Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rights of aboriginal australians
The effect of colonialism
Rights of aboriginal australians
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rights of aboriginal australians
The effect of colonialism
Rights of aboriginal australians
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
After 10 long years Torres Strait Islander Eddie ‘Koiki’ Mabo has lead indigenous Australians to a victory over the Queensland government. This win this case is a historical moment, as of yesterday, the indigenous Australians have been recognised as the owners of Murray Island. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are known to have resided in Australia, 40,000 to 60,000 years before the British arrived in 1788. When the British took over they decided to take all the land for themselves even though the indigenous Australians were here first. This court case recognises indigenous Australians unique connection to the land and acknowledges that they have the rights to the land.
The Mabo decision changed the legal, political and social relationships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. In recognising the traditional rights of Murray Islanders it changed Australia forever. The Mabo decision opened the doors for other indigenous people and groups to be able to claim ownership of land. They were required to prove that they had continuous connection to the land and maintained their traditional associating with it. The 'native title ' is the recognition by law that some aboriginal and torres strait islander people have rights to certain land due to their traditional laws and customs.
The Mabo Decision was a turning point for the recognition of the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. From recognising ownership of traditional lands to raising awareness of racial discrimination, it affected the Indigenous Australian society in various ways. Firstly, the Mabo Decision was significant because it acknowledged the ownership of traditional lands by abolishing “terra nullius”, meaning that the land is empty and owned by no one. Previously, the British denied the Indigenous Australians' connection and ownership of the land by declaring that Australia was "terra nullius". However, on the 3rd of June, 1992, the High Court decided that the Merriam people were "entitled as against the whole word to possession, occupation
On 3 June 1992 the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Mabo vs The State of Queensland, ruling that the treatment of the Indigenous property rights based on the principle of terra nullius was wrong and racist towards the Aboriginals. The court ruled that indigenous ownership of land has survived where it has not been extinguished by a valid act of government and where Aboriginal people have maintained traditional law and links with the land. This legal recognition of Indigenous ownership called Native Title. The court ruled that in each case native title must be determined by reference to the traditions and customary law of Indigenous owners of the land.
In 1992, the High Court of Australia rejected the notion of terra nullius, and legally recognised the occupation of Indigenous People’s before and during the process of British colonisation. It was the first time, in the eyes of the law, that Aboriginal people had been acknowledged as the traditional custodians of the land.
The dissenting judgement of Kiefel CJ and the majority judgement of Bell J in the High Court of Australia decision in Love v Commonwealth (2020) 94 ALJR 198, 204–212 [1]– [47], 212–218 [49]–[82] prompts significant discussion of the principal legal issue in interpreting section 51(xix) of the term “aliens” in the Australian Constitution and its implications for Indigenous peoples. Bell J, as part of the majority, held that the Parliament did not have the power to treat an Aboriginal person as an “alien” and the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) could not apply to Aboriginal Australians under section 51(xix); this was an exception deemed appropriate regarding the common law recognition of the native law title. In contrast, Kiefel CJ dissented that Aboriginal
The high court was allowed to do this as it within their rights and power. The Mabo case had many effects on the legal system in Australia. Some of these affects are; frantic legislative activity, intense political debate and a vast amount of media and academic attention. The case completely changed the legal, political and social relations between indigenous and non-indigenous people. It also recognised the land rights of the Murray islanders and changed Australia
The Legacy of Eddie Mabo, a Milestone of Hope for Indigenous Australia Introduction The life and legacy of Eddie Koiki Mabo continues to be one of the most influential and hopeful milestones in the reconciliation of Australia’s indigenous people. Against all odds, Mabo strived and succeeded in claiming back land rights that were taken away by settlers and brought significance to the land claims of indigenous people. However, this was not a case of one man’s right to land, but a case of many cultures’ right to hope. Eddie Mabo’s legal victory against the Australian government provided hope for the future of culture, traditions and custodians of Indigenous Australia.
Bringing Them Home Report Today, our society live freely by following our right and freedom, our rights to do and our freedom to say. However, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders suffered and are still suffering through a long journey to be accepted in Australia as one. Different events occurred during the 90s to today, such as the Mabo decision, referendums and protests. The Bringing Them Home report was a significant event for the civil rights of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander people. The Bringing Them
Mabo: The Mabo case was a judgment in the High Court of Australia in 1992 affirming that Aboriginal people could still have rights to land taken by settlers. Wik: The Wik decision was a legal judgment made in Australia in 1996 that protects the right of Aboriginal people to own land. However, it stated that Native Title could co-exist with other rights on land under pastoral lease but, if there is a conflict between Native Title and lease, the rights of the leaseholder will
Recognising Indigenous traditional law will strengthen traditional authority within Australia indigenous community and help to maintain order particularly for the traditionally oriented person because customary punishments will be understood in terms of traditional values (ALRC report, 31 1986). Making punishment more applicable and having significant impact upon individuals (ALRC report, 31 1986). Acknowledging customary laws can also help with interrogations issues faced by indigenous people. Language barriers and an inadequate understanding of Australian criminal justice system can lead to individuals providing authority figures with responses that are anticipated rather than what occurred (Debelle, 2008). Police conducting interviews can
Finally, the colonisation of Australia was a great discovery at the time, the negative impacts of Imperialism on Australia have had irreversible effects that are sadly still evident in Australian society
One Australian minority group that has been effected drastically is that of Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians are the traditional custodians of the land and have living in Australia for over 40,000 years. Since the arrival of white settlers in the late 18th century, their culture has been subject to a high degree scrutiny. Using the Australian ethnocentrism scale, it has been concluded that white Australians held negative attitudes towards Indigenous Australians (Beswick, Hills 1972). A popular negative attitude that can be viewed in today’s society is that
Populations such as Africa, Asia, South America and Europe all have histories of colonisation of their countries and people, however it appears that other colonising populations have made stronger efforts to repair damage done to the indigenous communities (Taylor, 2010). One of the ways that people have done this is through treaties. I think this would be hard to do with the Aboriginal people as they are made of many different communities themselves, meaning that a treaty would have to account for all these differences. From the readings supplied, I have found that all populations that have been colonised seem to be worse off for it. Colonisation appears to always involve a more powerful population enforcing itself on another, which I believe accounts for what some may see as acceptance or understanding.
The Commonwealth Government has identified three dimensions of multicultural policy: cultural identity: the right of all Australians, within carefully defined limits, to express and share their individual cultural heritage, including their language and religion; social justice: the right of all Australians to equality of treatment and opportunity, and the removal of barriers of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, language, gender or place of birth; and economic efficiency: the need to maintain, develop and utilize effectively the skills and talents of all Australians, regardless of background. Australia is generally seen as one of the 'classical countries of immigration '. Nation-building following British colonisation in 1788 meant the destruction of Aboriginal societies, and the construction of a new nation based on immigration. The earliest settlers were convicts, soldiers and colonial administrators, followed by free settlers, encouraged by the British state. The mid-19th century gold rushes led to greatly increased immigration: