Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The native title act 1993 essay
The effectiveness of law reform in native title
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The native title act 1993 essay
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.
MABO V QUEENSLAND (NO.2) [1992] HCA 23
In 1992, the doctrine of terra nullius was overruled by the High Court in the case Mabo v Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. After recognising that the Meriam people of Murray Island in the Torres Straits were native title landholders of their traditional land, the court also held that native title existed for all the Indigenous people in Australia prior to European contact. To make the legal position of landholders and the processes that must be followed in claiming native title clear, the federal government passed the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Native Title, which was drafted in 1993, attempted to provide a fair and just method of dealing with land in the future. However one of the fundamental flaws of the native title system is that the concept of native title was based on the prejudiced principle that the Crown had the power to extinguish traditional indigenous ownership of the land. Although the government could have been able to amend the flaws of the Native Title Act following the High Court’s decision in relation to the Wik Case, which laid the rules for co-existence and reconciliation of shared interests in the land, they failed to do so. Amendments to the Native Title Act in 1998 undermined any benefits the Indigenous people could have received, and provided the already-powerful non-Indige...
... middle of paper ...
...iminatory, making it increasingly difficult for Indigenous people to prove their Native Title rights. Justice Michael Kirby and Justice Mary Gaudron did find, in favour of the Yorta Yorta argument that the connection to the land does not necessarily have to be continuous to be able to successfully prove a native title claim. However, the High Court still dismissed the Yorta Yorta people’s claim, due to the majority of judges asserting that the land had not been maintained sufficiently to prove native title. This case holds as an example for a decision that wasn’t just; further measures could have been taken to ensure that the outcome was fair.
From the above cases, it is evident that the law reform process is effective to a certain extent in achieving just outcomes in regard to native title, due to our ever-changing society, and the progression of new rules.
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).
Jeff Lambert’s thesis suggests “the proclamation delivered an injustice to the Aboriginal nation that took over 200 years to legally reject Terra Nullius, albeit under certain conditions” (Lambert 2012. pg15). Lambert explains the stages before and after the Proclamation 1835 formed also noting a statement by Joseph Bank “Sir Joseph Banks’ prediction that no Aborigines would be found in the interior of the continent, because they only lived on fish and shellfish, but rather a few nomadic peoples along the coast line, may have influenced the British government’s decision to declare Terra Nullius” (Lambert 2012. pg15). The statement is discussed in and evidenced with a map. Jeff Lambert also explains the European attitudes towards Aboriginal and Torres islander sovereignty. Jeff Lambert states Europeans perceived Torres Islanders and Aboriginals as ‘inferior’ (Lambert 2012. pg.12). Lambert (2012. pg13) suggests that “There were some who asserted that terra nullius implied that unoccupied land was not the only meaning of the phrase and that it could also be interpreted as an absence of civilised society.”. The principle of terra nullius means no-man’s land, therefore after the Governor Bourke Proclamation Aboriginals had no legal ownership of land. According to Lambert (2012. pg13) Torres Islanders and Aboriginals ownership of
How can we not own it?’ as a clarification for Mabo when he was deal with the case. After he died the government finally said Merry island is belong to aboriginal people. This is a powerful clue show racialism was a momentous aspect for Mabo fighting for aboriginal people’s rights let everyone turn be
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
In conclusion Thomas Flanagan is correct in his 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.
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.
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
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...
Struggles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people for recognition of their rights and interests have been long and arduous (Choo & Hollobach: 2003:5). The ‘watershed’ decision made by the High Court of Australia in 1992 (Mabo v Queensland) paved the way for Indigenous Australians to obtain what was ‘stolen’ from them in 1788 when the British ‘invaded’ (ATSIC:1988). The focus o...
Our Indian legislation generally rests on the principle, that the aborigines are to be kept in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards or children of the State. …the true interests of the aborigines and of the State alike require...
Systems: The canadian Future in light of the American Past.” Ontario native Council on Justice. Toronto, Ontario.
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.
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.