Aboriginal people are able to rebuild connections with their spirituality, through the land. Adventures in Law and Justice. The Mabo Decision of 1992 was an historical triumph for the Indigenous Australian people as many protesters fought for equal rights and freedom. On 1 July 2011, the 160 registered determinations of native title covered some 1,228,373 km 2 or approximately 16 per cent of the land mass of Australia. This year marks 21 years since the decision, legislating whether pastoral leases over land in Queensland extinguished Native Title. While it was welcomed by many Indigenous academics, it immediately prompted a public and by some politicians and by the mining and pastoral industries over concerns about the many native title claims that might now occur.
The court found that the statutory pastoral leases under consideration by the court did not bestow rights of exclusive possession on the leaseholder. The matter came on for hearing before Drummond. The lease was granted to the Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty Limited through a special Act of Parliament called the Aurukun Associates Act 1975 Qld. One year after the recognition of the legal concept of native title in Mabo, the formalised the recognition by legislation with the enactment by the of the. Although colonisation wrought social changes upon the Aborigines, customary Aboriginal law continues to regulate the lives of many Aboriginal Australians.
The ruling however, did not mean that the pastoral leases on the Cape York Peninsula were revoked immediately. Archived from on 14 January 2012. Outline the importance of the following for the land rights movement Native Title Mabo Wik Evidently, the land rights movement involves the ideas of the Wik, Mabo decision, as well as the Native Title. The term, it seems, is here to stay, both in certain sections of academia and elsewhere. In 1984 Premier John Bannon's Labor Government passed legislation to return lands to the Maralinga Tjarutja people. The court focused on the purpose for which the leases were granted at that time in light of the social and economic conditions of the times. Where did it come from? In the 1970s, the then Aboriginal Development Commission attempted to purchase part of a pastoral lease.
The Indigenous community representatives agreed to this, on the condition that they would have the right to negotiate over any future Crown land grants that would affect native title. Justice in this landmark decision stated: However, when the tide of history has washed away any real acknowledgment of traditional law and any real observance of traditional customs, the foundation of native title has disappeared. The case established that traditional owners do have native title of the sea and sea-bed; however common law rights of fishing and navigation mean that only non-exclusive native title can exist over the sea. The Sydney Papers Autumn 1997. The differing approaches taken by the various members of the Court and the 3:3 split on the decision mean that the case has no clear ratio decidendi, but perhaps because of this, the case gives a good overview of different approaches.
Yirrkala bark petitions The modern land rights movement dates back to 1963 when the Yolgnu people from the settlement Yirrkala in north-east Arnhem Land Northern Territory presented the Australian Parliament with a bark petition, commonly known as the Yirrkala bark petitions, protesting to have their land and their rights returned. The first lease was granted for pastoral purposes. Management decisions could include something as simple whether or not to put a coffee maker in the break room to something as difficult as laying off a group of employees. Some political leaders criticised the court for being out of touch and for introducing uncertainty into Australian life. Adventures in Law and Justice. If there are serious legal questions to be decided as to the existence or nature of such rights, no doubt the sooner they are decided the better, but the resolution of such questions by the courts will not be assisted by imprecise, emotional or intemperate claims. The court reserved its decision until 23 December 1996.
By this point, many academics and judges in Australia were. Some political leaders criticized the court for being out of touch and for introducing uncertainty into Australian life. The High Court has always made law; this is not a matter of controversy. He points out that where native title clashed with pastoral interests, pastoral interests would always override native title. Of his notable legislative contributions, The Native Title Act 1993 which nationally recognised and protected native title, a result of the Mabo v Queensland, and The Land Fund and Indigenous Land Corporation Bill 1995 are potentially the most remarkable contributions made to Indigenous rights in Australia.
Please note: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be aware that this website may contain images, voices or names of deceased persons in photographs, film, audio recordings or printed material. The 2002 High Court decision adopted strict requirements of continuity of traditional laws and customs for native title claims to succeed. The land is used as a physical link between human beings and all that is unseen and eternal. With the question of law determined, the Wik Peoples and the Thayorre People return to the Federal Court for a determination of their native title rights, if any. These early accusations seemed to equate activism with progressive results-oriented decision-making. Native title rights and interests differ from in that the source of land rights is a grant of title from government. The land rights legislation was introduced by Premier in November 1978, several months prior to his resignation from Parliament.
One example was the fight of the Yolngu people in the early 1970s. It led to intense discussions on the validity of land holdings in Australia. While the information may not reflect current understanding, it is provided in an historical context. Did it involve a discernible method of interpreting the constitution? Intention is to be derived from the language used in the statute and reflected in the instrument of lease, not to any state of mind legislators may have had. In each of these claims, the Wik peoples alleged that the mining leases were invalid because the Queensland Government owed fiduciary duties as a trustee to the Wik people, and that those duties had been breached by the granting of the mining leases. Although the decision covers more than pastoral leases, this article deals exclusively with that issue.
The Wik decision did not mean that every land lease in Australia could now be called into question. Advertisements The Holroyd River Holding The Holroyd River Holding is 1,119 square miles 2,900 km 2 in area. The Wik people argued that as these pastoral leases had been granted through State legislation and in Land Rights Acts, they were leases under statutory law, and therefore not common law leases. The first Holroyd lease was issued to Marie Stuart Perkins in 1945. Mabo and others v State of Queensland No. It is clear 21 years later that the stance taken by the Howard government that Native Title was something that can be revised and watered down repeatedly is the remaining status quo in 2017. It is a potentially unjust charge to make if no working definition of activism is disclosed at the outset.