The law reform process has been effective to a certain extent in achieving just outcomes in regards

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

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

Law reform is the process of changing and updating laws, so that they reflect the current values and demands of contemporary society. Those with sovereign power must identify the change in social values, behaviours and expectations; through this they must consider whether new or amended laws are required; and they must develop and implement these changes. Society is never completely satisfied with the reforms made to law, reforms are made to satisfy the general public.

The Eddie Mabo v the State of Queensland [No. 2] (Mabo) case has had a deep impact on the legal, social and political reality of Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations in Australia. It’s established a long term consequences may require considerable litigation, or maybe a Federal Legislation. The Mabo case is the means of which the sovereign rights of Indigenous Nations to their ancestral lands. The result in the case was a recognition by the Australian legal system that the Meriam people hold rights to their land under their own system of law, and that those rights should enjoy the protection of the Australian Law.

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.

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.

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.

This case and the resulting test were instrumental in defining aboriginal rights. However, it was also very controversial as it confirmed one thing: aboriginal rights are not absolute and this has been highlighted in numerous cases whereby aboriginal rights being denied.

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

Aboriginal people, since British settlement, have faced great inequalities and much racial discrimination on their own soil. Aboriginal Australians through great struggle and conflict have made significant progress in the right to their own land. To better understand the position of the Aboriginal Australians, this essay will go into more depth about the rights that Aboriginal people had to their own land prior to federation. It will also include significant events and key people who activated the reshaping of land rights for Indigenous Australians and how that has affected the rights Aboriginal people now have in the 21st Century, in regards to their land.

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

There were around 18 separate attempts to claim land and compensation by the Yorta Yorta people between 1860 and 1994. In 1983 1200 acres of land of the former Cummeragunja reserve (which was initially 2965 acres) was granted to the Yorta Yorta people. This was granted by the NSW government under its Land Rights Act. This is just 1% of the size of the traditional Yorta Yorta people’s lands size. Yorta Yorta people have asserted their inherent rights through oral documentary and material evidence. That their spiritual, social, economic and cultural links with the area have never been broken. They have strong connections with their ancestral lands.

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.