ladies and gentleman, prepare yourselves for the greatest essay of all time. bare in mind it is yet to be 100% completed:

Aboriginal Land Rights has been a huge issue for Australians over the last twenty years. The rights of Aboriginals over the last fifty years have increased dramatically; they are now included in the census and have gained the right to vote . So it was only natural for them to fight for their rights further and try to legally gain rights to the land that was traditionally theirs. I believe there are various turning points in the gaining of Aboriginals’ rights to their land; the first being the Mabo case, which opened up a whole new debate about land rights; then the Wik decision and its argument over whether Aboriginals should have access to land under pastoral leases; and then the passing of the Native Title Amendment Act which severely altered many things passed in the Native Title Act and the Wik decision. The rights of Aboriginals may have only come into the limelight over the last half-century, but the legal battle started as soon as the Europeans set out to claim Australia.

To understand the claims Mabo was taking to the courts, we must first understand how Australia was possessed by the English under law. Terra nullius means “no man’s land” or “empty land” meaning that as long as the land is uninhabited or disowned, another country has a right to possess it . The British claimed Australia was terra nullius, though they knew it was inhabited. They claimed the Aboriginals were uncivilized and unable to enforce their own legal systems (making it terra nullius); though many of the tribes already had unwritten laws and customs in place (making terra nullius invalid) . Therefore Australia was wrongly claimed and many historians believe that Australia should be reconsidered as conquered and not settled. But considering Australia was already well settled by the time the Aboriginals took their claims to the courts, the laws passed had to coincide with the rights of the free settlers and their descendants who had now been living in Australia for 200 years.

Edward Koiki Mabo was a Torres Strait Islander brought up by his uncle after the death of his father and mother. He was exiled from Murray Island as a teenager and moved to Queensland where he undertook simple everyday jobs, but remained active in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community by becoming the spokesperson for many disadvantaged groups. He undertook a gardening job at the James Cook University where he would often sit in on lectures and read many legal books and documents in the library about his people and their land. In 1981 he attended a land rights conference, where his ten year battle really began. In front of all the attendees he clearly stated the rules of inheritance and land ownership on Murray Island. His argument was of particular interest to a lawyer (one of the attendees) who suggested he take his case to the courts to challenge the terra nullius law and reclaim their traditional land . At this time there was a ground-swell developing in the Aboriginal community in support of land rights and many protests were held, in particular during the 1982 Commonwealth Games held in Brisbane. An extract from Cheryl Mundy’s poem, written during the Commonwealth Games, sums up the feeling of many Aboriginal people at the time:

“The cry began as a murmur
now is heard as a shout
for sovereignty, justice and land rights.
And our children have joined in
so our future is strong
as we lead the cry for our rights –
for our rights.”

Sadly, Eddie Mabo was not alive to see the result of his claims, or even know that he had won the strenuous legal battle. He passed away in 1992, just before the law could be overturned. Part of the reason that the law wasn’t overruled while Mabo was alive was that Justice Moynihan decided that Eddie Mabo was not the son of Benny Mabo (his uncle), and therefore had no right to inherit the Mabo land . But really the Torres Strait Islander’s claim was not to get back the Mabo land; but more to acknowledge that Australia wasn’t terra nullius and clarify that the land was wrongfully claimed from them. After Mabo died, the Native Title Act was passed, meaning that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders could claim partial ownership over their traditional land. This gave them the opportunity to partially govern what people were planning on doing to their land, and gave them access to perform traditional rituals on their land, along with many other privileges not previously available. This was a major turning point in Australian Aboriginal Land Rights that had never been recognized before; the Aboriginals could now take their land claims to the courts and know that they had a supportive legal system to help maintain their rightful land ownership. The Aboriginals rights to their native land had been recognized, and the Native Title Act was law.

“...spread across the continent to dispossess, degrade and devastate the Aboriginal peoples and leave a national legacy of unutterable shame.
The acts and events ... (of Aboriginal) dispossession ... constitute the darkest aspect of the history of this nation... The nation as a whole must remain diminished unless and until there is an acknowledgment of, and retreat from, those past injustices. ” Justices Deane and Gaudron

The Wik Decision was an important turning point in the history of Aboriginal Land Rights, as it explored certain aspects of the law not entirely covered in the Native Title Act. The Wik people wanted to gain access to the Cape York Peninsula in North Queensland, but the land was under ownership of the Crown and was being leased out to pastoralists for cattle grazing . To own a pastoral lease is to have the right to graze, farm and dam particular areas that are under ownership of the government. The pastoralists do not have any ownership over the land, but do possess exclusive rights to use the land under government control. This interferes with the native title rights, as the pastoral leases cover approximately 42% of Australia’s land mass. Many people were under the assumption that pastoral leases extinguished the native title rights, allowing the farmers to do whatever they pleased with the land . The Aboriginals would most likely want to conserve the land, instead of letting the farmers graze and build on their native soil. The Wik decision improved the Aboriginals rights, allowing the native title rights to co-exist with the rights of the pastoral lease holders. This meant that they had a say in the control of the land and what damage may be caused in relation to the landscape. Although, if the rights of the native title owners and the pastoral lease holders clashed; the rights of the pastoral lease holders would be held to be superior. Many pastoralists were furious and demanded the native title be extinguished on pastoral leases, so the Howard Government decided to “improve” the law and pass the Native Title Amendment Bill.

The Native Title Amendment Act was passed in 1998 to improve the Native Title Act of 1993, after the Wik decision was passed and made it harder for people to maintain pastoral leases. In many ways it was a set back for the Aboriginal people and their rights to their native land. The passing of the amendments made it incredibly difficult for the indigenous community to negotiate with the pastoral lease holders over whatever they were doing, or planning on doing to their native land . The native title holders also had less say in the planning and provision of national parks, forest reserves and many other traditional land uses. They also have no meaningful say in offshore fishing and mining which will impact on their title rights . Many believe that the passing of this bill is inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act, as the laws allow very minimal access or connection for the Aboriginal people to their land if it is under any form of Crown ownership. This law also makes it harder for the title holders to present their case in a claim hearing, as certain access rights will not be available to groups who did not maintain regular access to their land prior to the Wik decision. The passing of this Act was certainly a turning point for the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, but not in any way for their good.

The future of Aboriginal Land Rights is somewhat uncertain. Many changes have come about in Aboriginal Land Rights over the last 15 years; many for the good and also many for the bad. The early nineties sparked immense hope for Aboriginals and brought many closer to their land after they were legally granted rights to their land. But after the Native Title Amendment Act had been passed, some people’s hope could only be diminished as it gave them very restricted access; and those not already under control of their land had very little chance of legally getting it back. Very recently the government has provided 99-year leases to many Aboriginal townships in the Northern Territory. Many believe that the leases are contradictory and will force the Aboriginals to lease their land back to the government in exchange for basic services such as schools, health services and housing (as the Aboriginals won’t have enough funding to produce these things themselves) .

The law was quickly passed without any consultation with the indigenous people, which almost implies a lack of respect for the traditional owners of the land. In the future, I expect the law to be changed again; as it has been many times before. All I can hope for is that the final law being passed is one that gives Aboriginals all they want; a true stable connection to the land without feeling in any way pressured by the government or people with lack of respect towards their traditional ownership.

A turning point is a moment that can change, define, or immediately affect a nation. A true turning point is remembered, treasured, or sometimes dreaded. Whether it be for good or bad, it is still relevant, as are all the key events that lead up to it. That is why there are so many depths to an investigation into the land rights of Aboriginals. The first turning point really came about before any of us were alive; the European’s settlement of Australia was and is the initial point in the case. The Mabo decision was the first case to officially recognize the land rights of Aboriginals; and the Native Title Amendment Act was the first of many set-backs since the passing of the Mabo decision.

I believe the reason it took so long for the Aboriginals to build a case for land rights was the changing of principles and values over time. In the 18th century the world was still being discovered, so it was natural for the Europeans to be curious; especially with their crowded streets and rising of disease. These days if there were a vast undiscovered land, there would be no way another country could just walk in and claim it. So, as our principles have changed, so have the nation’s perceptions of the Aboriginal’s true rights.

We can claim that we were innocent by-standers to this case; but we cannot deny the Aboriginals’ traditional and cultural connections to their land. “So easily, when we turn and gaze back upon the past, a sombre hue settles upon the scene that we hold in our mind. This touches our spirits with sorrow and a sense of absence. So much of what our families learned and created here on this far-flung southern island became lost to us when the newcomers arrived. But loss, is this sense, is not to be equated with destruction. The absence we feel is like a space that is left by lost love. Keenly felt, tinged with nostalgic longing, imbued with wisdom that can only be reflected upon with the aid of time’s passage.” Greg Lehman



i hope you enjoyed my presentation

I enjoyed it quite a lot. Most of it I was familiar with thanks to studying over in your fine land.

I'm not sure if any other indigenous people have been fucked over as badly as the Aboriginals have.

Democrats

i liked it too btw, very informative

We did a pretty good number on the indigenous people of the Americas.

This is insanely good for a 9th/10th grade presentation.

^^9th grade

thanks guys, its for the australian national history challenge, our school judging is next weekend and my teacher reckons im going to win

Very erudite and clear, good work.

thanks for stealing my line

are you in a group or are you flying solo?

you cant do essays as a group, of course im flying solo

Ummm, they haven't figured out that they can just build casinos?

But you guys have done a few things with things like life expectancy and health status since, right?

I would've just got shadey to write one up for me. Guy does it for a job anyway.

my essay was one of few selected from the school to be judged in the state finals for the national history challenge, adam's was also selected he did a video documentary

Peter Garrett loves you. Nice work on the essay!

You win teh internets!

hahaha

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_ ... tive_title

Aborigines win Australian land claim

By ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 26 minutes ago

CANBERRA, Australia - A federal court judge has given a tribe of Aborigines a limited land title claim over the major Australian city of Perth.
ADVERTISEMENT

It was the first such ruling that Aborigines, the indigenous people who lived in Australia before white settlers arrived, were the traditional owners of an urban area. The potentially precedent-setting decision could apply to other large cities.

The ruling determined that the Noongar people were the traditional owners of a 2,300-square-mile area of Western Australia state that includes the state capital of Perth, a city of 1.7 million people.

But Tuesday's ruling by Judge Murray Wilcox only grants Aborigines limited rights to the land, and indigenous people say the issue is about recognition of their rights, not moving homeowners out.

The ruling means the Noongar people can now exercise rights such as hunting and fishing on land where their native title — a claim on land Aborigines held before settlers arrived — has not been usurped by freehold titles, those where the government has passed all interest in the land to the owner, or leasehold titles, where a person leases property from the owner.

Wilcox said the outcome was "neither the pot of gold for the indigenous claimants nor the disaster for the remainder of the community that is sometimes painted."

Homeowners and businesses, for instance, normally hold freehold titles and will therefore not be affected by the ruling, officials said. But unallocated land, such as national parks and reserves, may be.

The decision came as shock to most observers since previous such claims over metropolitan areas have failed because under Australian law a freehold title overrides a native title.

In part to win their case, the Noongar people had to prove they had maintained their culture and customs since European settlement in 1829.

The Western Australia state government said it would appeal the ruling to a higher court — a move welcomed by Prime Minister John Howard's government.

Howard said Wednesday the ruling was "of some considerable concern."

"Many people will regard it as somewhat incongruous (that) there could still be some residual native title claim in a major settled metropolitan area," he said.

Western Australia State Deputy Premier Eric Ripper disputed the ruling, saying there had been too much disruption to Noongar society for it to have survived in any meaningful way, and therefore their native title claim was not valid.

"The evidence clearly supported this argument," said Ripper, whose government has three weeks to appeal.

Glen Kelly, chief executive of the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, which represented the Noongar people in the three-year court battle, described the ruling as a long overdue recognition of the traditional owners' identity.

Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson said the decision was "absolutely extraordinary" because it demonstrated that native title was not confined to the unpopulated areas, where most previous successful claims have occurred.

Indigenous leaders appealed for calm and said they were "not after people's backyards or their farms."

"We're after recognition and if we get any type of benefit, it's to run businesses and train our people," Ted Hart, also of the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, told The Australian newspaper.

But Australia's Attorney General Philip Ruddock warned that open spaces in major cities could be up for grabs and white people could be shut out.

"In a major capital city where you do have very extensive areas of parkland, water foreshores, beaches ... you could well find that if a native claim were found to be a bona fide claim and lawful, ... native title owners would be able to exclude other people from access to those areas," he told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio on Thursday.

Federal opposition leader Kim Beazley, a Perth resident, supported a state government appeal because the ruling seemed inconsistent with other court decisions that have been delivered since Native Title Act was passed in 1993.

Beazley did, however, underscore that Perth residents should not be overly concerned about the ruling.

"People ought to understand completely there is no threat entailed in any of this for anybody's property rights," he said.