Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Why it's (almost) not worth lodging a native title claim

By Jennifer Clarke - posted Friday, 3 January 2003


First, even people who can prove:

  • traditional rights to exclusive possession; of
  • always-vacant Crown land or Aboriginal reserves (or repurchased pastoral leases); under
  • 'legal systems' based in 'societies' which 'settlement' or Aboriginal policy has not interrupted;

could find government or an adjacent landowner interfering with or ignoring their title in a manner not permitted for other private land but permitted under the 1998 Native Title Act amendments.

Advertisement

Second, many native titles have been diminished or extinguished by grants of inconsistent titles to the same land. (Most recently, for example, the High Court ruled that native title was extinguished in the Western Division of NSW by perpetual lease grants (Wilson v Anderson).)

Third, many claimants will fail to prove that they are members of a 'society' which sustains the relic of a 'legal system' defining rights and obligations in relation to land. In the process, they may fall into irreconcilable disputes with family members and neighbours over intimate questions of shared identity. They may also spend a lot of public money which governments could choose to allow ATSIC or Attorney-generals' departments to spend on something else.

Finally, even the High Court judges who found 'in favour' of the Yorta Yorta are limited by earlier rulings (Mabo, Miriuwung-Gadjerrong) that Aboriginal legal systems are not to be recognised as legal systems. The courts deign only 'to recognise' the land rights and obligations which those legal systems define, and then only those which the claimants prove. Claimants who neglect to prove particular land traditions risk having them go 'unrecognised'. Even if they met the minority judges' standard of showing they were a self-identified community observing traditions of some longevity, the Yorta Yorta may have found that their 'recognition' was merely symbolic and did not generate meaningful land rights.

Next time someone tells you how unfortunate it is that native title has not lived up to expectations, you might want to tell them about its treatment by its 'foster' family.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jennifer Clarke is a Canberra lawyer

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jennifer Clarke
Related Links
Australian National University – Faculty of Law
Indigenous Landrights factsheet (pdf download)
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy