Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Law Reform and Native Title

Ben loodz leash bauman ienazhi groon

Ben O'Brien

on 31 May 2011

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Law Reform and Native Title

Law Reform and Native Title Luthfi ,Leah ,Ben, Nick, Ienash and Grace Definition of law reform: Law reform is the process of examining existing laws, advocating and implementing changes in the legal system. Usually the aim of enhancing justice or efficiency. Terra nullius meaning ‘land belonging to no one’ was the concept that was believed to be true and acceptable for centuries Laws concerning native title developed and improved since a variety of different cases, such as the mabo case conditions that led to law reform in native title when the first fleet arrived in australia , they determined that aboriginals are not considered actual people and had no specific laws to do with the ownership of land. therefore the doctrine of terra nullius was created, which stated that no one owned Australia before European settlement. The changing social values towards indigenous Australians have also caused a lot of law reform. The phases that Australia has gone through in their attitudes towards Aboriginals are protection, assimilation, integration, self-determination and reconciliation. A few years after Mabo’s case, the reconciliation policy began which made it easier for aboriginals to gain native title as this phase was about recognizing the aboriginals The Agencies of Law Reform in Native Title Only the Federal and High Court can determine the traditional ownership of the land of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The Federal Court of Australia will make the determination on whether native title will or will not apply. Any appeal against a determination is made to a full sitting of the Federal court and then to the High court of Australia. 1967 referendum – allowed Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander to be considered part of the Australian nation In 2008 the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologized for laws and policies which had inflicted the loss of these Australians The National Native Title Tribunal is a Federal Government agency that mediates native title claims under the direction of the Federal court of Australia Unlike a court, they do not decide whether Native Title exists or not Effectiveness of native title reform in achieving just outcomes Customary law not recognised upon British settlement The Milirrpum v. Nabalco (1971) case involved the Yolngu people petitioning the Australian Parliament – claiming land, however they were not successful Mabo vs Queensland No. 2 (1992) was the groundbreaking case that extinguished the concept of terra nullius, and recognized the concept of Native Title. . In Mabo No. 1 (1988) it was identified that the High Court was going against S10 of the Racial Discrimination Act by basing their decline of native title on the basis of the tribes background, leading it to be further considered in Mabo No. 2. This case set precedence for other tribes claiming native title, however courts needed to make strict rules as to who is eligible to claim it. With native title claims increasing, other problems arised and were addressed through cases.
-Ward & Ors vs. State of WA & Ors (1998) Although the concept of terra nullius was extinguished, it still proved problems.
- Yorta Yorta people (2002) These cases demonstrate native title reform achieving just outcomes. The Mabo case gave tribes the right to claim native title to their land, making it fair for them to be able to achieve this, and due to the later cases addressing pastoral leases and government used land, it then can become a just outcome for both indigenous tribes and other citizens. Indigenous Australian tribes may still argue that they are not achieving a just outcome, however it is what it is most just for both sides. Thank You
Full transcript