Aboriginal Land Rights within Australia Essay

Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.

The Eddie Mabo v the State of Queensland [No. 2] (Mabo) case has had a deep impact on the legal, social and political reality of Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations in Australia. It’s established a long term consequences may require considerable litigation, or maybe a Federal Legislation. The Mabo case is the means of which the sovereign rights of Indigenous Nations to their ancestral lands. The result in the case was a recognition by the Australian legal system that the Meriam people hold rights to their land under their own system of law, and that those rights should enjoy the protection of the Australian Law.

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since 1945 with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about a change from oppression to equality. Unfortunately on the other hand, some rights and freedoms have not improved at all or have even worsened.

The Stolen Generation has had a great effect on Aboriginal rights and freedoms as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders didn’t even have the rights to raise and look after their children and as a result 100,000 Aboriginal Australian’s were displaced and placed into white families. The lack of understanding and respect for Aboriginal culture also meant that many people who supported the removal of these children really thought they were doing “the right thing”. The impact on Australian life today is still being felt as the Stolen Generation is seen as a recent event has it only ended in the early 1970s. Children that where taken away back then now cannot trace back their roots and therefore have no record of their family history or where

In 1788 when the European settlers “colonised” Australia, the Australian land was known as “terra nullius” which means “land belonging to no-one”. This decision set the stage for the problems and

The Stolen Generation has left devastating impacts upon the Aboriginal culture and heritage, Australian history and the presence of equality experienced today. The ‘Stolen Generation’ refers to the children of Aboriginal descent being forcefully abducted by government officials of Australia and placed within institutions and catholic orphanages, being forced to assimilate into ‘white society’. These dehumanising acts placed these stolen children to experience desecration of culture, loss of identity and the extinction of their race. The destructive consequences that followed were effects of corruption including attempted suicide, depression and drug and alcohol abuse. The indigenous peoples affected by this have endured solitude for many

Aboriginal Land Rights Aboriginal Australians have always had an eternal bond with the land. For the 50,000 years or more, they have occupied the continent; the land provided not only the basic needs, but also the spiritual beliefs. In the Dreaming, the forms of the land, mountains, rivers, landscapes and animals took shape and the spirit of ancestors resided in places that became sacred sites to the Aboriginal people. The land to these people were their most precious commodity. When white settlement began in Australia in 1788, the concept of terra nullius {the land belonging to no-one} was adopted by the British.

A perfect example of separation and dispossession is the stolen generation. The stolen generation is a term used to describe the indigenous children that were taken away from their families and their land by the Australian federal government. The stolen generation has grown up without any family ties or cultural identity. This may create social and financial disadvantages, feelings and insecurity, low self-esteem, depression, violence, suicide, abuse of alcohol and other drugs, crime and a general lack of trust.

The Stolen Generation refers to the many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children who were forcibly removed from their families and assimilated into European communities between 1880 and 1970. These children were made to adopt white culture in attempt to allow aboriginal people to “die out”, through forced rejection of their heritage and banning the use of their own language. Children faced physical, psychological and sexual abuse, sexual and labour exploitation, racism, grief, and suffering. Between 1 in 10 and 3 in 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were taken by government, church, or welfare authorities and placed into institutional or foster care with non-Indigenous families.

The land is a pivotal medium through which the Dreaming is communicated. Hence, when the High Court of Australia ruled that Australia’s land was occupied at the time of British settlement and overturned the notion of ‘Terra Nullius’, deeming it legally invalid, the opportunity was granted for Indigenous Australians to re-establish spiritual links with the land and their cultural

The impact of British colonisation resulted in Australia being declared 'terra-nullius' 'land belonging to no-one' and Aboriginal peoples were subject to policies of dispossession and protectionism in a bid to the eventual demise of all facets of their traditional culture. (http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2005/3/2/5583/41950, 2005) The policy of 'terra

The Yirrkala Bark Petition of 1963 was a result of Governments giving native Aboriginal land to mining companies on a mining lease. The Aboriginals claimed that their land was being taken away from them without compensation. The aim of this particular protest was to gain back the land that had been given away through the mining lease and be apologised to by the Australian government. These aims are summarised in the aborigine’s simple desire to be accepted into the Australian community and to be granted rights as well as acknowledgment that they have ties to the land. The local Yirrkala elders signed an ornate and artistic petition to have the mining lease revoked. As a result, the government set up a committee to oversee the decision made and to mediate future decision on similar matters. Despite the lease going ahead, it was acknowledged that there were Aboriginal sacred sites on the land where the lease was valid and it was agreed that those sites would be protected. This decision alone didn’t have a great effect however it showed the Aboriginals that the Australian government acknowledged there ties to the land and it showed the Australian government that the Aboriginals did have rights to regions throughout Australia even if those rights were not to be recognised for almost 30 years.

In this article, Heuser discusses one of the main issues with Aboriginal Land Claims today, and how the government handles them. One of the main issues mentioned was the time it takes to fulfill Aboriginal Land Claims. For example, the Algonquins of Ontario launched a land claim against the provincial and federal government in the 1980s, and it is still being discussed today. Heuser is a journalist for several newspapers including the National Post. Heuser has graduated from the University of Toronto with a J.D. in the faculty of law, as well as receiving her B.A., making her qualified to form valid opinions on government issues. The arguments presented in this article are well stated, and proved with recent government land-claims to back them

The significance of this decision amended the base of land law in Australia. The most significant issue of the case was if Queensland’s 1879 act of annexation of the Murray islands extinguished native title, by empowering the Crown with control of all Murray island land. The case involved the consideration and judgment of the High Court and the Queensland Supreme Court. After Justice Moynihan of the Supreme Court recommenced the hearing of the case facts, the proceedings reconvened on Murray Island as well as on the mainland as requested by the plaintiffs. Mabo and the people of Meriam requested it to be held on the island its self, as they believed it would be convenient in taking evidence from witnesses, as well as to provide the court a better understanding of the island and its people. As Justice Moynihan researched and investigated the aspects of the island, he discovered many things about the island and its people. It was found that the Murray islanders had an elaborate social structure, no concept of public land ownership and that the people had a clear awareness of identity as well as powerful and abiding links to their land. The determination of the case depended on the legality of the declaration of Terra Nullius; if Australia was determined Terra Nullius at the time of settlement, this would result in the islanders case being invalid as English law applied, however, if it was decided that the English had invaded Australia, then the initial occupants would therefore be recognised. The High Court concluded the issue by deciding that Australian lands were not terra nullius at the time of settlement and that native title had existed wherever indigenous people were settled before European settlement. The court therefore granted the islanders with native title and the

In colonising Australia, European settlers destroyed this link, taking away land from Indigenous peoples and shattering the culture they once had with it. In attempts to reconcile these past injustices, discussion of native title, a contradiction of the legal doctrine of ‘terra nullius’, arose, climaxing with the Mabo and Wik decisions in 1992 and 1996, respectively. However, the fight for Aboriginal land rights is directly derived from the Dreaming, and the Dreaming is ongoing, such is the concept of native title evolving and developing as time continues, “ongoing and beyond” the two landmark cases. In an interview discussing NSW’s large-scale native title decision, Trevor Close said that “the doctrine of precedent… must develop” (Source 1), giving an Aboriginal perspective on both the spiritual and legal sides of the development of native title over time, and the importance discussion and dialogue has on the overall land rights movement. Another example of the benefits native title has on Aboriginal people’s ability to follow the Dreaming is in 2012, where the Federal Court of Australia recognised the Jangga people’s ongoing connection to land in Queensland. This land, which allows free self-determination for the community, is