Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rights and freedoms of aboriginal people essay
Essay aboriginal people of australia
Essays on Aboriginal Australians
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Rights and freedoms of aboriginal people essay
Mabo case The Mabo case was a legal case held in 1992. It was named after an Aboriginal man called Eddie Mabo, who challenged Australian legal system. He fought for claiming the legal rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait inhabitants. From Mabo’s perspective, Aboriginal people are the traditional owners of their land as they occupied and lived in Australia for thousands of years, much longer and earlier than British people’s arrival in 1788. However, after British people took charge of this continent, Aboriginal people’s life went from bad to worse. They had no legal rights and were treated like animals. Their lives were severely threatened. Moreover, they lost their homes although they were the original owner of the land. After ten years …show more content…
The validity of British’s occupation of Australia has been fundamentally shaken. The decision protected Aboriginal people’s cultures and lifestyles to a certain degree. Moreover, it guaranteed that some of the lands they live will not be developed. There were five key issues of importance to legal precedent in the Mabo decision for the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Australia (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 2017). For example, it helps to promote the idea of non-discrimination. From then on, a series of laws had been introduced to help safeguard their standard legal rights and …show more content…
It is the footstone for the actions that can practically protect legal rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The most important thing is that the aim of it cannot be changed. It was established for the legal rights Aboriginal inhabitants possess. In the future, the government should have some powerful measures to both protect Aboriginal people and resource companies. Contradictions between economy and citizens should be reconciled instead of being intensified. Also, a more regulated process of native title is supposed to be introduced. The Australian Government announced $7.8 million additional funding to support native title groups (Indigenous.gov.au, 2017). More financial compensation should be applied to Aboriginal people. In conclusion, as a cornerstone of Australia legal system, the Mabo case had profound effects on protecting Aboriginal people. After twenty-five years of development, the situation is getting more and more better. However, the government can still have more powerful and forceful measures to improve those people’s
At the conference he explained the traditional land ownership and inheritance system that his community followed on Mer Island. Afterwards, a lawyer in the audience noted the significance of his speech and suggested there should be a test case to claim land rights through the court system. In 1982, Eddie Koiki Mabo and four Mer islanders took their case of ownership of their lands on Mer Island to the Queensland Supreme Court. With Eddie Mabo as the leader the case became widely known as the ‘Mabo case’. After the court ruled against them, the islanders took the case to the High Court. On 3 June 1992 (ten years later), the court decided in favour of the Islanders and ruled that ‘the Meriam people of the Torres Strait did have native title over their traditional
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).
...t led to their rights being acknowledged in the Canadian law. Their rights including land claims could no longer be repelled or ignored by the federal government. The Policy of Outstanding Business was a huge breakthrough for Aboriginals as they were able to have their needs taken care of, receive full benefits in claims and became recognized in the Court of law.
Throughout Australian history, there have been men and women who fought for the entitlements of the indigenous people. The most respected and recognised of these is Eddie Mabo, a Torres Strait Islander. Mabo stood up for the rights of his people from a very young age all the way to his death, in order to generate changes in the policies and laws of the government. Mabo battled for his right to own the land which he had inherited from his adoptive father, a fight which was resolved only after his demise. Despite this, Eddie Mabo became one of the key influential figures in the Aboriginal rights movement, as his strong will, determination, and intelligence allowed him to bring about change.
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)
Australians by not clarifying it’s stance on it’s international obligations to Indigenous Australians or reflecting it’s international rhetoric and signature on UN conventions by implementing some in domestic law. This inadequacy in the development of Indigenous Peoples Land Rights in Australia has been declared by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations in July 1997, and highlights the Australian government policy regarding Indigenous Peoples Land Rights and may be argued as a denial of justice for Indigenous People by the Australian legal system. Australia can be said to be ineffective in achieving justice for Indigenous People due to it’s failure to recognise Indigenous Australians rights to land domestically by failing the Human Rights standards contained in international initiatives to which it is a signatory.
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)
An issue facing society is whether the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), is sufficient in balancing the rights of Indigenous Australians and the rights of current land owners. To determine whether legislation is sufficient and fair, an investigation into the current societal view points needs to be considered by legislators, with an evaluation into the ways in which other societies cater to the needs of Indigenous land owners should be made. This information then allows recommendations and changes to be debated, to therefore to ensure more equitable legislation on land rights within Australia.
Access to land and resources is important for many aboriginal communities as a basis for the maintenance of aboriginal cultural values, financial security, and economic development. The self-government has also helped provide access to treaty rights and land claims settlements for the Aboriginal population.
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.
It said that aboriginal people should be treated equally with land rights, as indigenous Australians were the first on our land that we are on today. This challenged many different previous Australian legal statements to do with Aboriginals including one of the main ones being that Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island communities or people owned no land before the arrival of the British in 1788. This statement was called Terra Nullius, which means land belonging to no one. This Native Title Act of 1993 recognized native title and recognizing and that the aboriginal’s community owns the land, as they are the original owners. The Mabo decision was one of Australia’s firsts steps in recovering all the injustices towards the Indigenous people that were happening in the past and giving them back the land they hold so dearly that they own. The Mabo decision contributed to the collective Identity of Indigenous people as is gave back there cultural land and bringing the most major part back to the aboriginal culture which is the land and the connection between them and the land. This Native Title Act of 1993 allowed the aboriginals to enhance there collective identity due to the fact that it was the first time they were positively recognized and the first time they got something back that was once taken from them all making there beliefs, rituals stronger and overall enhancing there collective identity of being aboriginal. Since the Mabo decision there has been many other cases and different changes and different things added to the native title. The Mabo Decision first did the recognition and giving back of the aboriginal land and it was one of the first to recognize that the land title was wrong and that it did belong to the
In 1788 when the European settlers “colonised” Australia, the Australian land was known as “terra nullius” which means “land belonging to no-one”. This decision set the stage for the problems and disadvantages faced by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for 216 years. The protection policy was meant to disperse tribes and force Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people off their traditional land so the “white Australian’s” could have more control. The protection policy enforced by the British colonies drove the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander onto reserves.
Indigenous Australian land rights have sparked controversy between Non Indigenous and Indigenous Australians throughout history. The struggle to determine who the rightful owners of the land are is still largely controversial throughout Australia today. Indigenous Australian land rights however, go deeper than simply owning the land as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have established an innate spiritual connection making them one with the land. The emphasis of this essay is to determine how Indigenous Australian land rights have impacted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, highlighting land rights regarding the Mabo v. the State of Queensland case and the importance behind today’s teachers understanding and including Indigenous
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.
... other legislation and institutions have successfully improved the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian’s promoting change, harmony and providing support. The Australian government aim to improve social inadequacies and although the results at times may be limited are ultimately improving Non indigenous and Indigenous Australian’s relations as well as improving the social position of Indigenous Australian’s. Thus recognition of customary law is not essential to improving the status of indigenous Australians and the proposal itself provides the possibility of negative outcomes which could perhaps worsen their status and lead to a decline in their social position.