Native title

Native title is a concept in the law of Australia that recognises the continued ownership of land by local Indigenous Australians. Australia's colonisation was conducted under the false assumption that the land was unoccupied (terra nullius) and could therefore be claimed for the Crown and distributed to colonists by the government.

Native title can co-exist with non-indigenous proprietary rights and in some cases different indigenous groups can exercise their native title over the same land. In this way, it represents a local example of the fragmentation of proprietary interests. More particularly, it is also an example of two distinct systems of law operating within the same geographic, national and jurisdictional space. It is a recognition by the common law of customary Aboriginal law. However, to the extent of any inconsistency between Australian law and customary Aboriginal law, non-indigenous rights will generally prevail.

The National Native Title Tribunal is the body that investigates claims by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Native title determinations are made by the High Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia or a recognised body, such as South Australia's Supreme Court and Environment Resources and Development Court. The National Native Title Register (NNTR) contains approved determinations.

The clash of two legal systems

Native title, in Australia, concerns the interaction of two systems of law:

The traditional laws and customs that regulated the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders prior to Australia's colonisation by the British ("customary Aboriginal law"). Although colonisation wrought social changes upon the Aborigines, customary Aboriginal law continues to regulate the lives of many indigenous Australians.

The now dominant, English-derived legal system, which was brought to Australia on colonisation, which includes the common law and enacted laws ("Australian law").

Only Australian laws are enforced directly in Australian courts. Native title is not a concept that forms part of customary Aboriginal law - rather, it is the term adopted to describe the rights to land and waters possessed by indigenous Australians under their customary laws that are recognised by the Australian legal system.

Chronology of events

1946 Aboriginal Stockmen's Strike

On 1 May 1946, an estimated 600 Aboriginal stockmen throughout the north of Western Australia refused to work until they had been guaranteed a minimum wage of thirty shillings a week. Some had previously been receiving food and clothing but no pay; others had been paid up to twelve shillings a week.

It was organised by Dooley Bin Bin with his friend Don McLeod acting as consultant. The organisation was a mammoth task, requiring communication between stockmen throughout northern Western Australia.

Pitjantjatjara Lands Act 1956

The first Native Title legislation in Australia was the South Australian Pitjantjatjara Lands Act 1956. where land was transferred to the Pitjantjatjara people, who had maintained a continuous connection with their land. However, the act provided no basis for claims by other groups.

1963 - Yolngu Bark Petition

The Yolngu of northeast Arnhem Land had retained a very strong connection with their land, culture and Law (Madayin), due to the remoteness of Arnhem Land to white Australia.

In 1963, the Menzies government decided to excise a part of their land for a bauxite mine, Yolngu at Yirrkala sent a petition on bark to the Australian House of Representatives protesting the excision.

The bark petition attracted national and international attention and now hangs in Parliament House, Canberra as a testament to the Yolngu role in the birth of the land rights movement.

1966 - Wave Hill Walk-Off

Three years later, in 1966, 200 Gurindji cattle workers and their families, led by Vincent Lingiari, staged a strike and walk off Wave Hill cattle station, demanding equal wages and conditions to white stockmen.

At that time they were paid small amounts of money, or paid in kind. The nine-year strike developed into a successful claim for return of traditional Gurindji lands.

1971 - Gove Land Rights case

Meanwhile, the Yolngu realised their bark petition had not been taken seriously by the politicians in Canberra, and instead took their grievances to the courts in 1971, in the case of Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd.

Yolngu lost the case because Australian courts were still bound to follow the terra nullius principle, which did not allow for the recognition of any “prior rights” to land to Indigenous people at the time of colonisation.

However, the Judge did acknowledge the claimants' ritual and economic use of the land and that they had an established system of law (Madayin). In this way, this was the first significant legal case for Indigenous Land Rights in Australia.

1973-4 - Woodward Inquiry

These cases led to the establishment of the Woodward Commission into Aboriginal Land Rights from 1973-4 in the Northern Territory.

1975 - Gurindji handback

In 1975, Gough Whitlam handed back land to the Gurindji people.

The famous photograph, by Mervyn Bishop of Whitlam pouring sand into Vincent Lingiari's hand, has been etched onto the Australian psyche.

Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976

As a result of the findings of the Royal Commission, the Fraser Government enacted the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in 1976, after its drafting by the Whitlam Labor Government in 1975.

The four Land Councils were established under this law. It established the basis upon which Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory could, for the first time, claim rights to land based on traditional occupation.

This Act was the first Australian law which allowed a claim of title if claimants could provide evidence of their traditional association with land.

1992 - Mabo

Only in 1992 was the assumption that Australia was terra nullius rejected by the High Court in the Mabo decision, which granted Murray Island in the Torres Strait to its Torres Strait Islander residents.

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 indigenous inhabitants of a territory".

Native Title Act 1993

The recognition of the legal concept of Native Title in Mabo in 1992 led its recognition by the legislative system a year later when the Keating government enacted the Native Title Act, 1993. It attempted to clarify the legal position of landholders and the processes that must be followed for Native Title to be claimed, protected and recognised through the courts.

The concept of claiming land rights is independent of native title.

Native title is not the same as land rights Aboriginal Land Rights Acts. Land rights are new legal rights that are created and granted under Australian law to Indigenous Australians.

In a land rights claim Indigenous Australians can seek a grant of title to land from the Commonwealth, state or territory governments. That grant may recognise traditional interest in the land, and protect those interests by giving Indigenous people legal ownership of that land.

Pastoral leases

The Mabo decision created uncertainty, particularly for pastoralists who held pastoral leases. Pastoral leases:

are leases given by the Australian state governments;
are the subject of statutory regulation;
contain varying conditions;
give pastoralists rights to occupy Crown land for agricultural purposes in return for an annual fee;
cover approximately 44% of Australia's mainland, consisting predominantly of arid and semi-arid regions and tropical savannas;
are predominantly used for grazing livestock and agriculture.Productivity Commission, Pastoral Leases and Non-Pastoral Land Use Research Paper, 2002.

1996 - Wik

After the Mabo decision, there was concern that native title claims over pastoral leases would extinguish the pastoral leases. The Wik Decision in 1996 clarified the uncertainty. In that case, the High Court determined that pastoral leases that:

gave the leaseholder exclusive possession (that is, the right to use the land and to exclude others from the land) extinguished native title; and
did not give exclusive possession did not extinguish native title.

The decision found that native title could coexist with other land interests on pastoral leases, which cover some 40% of the Australian land mass.

That decision led to amendments to the Native Title Act (by the Native Title Amendment Act) in 1998 which streamlined the claims system and provided security of tenure to non-indigenous holders of pastoral leases and other land title, where that land might potentially be claimed under the Native Title Act.

External links

Native Title Act 1993 at ComLaw
Native Title Resource Guide at Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)
National Native Title Tribunal
Yamatji Marlpa Barna Baba Maaja Aboriginal Corporation, the Native Title Representative Body incorporating the Yamatji Land and Sea Council and the Pilbara Native Title Service
Information about native title determinations is available
- online
- Map of current determinations

References

Australian property law | Australian constitutional law | Native title | Indigenous Australian politics | History of Australia

Gourt Home::Gourt :: Native title