Misplaced Pages

#863136

119-733: The long title for the Bill was "to provide for the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria, to repeal the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972 and for other purposes". The Act is No. 16 of 2006 and was assented to on 9 May 2006. It was effective from 28 May 2007, and gazetted on 24 May 2007. Further to the Act, the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 prescribe standards, set out

238-539: A Wiradjuri man from Cowra, New South Wales , commenced an action in the High Court of Australia arguing that Aboriginal people retained rights to land as an Aboriginal nation or nations existed pre-settlement and continues to exist, and that their land had been taken by conquest rather than by settlement. The court held in Coe v Commonwealth (1979) that no Aboriginal nation holds any kind of sovereignty , distinguishing

357-566: A bundle of rights , which may be extinguished one by one, for example, by a mining lease. In this case, the lease did not confer 'exclusive possession', because the claimants could pass over the land and do various things. But some parts of native title rights were extinguished, including the rights to control access and make use of the land. The claim was remitted to the Full Court of the Federal Court to determine in accordance with

476-497: A veto over development, and nor does it grant land, as the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (ALRA) does. National Native Title Tribunal definition: [Native title is] the communal, group or individual rights and interests of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to land and waters, possessed under traditional law and custom, by which those people have a connection with an area which

595-630: A ceremony in the desert attended by Maralinga Tjarutja leader Archie Barton , John Bannon and Aboriginal Affairs Minister Greg Crafter . This granted rights over 75,000 square kilometres (29,000 sq mi) of land in the Great Victoria Desert , including the land contaminated by the British nuclear weapons testing at Maralinga . Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) was the foundational case for native title in Australia. In 1992

714-648: A credible, but yet unproven, claim to Aboriginal title. In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously for the plaintiff in Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia . Rejecting the government's claim that Aboriginal title applied only to villages and fishing sites, it instead agreed with the First Nation that Aboriginal title extends to the entire traditional territory of an indigenous group, even if that group

833-535: A determination, Prescribed Bodies Corporate are entered onto the NNTR. At this point, the corporation becomes a Registered Native Title Body Corporate (RNTBC). On 1 July 2011, the 160 registered determinations of native title covered some 1,228,373 km (474,277 sq mi) (approximately 16 per cent) of the land mass of Australia; and registered Indigenous land use agreements (ILUAs) covered about 1,234,129 km (476,500 sq mi) (about 16 per cent) of

952-608: A famous dictum in Calvin's Case (1608) that the laws of all non-Christians would be abrogated upon their conquest. Coke's view was not put into practice, but was rejected by Lord Mansfield in 1774. The two doctrines were reconciled, with the Doctrine of Continuity prevailing in nearly all situations (except, for example, public property of the predecessor state) in Oyekan v Adele (1957). The first Indigenous land rights case under

1071-446: A long time ago, generally before the assertion of sovereignty , and continuity to the present day. Aboriginal title does not constitute allodial title or radical title in any jurisdiction. Instead, its content is generally described as a usufruct , i.e. a right to use, although in practice this may mean anything from a right to use land for specific, enumerated purposes, or a general right to use which approximates fee simple . It

1190-656: A number of clan groups of Aboriginal people to an area of seas and sea-beds surrounding Croker Island in the Northern Territory. It was the first judgment by the High Court of native title over waters. The judge, Olney J, determined that members of the Croker Island community have a native title right to have free access to the sea and sea-bed of the claimed area for a number of purposes. The case established that traditional owners do have native title of

1309-572: A package of coordinated measures and technical amendments to improve the performance of the native title system. These are aimed at making the native title process more efficient and to speed up the determination of whether native title exists on the 580 claims that had been registered but not yet determined. The Native Title Act 1993 was further amended by the Rudd government by the Native Title Amendment Act 2009 . It allows

SECTION 10

#1732764867864

1428-469: A result, native title rights could co-exist, depending on the terms and nature of the particular pastoral lease. Where there was a conflict of rights, the rights under the pastoral lease would prevail over native title rights. The Wik decision led to amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 by the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 . This Act, also known as the "10 Point Plan", was introduced by

1547-938: A statutory procedure that returned approximately 40% of the Northern Territory to Aboriginal ownership; the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 , had a similar effect in South Australia . The High Court of Australia , after paving the way in Mabo No 1 by striking down a State statute under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 , overruled Milirrpum in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992). Mabo No 2 , rejecting terra nullius , held that native title exists (6–1) and

1666-466: Is common ground among the relevant jurisdictions that aboriginal title is inalienable, in the sense that it cannot be transferred except to the general government (known, in many of the relevant jurisdictions, as " the Crown ")—although Malaysia allows aboriginal title to be sold between indigenous peoples, unless contrary to customary law . Especially in Australia, the content of aboriginal title varies with

1785-815: Is extinguishable by the sovereign (7–0), without compensation (4–3). In the wake of the decision, the Australian Parliament passed the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA), codifying the doctrine and establishing the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT). Western Australia v Commonwealth upheld the NTA and struck down a conflicting Western Australia statute. In 1996, the High Court held that pastoral leases , which cover nearly half of Australia, do not extinguish native title in Wik Peoples v Queensland . In response, Parliament passed

1904-511: Is granted, specific rights are decided on a case-by-case basis, and may only sometimes includes freehold title. Australia did not experience litigation involving Aboriginal native title until the 1970s, though several earlier cases tangentially involved issues of native title. In 1835, John Batman purported to sign Batman's Treaty with Aboriginal elders in the Port Phillip District . Governor Bourke declared Batman's Treaty

2023-654: Is not a grant or right created by governments. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 (see below) covers the granting of land to Aboriginal Land Trusts; setting up Aboriginal land councils ; mineral rights; decision-making processes for dealing with land; dealing with income from land use agreements; and negotiations about leases for development on Aboriginal land. The Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) gives recognition that "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have rights to land, water and sea, including exclusive possession in some cases, but does not provide ownership". It allows for negotiations over land, but does not provide for

2142-422: Is one which has become a matter of heated controversy. 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. In this, as in any other litigation, the claimants will be best served if their claims are put before

2261-554: Is recognised under Australian law (s 223 NTA). Commonwealth Government's indigenous.gov.au website: Native title is the recognition in Australian law, under common law and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), of Indigenous Australians' rights and interests in land and waters according to their own traditional laws and customs. Native title has also been described as a "bundle of rights" in land, which may include such rights as camping, performing ceremony , etc. If native title

2380-401: Is relied on as proof of occupation pre-sovereignty, there must be a continuity between present and pre-sovereignty occupation, and (iii) at sovereignty, that occupation must have been exclusive." Subsequent decisions have drawn on the fiduciary duty to limit the ways in which the Crown can extinguish Aboriginal title, and to require prior consultation where the government has knowledge of

2499-471: Is the right to hunt, gather, teach and perform cultural activities and ceremonies, and allow the young people to connect with their land. In March 2023, 8578.35 kilometres along the coast of the Grey River in Victoria. The case was the first Native Title case heard in the state of Victoria for 10 years. At the Federal Court at Warnambool designated the land as native title rights. Native title concerns

SECTION 20

#1732764867864

2618-431: Is the set of rights, recognised by Australian law , held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups or individuals to land that derive from their maintenance of their traditional laws and customs. These Aboriginal title rights were first recognised as a part of Australian common law with the decision of Mabo v Queensland (No 2) in 1992. The doctrine was subsequently implemented and modified via statute with

2737-483: The Native Title Act 1993 . The concept recognises that in certain cases there was and is a continued beneficial legal interest in land held by Indigenous peoples which survived the acquisition of radical title and sovereignty to the land by the Crown . Native title can co-exist with non-Aboriginal proprietary rights and in some cases different Aboriginal groups can exercise their native title rights over

2856-861: The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination . The 2004 Act was repealed with the passage of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 . The High Court of Australia , which had appellate jurisdiction before 1975, recognized aboriginal title in Papua New Guinea —decades before it did so in Australia—in Geita Sebea v Territory of Papua (1941), Administration of Papua and New Guinea v Daera Guba (1973) (the "Newtown case"), and other cases. The Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea followed suit. Schedule 2 of

2975-631: The Constitution of Papua New Guinea recognizes customary land tenure , and 97% of the land in the country remains unalienated. In Alexkor v Richtersveld Community (2003), a suit under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 1994 , lawyers gathered case law from settler jurisdictions around the world, and judges of the Constitutional Court of South Africa talked frankly about Aboriginal title. The Land Claims Court had dismissed

3094-611: The Federal Court of Australia recognised the native title rights of the Gurindji people to 5,000 square kilometres (1,900 sq mi) of the Wave Hill Station, allowing them to receive royalties as compensation from resource companies who explore the area. Justice Richard White said that the determination recognised Indigenous involvement (Jamangku, Japuwuny, Parlakuna-Parkinykarni and Yilyilyimawu peoples) with

3213-460: The Fraser government as the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 , which established a procedure to transfer almost 50 per cent of land in the Northern Territory (around 600,000 km2) to collective Aboriginal ownership. The Fraser government continued to implement many of the previous government's initiatives, under the description "self-management" rather than self-determination. In 1979, Paul Coe ,

3332-534: The Howard government . The amendments substantially restricted Native Title by narrowing the right to negotiate and extinguishing Native Title on most pastoral and mining leases granted before 1994. Yorta Yorta v Victoria , addressed a native title claim by the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal people of north central Victoria , which was dismissed by Justice Olney of the Federal Court in 1998. Appeals to

3451-597: The Kimberley region, south of Broome . Land rights were recognised over 31,000 square kilometres (12,000 sq mi) of land (half the size of Tasmania) via an ILUA on 5 July 2011. In May 2004, following the passage of special legislation, South Australian Premier Mike Rann handed back title to 21,000 square kilometres of land to the Maralinga Tjarutja and Pila Nguru people. The land, 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) north-west of Adelaide and abutting

3570-468: The National Native Title Tribunal . After the Mabo decision it was uncertain as to whether the granting of pastoral leases would extinguish native title. The Wik Decision in 1996 clarified the uncertainty. The court found that the statutory pastoral leases (which cover some 40% of the Australian land mass) under consideration by the court did not bestow rights of exclusive possession on the leaseholder. As

3689-656: The Native Land Act 1909 declared aboriginal title unenforceable against the Crown. Eventually, the Privy Council acquiesced to the view that the Treaty was non-justiciable. Land was also lost under other legislation. The Counties Act 1886 s.245 said that tracks, "over any Crown lands or Native lands, and generally used without obstruction as roads, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be public roads, not exceeding sixty-six feet in width, and under

Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 - Misplaced Pages Continue

3808-539: The Native Title Act by the Australian Law Reform Commission reported that "Courts have indicated that native title is not to be understood in terms equivalent to common law property interests, but they often still tend to draw on these concepts... The prevailing view of the nature and content of native title is hybrid, drawing on traditional laws and customs for content, but also at times idiosyncratically adopting common law terms to describe

3927-539: The Native Title Act 1993 , is a body that applies the "registration test" to all new native title claimant applications, and undertakes future act mediation and arbitral functions. The Attorney-General's Department advises the Australian Government on legal and legal-policy regarding on native title, and assists the Attorney-General to administer the Native Title Act 1993 . According to

4046-504: The Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (the "Ten Point Plan"), extinguishing a variety of Aboriginal land rights and giving state governments the ability to follow suit. Western Australia v Ward (2002) held that native title is a bundle of rights , which may be extinguished one by one, for example, by a mining lease. Yorta Yorta v Victoria (2002), an appeal from the first native title claim to go to trial since

4165-633: The Northern Territory . Prime Minister Gough Whitlam introduced a new policy of Aboriginal self-determination , and initiatives such as the Aboriginal Land Fund and the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee was set up. The latter consisted of elected Aboriginal representatives, who would advise the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The Whitlam government introduced legislation later passed by

4284-610: The Numbered Treaties were void. A variety of non-land rights cases, anchored on the Constitution Act 1982, have also been influential. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) laid down the essentials of the current test to prove Aboriginal title: "in order to make out a claim for [A]boriginal title, the [A]boriginal group asserting title must satisfy the following criteria: (i) the land must have been occupied prior to sovereignty, (ii) if present occupation

4403-740: The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory , Justice Richard Blackburn explicitly rejected the concept of native title, ruling against the claimants on a number of issues of law and fact. In the wake of Milirrpum and the election of the Whitlam government in 1972, the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission (also known as the Woodward Royal Commission) was established in 1973 to inquire into appropriate ways to recognise Aboriginal land rights in

4522-769: The Toledo District filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which sided with the Maya in 2004 and stated that the failure of the government of Belize to demarcate and title the Maya cultural lands was a violation of the right to property in Article XXIII of the American Declaration . In 2007, Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh ruled in favor of the Maya communities of Conejo and Santa Cruz, citing

4641-622: The Western Australia border, was then called the Unnamed Conservation Park. It is now known as Mamungari Conservation Park . It includes the Serpentine Lakes , and was the largest land return since 1984. At the 2004 ceremony Rann said the return of the land fulfilled a promise he made to Archie Barton in 1991 when he was Aboriginal Affairs Minister, after he passed legislation to return lands including

4760-633: The Attorney-General's Department: There are fundamental differences between land rights and native title . Land rights are rights created by the Australian , state or territory governments. Land rights usually consist of a grant of freehold or perpetual lease title to Indigenous Australians . By contrast, native title arises as a result of the recognition, under Australian common law, of pre-existing Indigenous rights and interests according to traditional laws and customs . Native title

4879-575: The Australian citizenry as a result of the 1967 referendum . In 1971, Blackburn J of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory rejected the concept in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (the "Gove land rights case"). The Aboriginal Land Rights Commission was established in 1973 in the wake of Milirrpum . Paul Coe , in Coe v Commonwealth (1979), attempted (unsuccessfully) to bring a class action on behalf of all Aborigines claiming all of Australia. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 , established

Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 - Misplaced Pages Continue

4998-723: The CKGR. Aboriginal title has been recognized in Common Law in Canada since the Privy Council , in St. Catharines Milling v. The Queen (1888), characterized it as a personal usufruct at the pleasure of the Queen. This case did not involve indigenous parties, but rather was a lumber dispute between the provincial government of Ontario and the federal government of Canada. St. Catharines

5117-472: The Constitution Act, 1982 explicitly recognized and preserved aboriginal rights. R. v. Guerin (1982), the first Supreme Court of Canada decision handed down after the Constitution Act 1982, declared that Aboriginal title was sui generis and that the federal government has a fiduciary duty to preserve it. R. v. Simon (1985) overruled R. v. Syliboy (1929) which had held that Aboriginal peoples had no capacity to enter into treaties, and thus that

5236-678: The Court did not have jurisdiction to make a declaration in favour of the Nisga'a in the absence of a fiat of the Lieutenant-Governor of B.C. permitting suit against the provincial government. Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 ("British North America Act 1867") gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over First Nations, and thus the exclusive ability to extinguish Aboriginal title. Section Thirty-five of

5355-482: The Crown did not intend to extinguish private property upon acquiring sovereignty, and thus that pre-existing interests were enforceable under British law. Its mirror was the Recognition Doctrine, which held that private property rights were presumed to be extinguished in the absence of explicit recognition. In 1608, the same year in which the Doctrine of Continuity emerged, Edward Coke delivered

5474-544: The Crown; and rights over the land may range from access and usage rights to rights of exclusive possession. Native title rights and interests are based on laws and customs that pre-date the British acquisition of sovereignty; they are distinct from the rights granted by government such as statutory land rights of the kind found in the Land Rights Act . Native title rights and interests may exist over land and waters to

5593-631: The Federal Constitution and the Aboriginal Peoples Act, as well as decisions from the Privy Council, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. That case was the first time where Orang Asli directly and expressly challenged a state taking of their land. The opinion held that: "the aborigines' common law rights include, inter alia, the right to live on their land as their forefathers had lived." The case

5712-505: The Federal Court to determine who may mediate a claim, whether that be the court itself, the Native Title Tribunal, or otherwise. Northern Territory v Mr Griffiths and Lorraine Jones was a 2018 High Court of Australia case, ruled in 2019, regarding land around Timber Creek, Northern Territory , involving a compensation claim by Ngaliwurru and Nungali lands surrounding Timber Creek. It related to various earlier cases since 1997. Described as "the most significant [case]… since Mabo ",

5831-507: The Federal Court, which may also order mediation by other agencies or persons. The purpose of mediation is to assist parties to clarify the issues in dispute, to explore options for settlement and to reach agreement. Mediation is a structured process, with the intention of a mutually agreed outcome rather than having a decision imposed by a judge. Alternative settlements (also termed "broader settlements" ) may be negotiated out of court, often being resolved more quickly and efficiently than via

5950-521: The Full Bench of the Federal Court in 2001, and the High Court in 2002 were also dismissed. The determination by Justice Olney in 1998 ruled that the 'tide of history' had 'washed away' any real acknowledgement of traditional laws and any real observance of traditional customs by the applicants. The 2002 High Court decision adopted strict requirements of continuity of traditional laws and customs for native title claims to succeed. Ward v Western Australia (1998) addressed an application made on behalf of

6069-409: The High Court decided the Blue Mud Bay sea rights case , establishing a precedent for sea rights over an intertidal zone for the first time. The Yolngu people of Baniyala were involved in this case, which involved Blue Mud Bay in East Arnhem Land . In 2007 the Howard government passed the Native Title Amendment Act 2007 , and the Native Title Amendment (Technical Amendments) Act 2007,

SECTION 50

#1732764867864

6188-411: The High Court ruled for the first time on compensation for the extinguishment of native title in Australia. It is considered a "landmark" native title case, because the clauses contained within the Native Title Act 1993 pertaining to the determination of compensation payable due to the extinguishment of native title had never been heard before in the High Court. Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation

6307-468: The IACHR judgement and key precedents from other common law jurisdictions. The government entered into negotiations with the Maya communities, but ultimately refused to enforce the judgement. In 2008, The TMCC and TAA, and many individual alcaldes , filed a representative action on behalf of all the Maya communities of the Toledo District, and on 28 June 2010, CJ Conteh ruled in favor of the claimants, declaring that Maya customary land tenure exists in all

6426-474: The Indigenous land use agreement or, in Victoria, a settlement under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (TOSA). Alternative settlements agreements can be made alongside the Native Title Act , but usually the traditional owners are required to withdraw any existing native title claims. Such settlements can include any matters agreed to by all parties, which may included recognition of traditional owner rights, grants of freehold for specified purposes, or

6545-417: The Maya villages of the Toledo District, and gives rise to collective and individual property rights under sections 3(d) and 17 of the Belize Constitution . A Botswana High Court recognized aboriginal title in Sesana and Others v Attorney General (2006), a case brought by named plaintiff Roy Sesana , which held that the San have the right to reside in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR), which

6664-400: The Miriuwung and Gajerrong people of the east Kimberly, over land in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Justice Malcolm Lee of the Federal Court ruled in their favour in recognition of the native title. Western Australia appealed the decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court, then to the High Court. The High Court held in Western Australia v Ward that native title is

6783-491: The Native Lands Act 1862, the Native Rights Act 1865 and the Native Lands Act 1865 which established the Native Land Court (today the Māori Land Court ) to hear aboriginal title claims, and—if proven—convert them into freehold interests that could be sold to Pākehā (New Zealanders of European descent). That court created the "1840 rule", which converted Māori interests into fee simple if they were sufficiently in existence in 1840, or else disregarded them. Symonds remained

6902-417: The Native Title Act, adopted strict requirements of continuity of traditional laws and customs for native title claims to succeed. In A-G for British Honduras v Bristowe (1880), the Privy Council held that the property rights of British subjects who had been living in Belize under Spanish rule with limited property rights, were enforceable against the Crown, and had been upgraded to fee simple during

7021-450: The Privy Council issued many opinions confirming the existence of aboriginal title, and upholding customary land claims; many of these arose in African colonies. Modern decisions have heaped criticism upon the views expressed in Southern Rhodesia . The requirements for establishing an aboriginal title to the land vary across countries, but generally speaking, the aboriginal claimant must establish (exclusive) occupation (or possession) from

7140-402: The Treaty, and facilitate settlements . Te Weehi v Regional Fisheries Office (1986) was the first modern case to recognize an aboriginal title claim in a New Zealand court since Wi Parata , granting non-exclusive customary fishing rights. The Court cited the writings of Dr Paul McHugh and indicated that whilst the Treaty of Waitangi confirmed those property rights, their legal foundation

7259-399: The US case of Cherokee Nation v Georgia (1831) . However, the substantive issue of continuing land rights was not heard due to the lack of precision, vagueness and other serious deficiencies with the statement of claim presented to the court. Justice Gibbs said, at paragraph 21, 'The question what rights the aboriginal people of this country have, or ought to have, in the lands of Australia

SECTION 60

#1732764867864

7378-420: The United States ), and customary title (in New Zealand). Aboriginal title jurisprudence is related to indigenous rights , influencing and influenced by non-land issues, such as whether the government owes a fiduciary duty to indigenous peoples. While the judge-made doctrine arises from customary international law , it has been codified nationally by legislation, treaties, and constitutions. Aboriginal title

7497-412: The beaches, and customary fishing rights on the foreshore. The Limitation Act 1950 established a 12-year statute of limitations for aboriginal title claims (6 years for damages), and the Maori Affairs Act 1953 prevented the enforcement of customary tenure against the Crown. The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 created the Waitangi Tribunal to issue non-binding decisions, concerning alleged breaches of

7616-461: The circumstances in which a CHMP should be prepared and set fees and charges. The Regulations also define "high impact activities" and "areas of cultural heritage sensitivity". The objectives, stated in Section 3 of the Act, are: (a) to recognise, protect and conserve Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria in ways that are based on respect for Aboriginal knowledge and cultural and traditional practices; (b) to recognise Aboriginal people as

7735-416: The common law, Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut , was litigated from 1705 to 1773, with the Privy Council affirming without opinion the judgement of a non-judicial tribunal. Other important Privy Council decisions include In re Southern Rhodesia (1919) and Amodu Tijani v. Southern Nigeria (Secretary) (1921). The former rejected a claim for aboriginal title, noting that: Some tribes are so low in

7854-457: The complaint of the Richtersveld peoples, whose land was seized by a government owned diamond mining operation . The Supreme Court of Appeal disagreed, citing Mabo and Yorta Yorta , but held that the aboriginal title had been extinguished. Whether the precedent will be the start of further land rights claims by indigenous peoples is an open question, given the cut-off date of 1913 in the Restitution Act. The case ultimately did not lead to

7973-485: The continuing connection of Indigenous People to land, independent from a grant from the Crown. Native title would continue to exist as long as traditional laws and customs continue to be observed, unless the rights were otherwise extinguished by an incompatible grant by the Crown. Justice Gerard Brennan 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,

8092-405: The control of the Council". Opposition to such confiscation was met by force, as at Opuatia in 1894. A series of Acts, beginning a year after the Treaty of Waitangi with the Land Claims Ordinance 1841, allowed the government to take and sell 'Waste Lands'. Favorable court decisions turned aboriginal title litigation towards the lake beds, but the Māori were unsuccessful in claiming the rivers

8211-568: The court dispassionately, lucidly and in proper form'. The South Australian Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 was introduced by Premier Don Dunstan in November 1978, several months prior to his resignation from Parliament. An amended bill, following extensive consultation, was passed by the Tonkin Liberal government in March 1981. This legislation gave significant rights well in advance of any other to date in Australia. In 1981, SA Premier Tonkin returned 102,650 square kilometres (39,630 sq mi) of land (10.2% of

8330-445: The court process under the Native Title Act . They can give traditional owner group recognition in areas where native title rights have been extinguished, or where it is difficult for a group to prove that it persists. Such agreements are resolved through negotiation, and recognition of traditional ownership and various other land rights in land may be achieved without an actual native title determination. Examples of such arrangements are

8449-493: The decision of the High Court. The claimants reached an agreement about the claim area and a determination was made in 2003. "Exclusive possession native title was recognised over Lacrosse Island , Kanggurru Island, Aboriginal reserves within the Kununurra townsite, Glen Hill pastoral lease and Hagan Island. Non-exclusive rights were recognised over a number of areas including islands in Lake Argyle." Yarmirr v Northern Territory (2001), addressed an application made on behalf of

8568-400: The degree to which claimants are able to satisfy the standard of proof for recognition. In particular, the content of aboriginal title may be tied to the traditions and customs of the indigenous peoples, and only accommodate growth and change to a limited extent. Aboriginal title can be extinguished by the general government, but again, the requirement to do this varies by country. Some require

8687-498: The exclusion of black African communities, an approach deemed detrimental to the spirit of national unity. The legacy of the Natives Land Act also means that few communities retain relationships with the land of which they held before 1913. Taiwanese indigenous peoples are Austronesian peoples , making up a little over 2% of Taiwan 's population; the rest of the population is composed of ethnic Chinese who colonised

8806-493: The extent that they are consistent with other rights established over the land by law or executive action. According to the National Native Title Tribunal (2013): "The native title rights and interests held by particular Aboriginal people will depend on both their traditional laws and customs and what interests are held by others in the area concerned. Generally speaking, native title must give way to

8925-584: The first time in Superintendent of Lands v. Madeli bin Salleh . The Federal Court endorsed Mabo and Calder , stating that "the proposition of law as enunciated in these two cases reflected the common law position with regard to native titles throughout the Commonwealth." The High Court of Kuching held in 2010, for the first time, that NCL may be transferred for consideration between members of

9044-739: The force of law. Malaysian court decisions from the 1950s on have held that customary lands were inalienable . In the 1970s, aboriginal rights were declared to be property rights, as protected by the Federal Constitution. Decisions in the 1970s and 1980s blocked state-sanctioned logging on customary land. In 1997, Mokhtar Sidin JCA of the Jahore High Court became the first Malaysian judge to acknowledge common law aboriginal title in Adong bin Kuwau v. Kerajaan Negeri Johor . The High Court cited

9163-575: The foreshore in Land Court. The Court also indicated that customary aboriginal title interests (non-territorial) might also remain around the coastline. The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 extinguished those rights before any lower court could hear a claim to either territorial customary title (the Maori Land Court) or non-territorial customary rights (the High Court's inherent common law jurisdiction). That legislation has been condemned by

9282-533: The foundation of native title has disappeared. Thus although over some parts of Australia native title has been lost, in large areas of the nation's interior, native title could be recognised. As Justice Brennan stated in Mabo (No. 2) , "native title has its origin and is given its content by the traditional laws acknowledged by and the customs observed by the Aboriginal inhabitants of a territory". One year after

9401-653: The gap between Spanish and British sovereignty. This decision did not involve indigenous peoples, but was an important example of the key doctrines that underlie aboriginal title. In 1996, the Toledo Maya Cultural Council (TMCC) and the Toledo Alcaldes Association (TAA) filed a claim against the government of Belize in the Belize Supreme Court , but the Court failed to act on the claim. The Maya peoples of

9520-624: The government owed a duty analogous to a fiduciary duty toward the Māori. This cleared the way for a variety of Treaty-based non-land Māori customary rights. By this time the Waitangi Tribunal in its Muriwhenua Fishing Report (1988) was describing Treaty-based and common law aboriginal title derived rights as complementary and having an 'aura' of their own. Circa the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 , less than 5% of New Zealand

9639-599: The guiding principle, until Wi Parata v the Bishop of Wellington (1877). Wi Parata undid Symonds , advocating the doctrine of terra nullius and declaring the Treaty of Waitangi unenforceable. The Privy Council disagreed in Nireaha Tamaki v Baker , and other rulings, but courts in New Zealand continued to hand down decisions materially similar to Wi Parata . The Coal Mines Amendment Act 1903 and

9758-561: The inclusion of the Aboriginal title in South African doctrine. Legal scholars allege that this is because the application of terms like 'indigenous' and 'Aboriginal' in a South African context would lead to a number of contradictions. The identity of the indigenous groups in South Africa is not self-evident. The adoption of a strict definition, including only communities descended from San and Khoekhoe people, would entail

9877-673: The independent existence of common law aboriginal title. Native Customary Rights (NCR) and Native Customary Land (NCL) are provided for under section 4(2) of the National Land Code 1965, the Sarawak Land Code 1957, the respective provisions of the National Land Code (Penang and Malacca Titles) Act 1963, and the Customary Tenure Enactment (FMS). Rajah's Order IX of 1875 recognized aboriginal title by providing for its extinguishment where cleared land

9996-423: The interaction of two systems of law: Native title is the term adopted in Australian law to describe the rights to land and waters possessed by Indigenous Australians under their customary laws that are recognised by the Australian legal system. Native title is able to be possessed by a community or individual depending on the content of the traditional laws and customs; it is inalienable other than by surrender to

10115-658: The island from the 17th century onward. From 1895 Taiwan was under Japanese rule and indigenous rights to land were extinguished. In 1945, the Republic of China (ROC) took control of Taiwan from the Japanese Empire ; a rump Republic of China was established on Taiwan in 1949 after the Communists won the Chinese Civil War . From then, indigenous people's access to traditional lands was limited, as

10234-474: The land "at least since European settlement and probably for millennia". The court sitting took place nearly 800 kilometres (500 mi) south of Darwin, and descendants of Vincent Lingiari and others involved in the Wave Hill walk-off celebrated the determination. The owners will participate in the mining negotiations and exploration work, from which royalties may flow in the future, but just as important

10353-566: The land mass, as well as about 5,435 km (2,098 sq mi) of sea. Native title in Australia frequently involves mediation between native title parties and other groups with an interest in native title, such as the Australian Government, state and territory governments, miners and pastoralists. Amendments to the NTA made in 2012 meant that the NNTT would henceforth only conduct native title claim mediation by referral from

10472-436: The legislature to be explicit when it does this, others hold that extinguishment can be inferred from the government's treatment of the land. In Canada, the Crown cannot extinguish aboriginal title without the explicit prior informed consent of the proper aboriginal title holders. New Zealand formerly required consent, but today requires only a justification, akin to a public purpose requirement. Jurisdictions differ on whether

10591-418: The methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable , and that it may be held either individually or collectively . Aboriginal title is also referred to as indigenous title , native title ( in Australia ), original Indian title ( in

10710-513: The nature or character of the rights". It is a complex area of law. The Act continues to be reviewed and amended. The National Native Title Register (NNTR), maintained by the NNTT, is a register of approved native title determinations. A determination can be that native title does or does not exist. As part of the determination of native title, native title groups are required to nominate a Native Title Prescribed Body Corporate to hold (as trustee) or manage (as agent) their native title. Following

10829-530: The prevailing law until Calder v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1973). All seven of the judges in Calder agreed that the claimed Aboriginal title existed, and did not solely depend upon the Royal Proclamation of 1763 . Six of the judges split 3–3 on the question of whether Aboriginal title had been extinguished. The Nisga'a did not prevail because the seventh justice, Pigeon J, found that

10948-623: The primary guardians, keepers and knowledge holders of Aboriginal cultural heritage; (c) to accord appropriate status to traditional owners , including a preference to appoint traditional owner bodies corporate as registered Aboriginal parties; (d) to promote the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage as an integral part of land and natural resource management; (e) to promote public awareness and understanding of Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria; (f) to establish an Aboriginal cultural heritage register to record Aboriginal cultural heritage; (g) to establish processes for

11067-533: The provinces, and provincial law still applies. In 2008, Japan gave partial recognition to the Ainu people . However, land rights were not given for another eleven years. In 2019, Japan fully recognised the Ainu people as the indigenous people of Japan and gave them some land rights if requested. Malaysia recognised various statutory rights related to native customary laws ( adat ) before its courts acknowledged

11186-795: The recognition of native title . Aboriginal title arose at the intersection of three common law doctrines articulated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council : the Act of State doctrine, the Doctrine of Continuity , and the Recognition Doctrine . The Act of State doctrine held that the Crown could confiscate or extinguish real or personal property rights in the process of conquering, without scrutiny from any British court, but could not perpetrate an Act of State against its own subjects. The Doctrine of Continuity presumed that

11305-539: The recognition of the legal concept of native title in Mabo , the Keating government formalised the recognition by legislation with the enactment by the Australian Parliament of the Native Title Act 1993 . The Act attempted to clarify the legal position of landholders and the processes to be followed for native title to be claimed, protected and recognised through the courts. The Act also established

11424-666: The rejection of native title in Milirrpum v Nabalco was overruled by the High Court in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) , which recognised the Meriam people of Murray Island (Mer) in the Torres Strait as native title holders over part of their traditional lands. The Court rejected the notion that all Indigenous rights to land were abolished upon acquisition of sovereignty over Australia. The Court held that native title rights continued to exist, and that these rights existed by virtue of

11543-406: The right to be consulted and participate in natural resource management . Native title Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty to that land by another colonising state. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title,

11662-662: The rights held by others. The capacity of Australian law to recognise the rights and interests held under traditional law and custom will also be a factor... The source of native title is the system of traditional laws and customs of the native title holders themselves." Native title rights and interests may include the right to live in an area or to access it for traditional purposes; to visit and protect sacred sites; to hunt, fish or gather resources; or to teach law and custom. Exclusive possession can only be recognised over certain parts of Australia, such as vacant Crown land , or areas already held by Indigenous Australians. A 2015 review of

11781-613: The sacred Ooldea area (which also included the site of Daisy Bates ' mission camp) to the Maralinga Tjarutja people. The Maralinga Tjarutja lands now total 102,863 square kilometres. The Aboriginal peoples of the Wimmera region of Western Victoria won recognition of their native title on 13 December 2005 after a ten-year legal process commenced in 1995 when they filed an application for a determination of native title in respect of certain land and waters in Western Victoria. It

11900-509: The same community, as long as such transfers are not contrary to customary law . New Zealand was the second jurisdiction in the world to recognize aboriginal title, but a slew of extinguishing legislation (beginning with the New Zealand land confiscations ) has left the Māori with little to claim except for river beds , lake beds , and the foreshore and seabed . In 1847, in a decision that

12019-409: The same land. The Federal Court of Australia arranges mediation in relation to claims made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and hears applications for, and makes, native title determinations. Appeals against these determinations can be made to a full sitting of the Federal Court and then to the High Court of Australia . The National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT), established under

12138-468: The scale of social organization that their usages and conceptions of rights and duties are not to be reconciled with the institutions or the legal ideas of civilized society. Such a gulf cannot be bridged. Two years later, Amodu Tijani laid the basis for several elements of the modern aboriginal title doctrine, upholding a customary land claim and urging the need to "study of the history of the particular community and its usages in each case." Subsequently,

12257-475: 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 decision paved the way for other native title applications involving waters to proceed. Nangkiriny v State of Western Australia (2002 & 2004), in which John Dudu Nangkiriny and others were plaintiffs, were cases addressing the claims of the Karajarri people in

12376-450: The state is required to pay compensation upon extinguishing aboriginal title. Theories for the payment of compensation include the right to property , as protected by constitutional or common law, and the breach of a fiduciary duty . Australia did not experience native title litigation until the 1970s, when Indigenous Australians (both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people) became more politically active, after being included in

12495-592: The state's land area) to the Pitjantjara and Yankunytjatjara people. However, it did not give the people the power of veto over mining activities; any disputes would need to be resolved by an independent arbitrator. In 1984 Premier John Bannon 's Labor government passed legislation to return lands to the Maralinga Tjarutja people. The legislation was proclaimed in January 1985 and was followed by

12614-521: The timely and efficient assessment of activities that have the potential to harm Aboriginal cultural heritage; (h) to promote the use of agreements that provide for the management and protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage; (i) to establish mechanisms that enable the resolution of disputes relating to the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage; (j) to provide appropriate sanctions and penalties to prevent harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage; Traditional owner Native title

12733-570: Was "void and of no effect as against the rights of the Crown" and declared any person on "vacant land of the Crown" without authorization from the Crown to be trespassing. The proclamation was approved by the Colonial Office. The official objection to the Treaty was that Batman had attempted to negotiate directly with the Aboriginal people, whom the British did not recognise as having any claim to any lands in Australia. In 1971, in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (the "Gove land rights case") in

12852-403: Was abandoned. Rajah's Order VIII of 1920 ("Land Order 1920") divided "State Lands" into four categories, one of them being "native holdings", and provided for the registration of customary holdings. The Aboriginal People's Act 1954 creates aboriginal areas and reserves, also providing for state acquisition of land without compensation. Article 160 of the Federal Constitution declares that custom has

12971-516: Was decided in the wake of the Indian Act (1876), which laid out an assimilationist policy towards the Aboriginal peoples in Canada ( First Nations , Inuit , and Métis ). It allowed provinces to abrogate treaties (until 1951), and, from 1927, made it a federal crime to prosecute First Nation claims in court, raise money, or organize to pursue such claims. St. Catharines was more or less

13090-539: Was first acknowledged in the early 19th century, in decisions in which indigenous peoples were not a party. Significant aboriginal title litigation resulting in victories for indigenous peoples did not arise until recent decades. The majority of court cases have been litigated in Australia, Canada, Malaysia , New Zealand, and the United States. Aboriginal title is an important area of comparative law , with many cases being cited as persuasive authority across jurisdictions. Legislated Indigenous land rights often follow from

13209-544: Was held as Māori customary land. In 2002, the Privy Council confirmed that the Maori Land Court, which does not have judicial review jurisdiction, was the exclusive forum for territorial aboriginal title claims (i.e. those equivalent to a customary title claim) In 2003, Ngati Apa v Attorney-General overruled In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach and Wi Parata , declaring that Māori could bring claims to

13328-750: Was involved in a large native title claim from 1996, based on the Native Title Act 1993 , resulting in an historic determination in February 2020, involving both native title and an ILUA, covering an area of 48,000 square kilometres (19,000 sq mi) in Western Australia. A claim was lodged in 2016 by the Central Land Council on behalf of the Gurindji peoples in the area, as there were mining interests in area covered by Wave Hill Station 's pastoral lease. On 8 September 2020,

13447-564: Was not appealed to the Privy Council, the Supreme Court of the colony of New Zealand recognized aboriginal title in R v Symonds . The decision was based on common law and the Treaty of Waitangi (1840). Chapman J went farther than any judge—before or since—in declaring that aboriginal title "cannot be extinguished (at least in times of peace) otherwise than by the free consent of the Native occupiers". The New Zealand Parliament responded with

13566-403: Was semi-nomadic and did not create settlements on that territory. It also stated that governments must have consent from First Nations which hold Aboriginal title in order to approve developments on that land, and governments can override the First Nation's wishes only in exceptional circumstances. The court reaffirmed, however, that areas under Aboriginal title are not outside the jurisdiction of

13685-459: Was the common law principle of continuity. The Crown did not appeal Te Weehi which was regarded as the motivation for Crown settlement of the sea fisheries claims (1992). Subsequent cases began meanwhile—and apart from the common law doctrine—to rehabilitate the Treaty of Waitangi, declaring it the "fabric of New Zealand society" and thus relevant even to legislation of general applicability. New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General held that

13804-529: Was the first judgment recognising native title over a capital city and its surroundings. The claim area itself is part of a much larger area included in the "Single Noongar Claim", covering the south-western corner of Western Australia. An appeal was subsequently lodged and in 2008 the Full Court of the Federal Court upheld parts of the appeal by the Western Australian and Commonwealth governments against Justice Wilcox's judgment. The 2008 decision by

13923-631: Was the first successful native title claim in south-eastern Australia and in Victoria, determined by Justice Ron Merkel involving Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa, Jadawadjali , Wergaia and Jupagalk people. In his reasons for judgment Justice Merkel explained the significance of his orders: In 2005 the Federal Court brought down a judgment recognising the native title of the Noongar people over the Perth metropolitan area. Justice Wilcox found that native title continues to exist within an area in and around Perth. It

14042-478: Was upheld on appeal, but the Federal Court did not write an opinion. Later High Court and Court of Appeal decisions built upon the foundation of Adong bin Kuwau . However, the ability for indigenous peoples to bring such suits was seriously limited by a 2005 ruling that claims must be brought under O. 53 RHC , rather than the representative action provision. In 2007, the Federal Court of Malaysia wrote an opinion endorsing common law aboriginal title for

14161-458: Was violated by their 2001 eviction. The decision quoted Mabo and other international case law, and based the right on the San's occupation of their traditional lands from time immemorial . The court described the right as a "right to use and occupy the lands" rather than a right of ownership. The government has interpreted the ruling very narrowly and has allowed only a small number of San to re-enter

#863136