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
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
Question 1 In order to determine if the Adnyamathanha’s native title claim is valid, they must demonstrate that they have “maintained Aboriginal law and customs on that land” and that “no other titles allowing ownership of that land [have] extinguished…the native title” . This criteria is based on the decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 (“Mabo [No 2]”) , and supported in The Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 141 ALR 129 (“Wik”) and Western Australia v Ward (2002) 191 ALR 1 (“Ward”)
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
then codified in the Native Title Act in 1993. The Native Title Act adopted much of the same language used in the High Court decision. For example, it defined native title as “rights and interests possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional laws observed by the aboriginal peoples”. The result of Mabo and the
OBSTACLE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE NATIVE TITLE: Terra Nullius which is referred as “land belonging to no one” was an obstacle in order to achieve Native Title which is the right to land by the original inhabitants, as the Indigenous people had to prove that they were traditional owners of the land with an ongoing connection to it in order to claim native title, which was difficult as they had been forced off their land almost 200 years before. In order to achieve the native title, it had to be claimed by
whether current land owners will be able to keep their land. An issue facing society is whether legislation in place is sufficient in balancing the rights of Indigenous Australians and the rights of current land owners who will be affected by the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). To determine whether legislation is sufficient and fair, an investigation into the current societal view point needed to be considered by legislators. These legislators needed to evaluate the ways in which other societies had catered
Australian through their individual lawful rights, industry work and personal emotions. However, its sole significance sheds light on the extent of recognition and protection of Aboriginal people rights and interest in land through the Mabo decision and Native Title Act 1993. MABO It all began in 1974 when Torres Strait Islander Eddie Koiki Mabo discovered that Murry Island, a land he previously grew up on, was not under his ownership. Seven
debate has arisen within society as to whether Aboriginals have a right to land of cultural significance. Thus, causing concern for current land owners, as to whether they will be entitled to their land. 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
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. Body Paragraph 1: 200-300 words Eddie Mabo’s success at land
Decisions Mabo V. Queensland (No.1) [1998] Mabo and others V Queensland (No.2) [1992] Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) 1998 Eddie Kioki Mabo along with 5 other Meriam people began their legal journey to claim ownership of the island of Mer located in the Torres Strait islands. The Supreme Court of Queensland was required by the High Court of Australia to determine the facts of the case but while the case was held at the Queensland Court the act “Any rights that Torres Strait Islander
Native Title Australia’s Indigenous people are thought to have reached the continent between 60 000 and 80 000 years ago. Over the thousands of years since then, a complex customary legal system have developed, strongly linked to the notion of kinship and based on oral tradition. The indigenous people were not seen as have a political culture or system for law. They were denied the access to basic human right e.g., the right to land ownership. Their cultural values of indigenous people became lost
It is important to always show respect towards the indigenous, acknowledge their laws, their practices and their customs further paying respects to the original custodians of the land. This however does not mean that recognition of aboriginal customary law is essential to improving the status (social position) of indigenous Australians; on the contrary it poses more problems than solutions. Although law is seen as the fabric of existence and intrinsic to living, it is impossible to judge one legal
conquest – the acquisition of a territory by force, cession – an existing state transfers sovereignty over its territory to another state, or occupation – taking possession of a territory not under the control of an existing sovereign. Mabo Case Native Title Act Objects of the Act: (a) to provide for the recognition and protection of
recognition of indigenous rights to land. In your answer, consider the benefits and limitations of the Native Title Act and recent United Nations criticisms of the current Act. For years we have witnessed the Indigenous population’s political struggle for recognition of rights to Australian land. At times the effort appears to be endless and achieving recognition almost seems impossible. Native Title and Land claims have become a step closer in achieving this recognition; however, for land rights to
very significant impact on Australia’s Law and legal History. It was the first time since British settlement in 1770 that native title was recognised in Australia for Indigenous Australians. Native title refers to land title rights indigenous Australians have with land that has cultural significance to them. The decision ruled in favour of the common law doctrine of Aboriginal title. Captain cook first applied Terra Nullius in Australia in 1770 when he claimed the East Coast of NSW for Britain. Terra
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
Australia and the need to acknowledge and remedy these. The conflicting source is an interview of John Howard on the 7.30 report in 1997, 4 years after the Mabo decision. Howard deals with the perceived implications of the Mabo and subsequent land title decisions for land ownership across Australia. The two sources conflict as they are taken from opposing parts of the mainstream Australian political spectrum. They reflect the so-called History Wars, a debate regarding the unresolved cultural struggle
Australia, claiming native title to the Murray Island’s in the high court. Native title is a form of land title which reflects the indigenous
Eddie Koiki Mabo and some fellow plaintiffs from Murray Island, wanted to claim back their rights and ownership of what they claimed was their land. They went up in front of the High Court of Australia and ten years later the parliament passed the Native Title Act 1993. Eddie Koiki Mabo died in 1993, before the High court of Australia legislated the new act. At Eddies funeral, Bryan Keon-Cohen said “…without Eddie the case would probably never have begun” . In 1992, ten years after the case began, the