The Effectiveness of Native Title
The debate about native title issues has tended to see issues from
idealistic perspectives ignoring the practical realities that native
title poses to governments, industry and indigenous people. The
implementation of the Native Title is an appropriate and significant
aspect of Australia’s common and statute law, which effectively
strives to develop a fair outcome for all Australian citizens. The
Native Title Act 1993, like the court Mabo decision in 1992,
transforms the ways in, which indigenous ownership of land may be
formally recognised and incorporated within Australian legal and
property regimes. The process of implementation, however, raises a
number of crucial issues of concern to native title claimants and to
other interested parties. These issues will need to be settled in
court however, despite the many disputes between opposing
stakeholders, the Australian Native Title effectively reaches the best
and fairest possible outcomes for all Australian citizens.
The decision of the Mabo case in 1992 resulted in the adoption of the
Australian Native Title, which recognises the traditional connection
aboriginals have with the land and gives them the right to a say in
the development and use of certain sites. There was a great lead up to
the establishment of the native title, which began when the Europeans
invaded Australia, claiming the land their own through the European
law claiming vacant land. Although aboriginals occupied Australia the
Europeans claimed the land terra nulius because the people who were
there, were considered unhuman and therefore were not actually
occupying or living on ...
... middle of paper ...
...toral lease does not necessarily extinguish native
title rights, the situation regarding miners and the complexity of the
legislation, which causes understanding problems for the indigenous
people. Despite these small problems, the native title is an effective
aspect of our common and statute law, which strives to achieve fair
results for all citizens.
Today we understand that the aboriginal’s form of ownership of the
land extends back more the 40,000 years, which is recognised in the
Australian Native Title. This important aspect of Australia’s common
and statue law should be further taught in schools, universities and
to the community because of its ongoing political, social, cultural
and legal significance. Native title was adopted not only to benefit
indigenous citizens but also the Australian society as a whole.
Eddie Mabo was a recognised Indigenous Australian who fought for his land, Murray Island. Mabo spent a decade seeking official recognition of his people’s ownership of Murray Island (Kwirk, 2012). He became more of an activist, he campaigned for better access for indigenous peoples to legal and medical services, to house, to social services and to education. The Mabo case was a milestone court case which paved the way for fair land rights for indigenous people. The Merriam people wanted to ensure its protection. Eddie Mabo significantly contributed to the civil and land rights of Indigenous people in Australia due to his argument to protect his land rights. In a speech in 1976, at a conference on the redrawing of the Torres Strait border, Mabo articulated a vision for islander self-determination and for an independent Torres Strait Island (Stephson, 2009).
The two forms of traditional Aboriginal law were ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ laws. Sacred laws were entrusted to the elders, teaching Aboriginal customs, acceptable behaviour, and adequate use of the land. Secular laws focused on the responsibilities of individuals. There were also ‘secret’ laws and different people...
The National Apology of 2008 is the latest addition to the key aspects of Australia’s reconciliation towards the Indigenous owners of our land. A part of this movement towards reconciliation is the recognition of Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders rights to their land. Upon arrival in Australia, Australia was deemed by the British as terra nullius, land belonging to no one. This subsequently meant that Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were never recognised as the traditional owners. Eddie Mabo has made a highly significant contribution to the rights and freedoms of Indigenous Australians as he was the forefather of a long-lasting court case in 1982 fighting for the land rights of the Torres Strait Islanders. Eddie Mabo’s introduction of the Native Title Act has provided Indigenous Australians with the opportunity to state claim to their land, legally recognising the Indigenous and the Torres Strait Islanders as the traditional owners.
This essay is about the land rights of of Australia and how Eddie Marbo was not happy about his land been taken away from him. In May 1982 Eddie Marbo and four other people of the Murray Islands began to take action in the high court of Australia and confirming their land rights. Eddie Marbo was a torres islander who thought that the Australian laws were wrong and who went to fight and try and change them. He was born in 1936 on Mer which is known as Murray Island. The British Crown in the form of the colony of Queensland became of the sovereign of the islands when they were annexed in1978. They claimed continued enjoyment of there land rights and that had not been validly extinguished by the sovereign. (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012)
Their main vision is to empower the idea of a shared country and encourage opportunities for growth. With the perplexed requirements set out by the Native Title Act, this tribunal has helped claimants by providing legal aid to increase the chances of regaining lost land. For example, the Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 case was successful in recognising the lost land of the Wik people of Cape York. “They claimed native title over land that had previously been leased by the State Government to farmers for pastoral use” (Woodgate, Black, Biggs & Owens, 2011, p.354). The court then decided by a 4:3 majority that pastoral leases did not necessarily extinguish native title. This means that, in some cases, native title rights will co-exist with the rights of the pastoralists. Therefore, through progression and more native title cases heard, the laws surrounding the Native Title Act will adapt to further assist the Indigenous Australians in reclaiming their land. For instance, the processes surrounding Native Title issues are constantly being refined. As more and more people and political parties become aware of this process, the easier court litigation will become (Dow, 2002)
After the housing bubble burst, everyone involved in the process was subject to severe criticism. From the realtors to the land title insurance agents to the banks, the housing industry underwent a major overhaul. In order to make sure that what happened less than a decade ago doesn’t happen again with the same veracity, the American Land Title Association (ALTA), which guides the conduct of land title insurance agents, published a “Best Practices” manual. ALTA seeks to guide its membership on best practices to protect consumers and to meet legal and market requirements. This paper will lay out the best practices used by ALTA for title insurance and settlement.
The journey for the Aboriginals to receive the right to keep and negotiate land claims with the Canadian government was long but prosperous. Before the 1970's the federal government chose not to preform their responsibilities involving Aboriginal issues, this created an extremely inefficient way for the Aboriginals to deal with their land right problems. The land claims created by the Canadian government benefited the aboriginals as shown through the Calder Case, the creation of the Office of Native Claims and the policy of Outstanding Business.
Barsh, R. 2005. Aboriginal peoples and the justice system: Report of the national round table on Aboriginal justice issues (Book Review). Great Plains Research, 359-362.
Two-hundred years ago, there was a scientific study on the brains of Native Americans called the craniology and phrenology. The Europeans examined only indigenous people’s heads and were forbidden to use any European’s brains. The Europeans did three experiments, such as decapitating the tops of the heads and filling them with sand to see if their brains were smaller than blacks. The Europeans also looked at the bones and said that if the bones were in a certain way (such as natives cheek bones being up higher) the person was thought to be stupid. The last experiment the Europeans did to American Indians was that they had a small devise that they would put on the head and it would slice the brain open. There would be an award for retrieving a male’s brain that was five cents. By retrieving a woman’s brain the price would be three cents, and lastly a child’s brain which would be two cents. This is when the term redskin was invented (Poupart, 2014).
The United States Government was founded on the basis that it would protect the rights and liberties of every American citizen. The Equal Protection Clause, a part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, provides that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Yet for hundreds of years, the US government and society have distressed the Native American people through broken treaties, removal policies, and attempts of assimilation. From the Trail of Tears in the 1830s to the Termination Policy in 1953, the continued oppression of American Indian communities produced an atmosphere of heightened tension and gave the native peoples a reason to fight back. In 1968, Clyde Bellecourt, Dennis Banks, and Russell Means founded the American Indian Movement to address issues concerning the Native American community and tackle the situation and position of Native Americans in society. Over the next few decades, the movement led to a series of radical protests, which were designed to raise awareness to the American Indians’ issues and to pressure the federal government to act on their behalf. After all of the unfair and unjust policies enacted by the U.S. government and society, all of the American Indian Movement’s actions can be justified as legitimate reactions to the United States’ democratic society that had promised to respect and protect their people and had failed to do so.
Native American Relations During the numerous years of colonization, the relationship between the English settlers and the Native Americans of the area was usually the same. Native Americans would initially consider the settlers to be allies, then as time passed, they would be engaged in wars with them in a struggle for control of the land. This process of friendship to enemies seemed to be the basic pattern in the majority of the colonies. When the English landed in Jamestown in 1607, the dominant tribe of the area was the Powhatan (which the English settlers named after the leader of the tribe, Powhatan).
The connection Indigenous Australians have with the land was established, and maintained, by The Dreamings, passed down through generations binding Indigenous Australians to the land (National Film & Sound Archive, 2015). National Film & Sound Archive (2015), highlight that land and being can not be separated for Indigenous Australians as they form part of the land and are accountable for the preservation of the land. Indigenous Australian land rights originated from an intricate social process constructed on traditional core values; where the rights of the land were established on principles of descendants, kinship and marriage (Dodds, 1998). However, despite this, the British colonisation of Australia in 1788 brought about change when the land was declared Terra Nullius (Short, 2007). Short (2007) stated that as a result of Australia being declared Terra Nullius, Indigenous Australians had no legitimate claim to their land. Hence, British colonisers dispossessing Indigenous Australians of their land rights as the customs established by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were not recognised or taken into consideration by the British Government (Short,
Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.
This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.
Manifest Destiny caused Native Americans to lose their land. To start off with I’m going to describe what Manifest Destiny is, Manifest Destiny is the belief of the United States all through continents that were explained and unavoidable. Back then Native Americans weren’t treated with respect by the white settlers and the American Government. They took their land by force, deceived them into agreements (treaties), claimed them to go with the soldiers or somewhere after the battles. None of them showed any caring so of course if they didn’t care they did whatever they wanted to them. Native Americans tried their best at all times to try and defeat but it was hard for them.