Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effectiveness of native title law reform
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effectiveness of native title law reform
Under the Native Title Act 1993 Aboriginal people can only claim title to vacant government owned land. They must prove a continuous relationship with this land when making a claim. The process it takes to gain native title is viewed by many as extreme. Should the process in Australia to Native Title claims be streamlined to allow Indigenous Australians the right to use of the land in a timelier manner? Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) The laws regarding native title have continually been questioned about its legitimacy in providing justice to Indigenous Australians and their lost land. The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) was recently established in response to the Mabo v Queensland case in 1992. Eddie Mabo and four other Torres Strait Islanders went …show more content…
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) …show more content…
As Vance Hughston writes “the major problem with the system for resolving native title claims is not hard to identify. It is the significant time and resources needed to resolve those native title claims which are opposed by government and other respondents” (Calma, 2009). Therefore, it is evident that the Native Title procedure needs some reforms to counteract the unjust requirements set out in section 223 of the Native Title Act 1933 (Cth). Within this section, it clearly expresses the marginal requirements imposed on the Native Title claimants – particularly subsection C. This subsection outlines the ongoing relationship that a native title claimant would have to sustain in order to be eligible for a possible trial. However, it poses many problematic and difficult situations towards the claimant, as they have to prove a continuous relationship with the land since sovereignty. In addition, section 237 of the Native Title Act states that the land mustn’t be partially or wholly extinguished by Government actions. If wholly extinguished, i.e. when claimants want areas such as “privately owned freehold land, pastoral or agricultural leases, residential, commercial, community purposes and in areas where governments have built roads, airports, railways, schools and other public works”, the
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).
This statement shows Aboriginals are inferior and have no rights or sovereignty over the land. Therefore the Europeans are superior by law to them. Lambert (2012. pg12) writes that Europeans regarded Torres Islanders and Aboriginals way of life and land use was “not being used in a fashion that European legal and property systems approved”. The information from both sources shows Europeans confirmed that land is not owned by anyone, unless there is a legal document to prove ownership therefore Europeans believed Aboriginals and Torres Islanders did not own the land even though they live there. Lambert (2012) suggests Europeans were “very liberal” compared to the Torres Islander and Aboriginals. The Proclamation 1835 was written after the Batman Deed however shows no evidence there was a treaty previously between John Batman and Dutigalla people. This also demonstrates Torres Islanders sovereignty is not regarded by the Europeans. (WC: 196). Jeff Lambert states the land was perceived as “unoccupied land” as “Aborigines demonstrated their affinity with the land in sustainability, cultural and spiritual terms” (Lambert 2012.pg 13), these actions were not
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.
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.
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.
White, G. (2002). Treaty Federalism in Northern Canada: Aboriginal-Government Land Claims Board. Publius Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 89-114
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)
The need for the law to recognise possessory and equitable interests in land under a system of registration of title is a contested issue in Australia. The term ‘title’ means the extent of ownership over property as recognised by the legal system. For the purpose of this essay, a system of registration of title means the Torrens title system. The protection of possessory and equitable interests in Western Australia will be discussed, with reference to the Torrens title system and real property. It will be argued that there is still a need for the law to recognise equitable interests in land, however, the Torrens framework does remove the need for the law for the law to recognise possessory interests, in particular the doctrine of adverse possession.
Of the 8 successful, the 1967 referendum which proposed the removal of the words in section 51 (xxvi) ‘… other than the aboriginal people in any State’ (National Archives of Australia ND), and the deletion of section 127, both, which were discriminative in their nature toward the Aboriginal race, recorded a 90.77% nationwide vote in favour of change (National Archives of Australia, 2014). As a result, the Constitution was altered; highlighting what was believed to be significant positive political change within Indigenous affairs at the time (National Archives of Australia, 2014). Approaching 50 years on, discussion has resurfa...
money for Aboriginal in order to pursue any claim, unless permission was granted by the
The Indian Act no longer remains an undisputable aspect of the Aboriginal landscape in Canada. For years, this federal legislation (that was both controversial and invasive) governed practically all of the aspects of Aboriginal life, starting with the nature of band governance and land tenure. Most importantly, the Indian act defines qualifications of being a “status Indian,” and has been the source of Aboriginal hatred, due to the government attempting to control Aboriginals’ identities and status. This historical importance of this legislation is now being steadily forgotten. Politically speaking, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal critics of the Indian act often have insufferable opinions of the limits of the Indian Act’s governance, and often argue to have this administrative device completely exterminated. Simultaneously, recent modern land claim settlements bypass the authority of the Indian Act over specific groups.
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.
Land rights now referred to the continual legal exertion to reclaim ownership of the land and waters that was called home prior to British colonisation (Creative Spirits, 2011). Australian Museum (2015) and Creative Spirits (2011) acknowledge the struggle to gain legal recognition and ownership of Indigenous land is difficult and expensive. Furthermore, the history behind the struggle in earlier years often resulted in violence as Indigenous Australians were dispossessed of their land (Australian Museum, 2015). Subsequently, the struggle for land rights continued through the legal and political systems; as demonstrated in 1982 when Eddie (Koiki) Mabo and four other Meriam people decided to pursue declaration of their customary land rights in the High Court of Australia (Hill, 1995). Based on the findings of Creative Spirits (2011) Indigenous Australian land rights appeared promising in 1983 when the Hawke Government promised legislation to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s land rights are protected throughout Australia. The legislation was said to permit Indigenous Australians to exercise the right of control over mining on Indigenous Australian land to ensure sacred sites are protected (Creative Spirits, 2011). However, in 1984 the mining companies fought back to repossess control over land. Mining and pastoral industries were considered too powerful and
...n.p.). Soon the Canadian government amended Section 12 in 1985, and Bill C-31 was passed for those who lost their status and want to regain them (Hanson, n.p.). Unfortunately a fault existed in Bill C-31, which stated that the statuses of the aboriginals can only be passed on for one generation. Seeing as this was still unconstitutional, the government is now attempting to again retract its footsteps by amending the Indian Act altogether (Hanson, n.p.), but is still meeting difficulty in doing so.
The debates between applied and pure anthropologists’ demonstrate the difficulties which those engaged in native title litigations encounter. Debates to whether anthropologists’ engaged in native title hearings are morally and intellectually adequate are discussed in contemporary anthropology. These debates between anthropologists’ cause various ambiguities to the role and ability of those practicing engaged anthropology. David Trigger’s article, ‘Anthropology Pure and Profane: The Politics of Applied Research in Aboriginal Australia’, outlines some criticisms engaged anthropologists’ face and attempts to disprove them. Trigger’s points in this article caused debates amongst applied and pure anthropologists’ revealing many ambiguities and complexities. Firstly, I will discuss Trigger’s arguments to the uncertainties of the moral and intellectual ability of engaged anthropology in native title cases. Secondly, through citing anthropologists’ such as Diane Austin-Broos, Rohan Bastin and Francesca Merlan, I will display the ambiguous role engaged anthropologists’ have and the complex relationship held between pure and applied anthropology. Thirdly, by discussing Bruce Kapferer and Barry Morris’s responses to Trigger, I will show the complex relationship between anthropology, the state and corporations. Then the difficulties which engaged anthropologists’ face in the legal realm will be highlighted. Finally, I will discuss the difficulty those engaged in native title cases face to whether their work is assisting or subjugating Aboriginal communities. These ambiguities, difficulties and complexities which arise from anthropologists’ participating in native title are deliberated in the following essay.