliation is more achievable through constitutional recognition and treaty together, that changes must be made to the Australian Constitution, particularly sections 25 and 51 (xxvi), and how the Native Title (Amendment) Act has hindered recognition and determination in a variety of ways.