Wik Claim 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.

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

During the Frontier period, Indigenous peoples resisted the non-Indigenous settlement of Australia, throughout 1770-1890. During approximately throughout the 1890’s to 1970’s, the non-Indigenous retaliations occurred, resulting in protection, segregation and the stolen generations. Which initiated an ongoing impact on Indigenous communities.

-White settlement affected the Indigenous people in a number of ways”{They} made them (the Aboriginals) outcasts on their own land*” by calling it terra nullius under the English Law, despite knowing the existence of the Aboriginals. Terra nullius is a latin term that means “land that belongs to no one.”They believed it belonged to no one because the Aboriginals didn’t use the land in the same way as the British. The Aboriginals believed that Mother Nature would provide them with what they needed, so they didn’t need to hunt and mark the land. The British completely ignored the deep spiritual connections the Aboriginals had with the land. They cut down trees, put up fences and built towns. They believed they had to own the land. But the Aboriginals were outraged when saw the settlers building farms where they had originally been hunting and gathering at, this was because there wasn’t enough food for them. They killed many white settlers in revenge and a clash of cultures began. Pemulwuy was an Aboriginal warrior that lead raids against the British. He also speared John McIntyre, Governor Phillip's gamekeeper, in December 1790. When the Indigenous people resisted the British, it lead to many conflicts which eventually left a irreversible damage to the lives of Indigenous people.

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.

It creates a land acquisition fund to meet the needs of dispossessed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who would not be able to claim native title. Wik Case 1996 After the Mabo Case resolved the land rights dilemma of Aboriginals, there were unresolved conflicts on the issue of pastoral leases,

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.

The Yirrkala Bark Petition of 1963 was a result of Governments giving native Aboriginal land to mining companies on a mining lease. The Aboriginals claimed that their land was being taken away from them without compensation. The aim of this particular protest was to gain back the land that had been given away through the mining lease and be apologised to by the Australian government. These aims are summarised in the aborigine’s simple desire to be accepted into the Australian community and to be granted rights as well as acknowledgment that they have ties to the land. The local Yirrkala elders signed an ornate and artistic petition to have the mining lease revoked. As a result, the government set up a committee to oversee the decision made and to mediate future decision on similar matters. Despite the lease going ahead, it was acknowledged that there were Aboriginal sacred sites on the land where the lease was valid and it was agreed that those sites would be protected. This decision alone didn’t have a great effect however it showed the Aboriginals that the Australian government acknowledged there ties to the land and it showed the Australian government that the Aboriginals did have rights to regions throughout Australia even if those rights were not to be recognised for almost 30 years.

Case by case indigenous Australians begin to gain access to the land that was taken from them.

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.