Contemporary Aboriginal Issues Assignment 3- Essay Topic 3: Discuss the political struggle for recognition of indigenous rights to land. In your answer, consider the benefits and limitations of the Native Title Act and recent United Nations criticisms of the current Act. For years we have witnessed the Indigenous population’s political struggle for recognition of rights to Australian land. At times the effort appears to be endless and achieving recognition almost seems impossible. Native Title and Land claims have become a step closer in achieving this recognition; however, for land rights to exist in an absolute form, they cannot exist as a mere Act of Parliament but must form a fundamental part of the Australian Constitution. This seemingly gigantic task is part of the incessant political struggle that the Indigenous population will continue to face. The United Nation’s is an integral part of the political struggle between the Australian government and the Indigenous people and have on many occasions fought to raise the issue of human rights violation within the Australian constitution. When Captain Cook arrived in 1788 and the colonisation of Australia began, the Indigenous people of Australia struggled and fought to protect their country from infringement, theft and violation. The Indigenous people were faced with a dominant military force and an extremely different view of the world. Over one hundred years ago, the colonists understood this land to be open for the taking and the rightful first owners were treated as intruders on their own land. In 1901 the commonwealth of Australia was proclaimed and a supposedly new era was to occur for this “lucky country” and its inhabitants. http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/433/433pl6.htm However, for Indigenous Australians, this year marked a 113 years of resistance, removal, withdrawal and dispossession. Over one hundred years later, the Native Title act is passed and Indigenous Australian’s continue their political struggle for land rights Land rights are defined as the entitlement to inhabit and use the land. Indigenous Australian communities seek to gain land rights or “Native Title” over certain parts of Australian land. This allows the Indigenous Australians the right to hunt, fish and inhabit the land and also gives them the right to contribute to decisions over construction, fishing or mining of... ... middle of paper ... .../land_rights/australia/land_rights_in_australia.htm Accessed on 1st June, 3rd June 2005 • Native Title Corporations: A Legal and Anthropological Analysis http://www.federationpress.com.au/Books/MantziarisMartin.htm Accessed on 2nd June 2005 • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Social Justice Commissioner Native Title Report 2001, Summary of Native Title Report 2001 http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/ntreport_01/summary.html Accessed on 1st June 2005 • The Native Title Act case: Indigenous Australia vs. Commonwealth http://www.ags.gov.au/publications/agspubs/legalpubs/legalbriefings/br20.htm Accessed on 2nd June, 3rd June 2005 • Amnesty International: Australia- governments dismissal of UN criticism undermines hard earned credibility in human rights diplomacy. http://www.faira.org.au/pressreleases/1999/03/amnesty-international.html Accessed on 1st June 2005 • Australia silent on UN racism committee condemnation http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Australia_silent_on_UN-racism_committee_condemtation Accessed on 7th June 2005
Since European invasion in 1788, Indigenous Australians have struggled to maintain their rights and freedoms and to have governments recognise them. Over time, state and Commonwealth governments have implemented policies that have discriminated against Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, denying them equality, opportunity and control of their own lives and those of their children (Jacaranda, 2012). Indigenous Australians have been politically active in demanding their rights. Charles Perkins was an Aboriginal Activist who fought in the struggle for recognition, justice and legal acknowledgments for Indigenous people. To a large extent Charles Perkins has impacted the civil rights of Indigenous Australians; significantly advancing human rights and paving the way for reconciliation.
The decision upheld the claims of five plaintiffs from Murray Island that Australia was occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who had their own laws and customs, and whose 'native title' to land survived the Crown's invasion. Therefore, the court recognised the presence of native title as part of Australian common law.
Struggles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people for recognition of their rights and interests have been long and arduous (Choo & Hollobach: 2003:5). The ‘watershed’ decision made by the High Court of Australia in 1992 (Mabo v Queensland) paved the way for Indigenous Australians to obtain what was ‘stolen’ from them in 1788 when the British ‘invaded’ (ATSIC:1988). The focus o...
Although the Canadian government has done a great deal to repair the injustices inflicted on the First Nations people of Canada, legislation is no where near where it needs to be to ensure future protection of aboriginal rights in the nation. An examination of the documents that comprise the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reveal that there is very little in the supreme legal documents of the nation that protect aboriginal rights. When compared with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples it is clear that the Canadian Constitution does not acknowledge numerous provisions regarding indigenous people that the UN resolution has included. The most important of these provisions is the explicit recognition of First Nations rights to their traditional lands, which have a deep societal meaning for aboriginal groups. Several issues must be discussed to understand the complex and intimate relationship all aboriginal societies have with the earth. Exploration into the effects that the absence of these rights has had the Cree of the Eastern James Bay area, will provide a more thorough understanding of the depth of the issue. Overall, the unique cultural relationship First Nations people of Canada have with Mother Earth needs to be incorporated into the documents of the Canadian Constitution to ensure the preservation and protection of Canadian First Nations cultural and heritage rights.s
Year Book Australia). The Native title Act was significant as it provided a legal doctrine for Indigenous Australians to claim ownership of land that had a significance to their tribe and culture. Currently 15 percent of Australia is under ownership of Indigenous Australians which is Native Title land (Reconciliation Australia (2014). The Mabo Decision). It was a significant impact as now Indigenous Australians had the legal rights for the first time to claim back land by taking issues to court. In 1994 the National Native Title Tribunal was established and it dealt with legal matters concerning native title. The tribunal’s procedures took in account the cultural and customary concerns of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and had the power to determine uncontested native title and compensation claims which had never been seen in Australia
In 1992, the doctrine of terra nullius was overruled by the High Court in the case Mabo v Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. After recognising that the Meriam people of Murray Island in the Torres Straits were native title landholders of their traditional land, the court also held that native title existed for all the Indigenous people in Australia prior to European contact. To make the legal position of landholders and the processes that must be followed in claiming native title clear, the federal government passed the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Native Title, which was drafted in 1993, attempted to provide a fair and just method of dealing with land in the future. However one of the fundamental flaws of the native title system is that the concept of native title was based on the prejudiced principle that the Crown had the power to extinguish traditional indigenous ownership of the land. Although the government could have been able to amend the flaws of the Native Title Act following the High Court’s decision in relation to the Wik Case, which laid the rules for co-existence and reconciliation of shared interests in the land, they failed to do so. Amendments to the Native Title Act in 1998 undermined any benefits the Indigenous people could have received, and provided the already-powerful non-Indige...
Olthius, John A. and Townshend, Roger. "The case for Native sovereignty". In Crosscurrents: Contemporary Political Issues, 3rd ed. ed. Mark Charlton and Paul Barker, 5-8. Toronto: Nelson, 1998.
Shah, Anup. "Rights of Indigenous People." Global Issues. N.p., 16 Oct. 2010. Web. 3 May 2014. .
The rights and freedoms achieved in Australia in the 20th and 21st century can be described as discriminating, dehumanising and unfair against the Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians have achieved rights and freedoms in their country since the invasion of the English Monarch in 1788 through the exploration and development of laws, referendums and processes. Firstly, this essay will discuss the effects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Indigenous Australians through dehumanising and discriminating against them. Secondly, this essay will discuss how Indigenous Australians gained citizenship and voting
...rial covered in the unit Aboriginal People that I have been studying at the University of Notre Dame Fremantle, Aboriginal people have had a long history of being subjected to dispossession and discriminatory acts that has been keep quite for too long. By standing together we are far more likely to achieve long lasting positive outcomes and a better future for all Australians.
It is the sole ‘western democracy’ which has no constitutionally entrenched bill of rights as a component of its legislation. Its treatment and approach towards Asylum seekers is ultimately a reflection of its human rights agenda. Australia is dependant under the United Nations Convention Relating to the status of refugees (the refugee convention), to assist refugees under international law. The country’s policies and procedures to an imprudent degree has ultimately led to ‘international concern about Australia’s asylum seeker policies’. Professor Gillian Trigg’s, president of the Australian Human Rights Commission acknowledges the raising concern labelling Australia’s policies a direct result of the country ‘straying from its international obligations’. The country however operates on the basis of a dualist system, thereby bypassing any international law until its formal acknowledgement as a domestic law. This simultaneously allows Australia signing the UN Refugee convention, whilst also maintaining a domestic legal system that perpetrates injustice and inhumanity towards Asylum Seekers. However it is necessary to question, whether Australia is applicable to bypass an international law, it is signatory to, aimed at achieving justice in its approach to prevent refugees and asylum
Thesis: Given the struggles aboriginals have had to face in Canada, the Canadian government should take action to
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.
Overall Australia’s human rights record is of high-quality but is blemished by few human rights violations. Australia has freedom of speech, a corruption-free legal system, legal protection against discrimination, access to secondary education, the right to vote in elections, access to clean water, privacy protection, freedo...
To a sovereign nation, the current treatment of asylum seekers may seem lawful as they are exercising their rights. Internationally, however, the procedures and execution of how Australia handle their asylum seeker ‘problem’ conflicts greatly with International law and treaties, to which they were ratified. As a result, Australia is left in a political and lawful bind between the complexities and intricate nature of the United Nations and Australian Government laws and legislation. Whilst the United Nations claim Australia is violating a multitude of their International Conventions, such as the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention.