The formation of and present common law in Australia regarding settler interests and land claims demonstrates indigenous title to be an inferior and less important form of land ownership to that of white Australian interests. I will explain in this essay the prejudices and mistreatment of indigenous persons and their incessant struggle for land claims against the white European settlers, as demonstrated in the Yorta Yorta land claim case. I will also discuss the misconception and misrepresentation of the indigenous people’s intellect and capability of living humble and functional lives alongside the white settlers as demonstrated possible in the Coranderrk inquiry. I will discuss how overtime the Indigenous people’s basic human rights and land
…show more content…
Firstly the Redfern referendum in 1967 marked the first recognition of Indigenous people as a part of the human race alongside white settlers by removing them from Australia’s flora and fauna list, although a delayed and not-so grand gesture, this referendum established a greater sense equality amongst indigenous Australians and white Australians. Then in 1992 the Eddie Mabo decision was made abolishing the legal fiction of terra nullius, a term meaning that the land was empty and owned by no one before British settlement. The Mabo case established the existence of native title at common law in Australia, finding that native title survived colonisation and therefore continued where it could be proven to exist in alongside the traditional laws and customs of the native title holders, establishing an official form of, and gateway for indigenous land claims. Finally the apology speech delivered by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on February 13th 2008 signified the remorse for, and recognition of the harm our British ancestors inflicted onto the indigenous race with the stolen generation act carried out by the government, still having detrimental effects on indigenous Australian’s …show more content…
The Yorta Yorta land claim is a notorious event that took place over many years; it was a patent example of the inequality and mistreatment faced by indigenous Australians claiming their rights before the law. The Yorta Yorta struggle for land justice occurred between 1860 and 2002, attempting to go through the legal system numerous times, the 18th time it was brought to court was after the Mabo decision was made in 1992. Despite the Mabo decision establishing new grounds for where land justice could be achieved in relation to native title, Olney J. decision December 1998 found that the Yorta Yorta tribes had ceased to occupy the lands in accordance with the traditional based laws and customs before the end of the 19th century, and that post Mabo decision there was no real acknowledgement and observance of Yorta Yorta traditional laws and customs in relation to the claim area. The concept of native title often proves to be too difficult to prove before the court, as presenting evidence supporting the claim will require evidence from thousands and thousands of years ago where word of mouth if not sufficient enough as it wasn’t for Yorta Yorta, and the tide of history ‘throws a blanket’ over all the previous evidence that existed
Firstly the Redfern referendum in 1967 marked the first recognition of Indigenous people as a part of the human race alongside white settlers by removing them from Australia’s flora and fauna list, although a delayed and not-so grand gesture, this referendum established a greater sense equality amongst indigenous Australians and white Australians. Then in 1992 the Eddie Mabo decision was made abolishing the legal fiction of terra nullius, a term meaning that the land was empty and owned by no one before British settlement. The Mabo case established the existence of native title at common law in Australia, finding that native title survived colonisation and therefore continued where it could be proven to exist in alongside the traditional laws and customs of the native title holders, establishing an official form of, and gateway for indigenous land claims. Finally the apology speech delivered by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on February 13th 2008 signified the remorse for, and recognition of the harm our British ancestors inflicted onto the indigenous race with the stolen generation act carried out by the government, still having detrimental effects on indigenous Australian’s …show more content…
The Yorta Yorta land claim is a notorious event that took place over many years; it was a patent example of the inequality and mistreatment faced by indigenous Australians claiming their rights before the law. The Yorta Yorta struggle for land justice occurred between 1860 and 2002, attempting to go through the legal system numerous times, the 18th time it was brought to court was after the Mabo decision was made in 1992. Despite the Mabo decision establishing new grounds for where land justice could be achieved in relation to native title, Olney J. decision December 1998 found that the Yorta Yorta tribes had ceased to occupy the lands in accordance with the traditional based laws and customs before the end of the 19th century, and that post Mabo decision there was no real acknowledgement and observance of Yorta Yorta traditional laws and customs in relation to the claim area. The concept of native title often proves to be too difficult to prove before the court, as presenting evidence supporting the claim will require evidence from thousands and thousands of years ago where word of mouth if not sufficient enough as it wasn’t for Yorta Yorta, and the tide of history ‘throws a blanket’ over all the previous evidence that existed