Talk:Native title in Australia

Expanding Article's Coverage: New Sections??
Myself and friend/s are considering adding new sections which might have headings, something like:

i. "Nature and Content of Native Title"

ii. "Evidence for (Evidencing) Native Title"

The purpose of these new sections would be to enable readers to more fully understand/apprehend what 'native title' actually looks like should someone be walking around somewhere in Australia ..

.. and/or to provide Aboriginal Australian, plus native title researchers with more 'operational'/ concrete understanding of exactly what kinds of Aboriginal activities, beliefs, events etc are evidence of a 'native title' and/or make 'native title rights and interests' most evident to the world.

There is a considerable body of material available in relation to the above produced primarily by native title practioners involved in native title determination cases before the Federal Court of Australia .. and there are a number of useful decisions made by both Courts and the National Native Title Tribunal which could/would be relied upon to prepare and verify anticipated contents of the above proposed new sections.

I/we hope there will be no objection to the above .. and I am open to any comment, suggestions/advice etc before proceeding. Bruceanthro 04:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any apparent objection, I thought I might start on proposed new section, to be inserted under 'Clash of Cultures', perhaps entitled 'Evidence for Native Title':


 * i.  first, quoting and describing the 'factual basis' specified and required of any/all native title applicants when filling in a native title determination application form (Form 1)?;


 * ii. second, immediately following the quote and description proposed in i,  I propose to clearly identify the key 'factual' dimensions of 'native title' required to exist and be evident should native title applicants wish to succeed: these dimensions being 'area', 'group', 'law/lore', 'rights', and 'history'??


 * iii. next I propose to survey (briefly) existing native title determinations .. going backwards from most recent and most authoritative native title determinations (excluding 'consent determinations') to reveal the most favoured conjunction/s of variables (ii. above) resulting in successful native title determinations .. plus conjunctions or 'thresholds' resulting in failed native title determinations???


 * iv  finally, for those most favoured conjunction/s identified above (iii) I propose a very basic (crude?) statistical description of the kinds of native title rights and interests generally obtained .. (perhaps arranged by kind of tenure????)


 * For those of my collegeaus and friends who will have an interest in this entry, I hope the above proposal meets with your approval and, perhaps, you may be agreeable to assisting me with the above????? Bruceanthro 02:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now 2010 and the I would assert that the general response to Native Title is still one of confusion. To add an accurate report into wikipedia of the wider populations response to these matters would be to cover both good and irresponsible media reports and some official government statements /reassurances etc.Although an important aspect of the legal and social structure of Australia, to put it into verified and neutral point of view is outside my limited capacity.Does anyone have suggestions to cover this aspect?ThanksErn Malleyscrub (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion
I am suggesting that aboriginal title be merged into this article unless there are any objections, by adding a section about international equivelants or something similar. Kevin Smith 04:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kevin, this proposal sounds rational, but isn't. The difference between aboriginal title and native title is vast- nt is a 'bundle of rights', which can be as basic as just the right to fish on some land, all the way through to full communal ownership that includes controlling who enters it. Aboriginal title in countries such as Canada and NZ is very different, and usually ackowledges the original sovereignty of the indigenosu people, and often is based on a treaty between them and the colonising power. No such treaty existed in Australia. Why don't you leave the two separate and clean up the citations for aboriginal title? Great sthn 19 Feb.


 * Sounds like a plan. I'm going to remove the merge suggestion. Kevin Smith 02:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Question.
Is the Native Title Act 1993 de facto granting of sovereign reinstatement of executive for the aboriginal people on the claimed land? Is sovereign status therefore granted because of the Mabo acknowledgement that terra nullius was negated and misproved and thus the former title of ownership is replaced? Jachin 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm reading your question as "does the Act amount to a reinstatement of sovereignty in Indigenous peoples by the executive?" The answer is no. The High Court in Mabo explicitly said that "municipal courts" (ie. courts only dealing with the law within Australia, ie. all current Australian courts) can't answer the question of sovereignty, it is entirely beyond their jurisdiction. It's a common misconception that the courts rejected terra nullius; they merely said that whether terra nullius applies or not is irrelevant when considering whether the common law recognises native title. I thought I had already changed the bit about terra nullius in this article, but it seems I had not. I've removed it now.
 * How's that? Dawson J says "The idea that land which is in regular occupation may be terra nullius is unacceptable, in law as well as in fact". It's the applicability of terra nullius to the Meriam islands is erroneous. In fact most of the judgements seem to be saying that regardless of Cooper v Stuart, the introduction of english law through settlement doesn't automatically extinguish native title rights, because terra nullius is wrong in fact. Its only by rejecting the idea that Australia was terra nullius that native title can be asserted. --Cliau 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This page, and the ones on most of the native title cases, are in a terrible state and it's really about time that I rewrote them all. --bainer (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Native title and land rights are not the same thing
This article confuses 'land rights' (usually made by State Govts) and native title (a federal bundle of rights given to people who can prove a connection to country going back to 1788). More work is needed to ensure the great difference between these two types of rights is made (GSthn).


 * I agree. There should be a separate article for Land Rights. The first land rights legislation in Australia preceded the Mabo judgment by over a decade. Edelmand (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now created a new page, Aboriginal land rights in Australia. Relevant information from Native title in Australia will now be shifted to this page to ensure that the correct distinction is maintained. Edelmand (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Largest native title sea claim
This article describes a recently decided native title claim in the Torres Strait. I wasn't sure where to add it to the article. Any suggestions? - Shiftchange (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Native title in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114161235/http://www.nntt.gov.au/Information-about-native-title/Pages/Nativetitlerightsandinterests.aspx to http://www.nntt.gov.au/Information-about-native-title/Pages/Nativetitlerightsandinterests.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725170033/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=42&aID=8&pID=73 to http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=42&aID=8&pID=73
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126061620/http://dfat.gov.au/facts/indigenous_land_rights.html to http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/indigenous_land_rights.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge with Aboriginal land rights proposal
Noting the discussion above (Not the same thing), I don't think that the articles in their current form make the distinction (if any) clear), and just divides information which I think could be reasonably expected to be found in the same article and which is more likely to be kept up to date or in a state of continuous improvement if all in one place. This article contains info about both state and federal legislation, although nothing about the background/lead-up, which could be included here. (There's also another article called Australian Aboriginal Sovereignty, but that article hasn't been touched much in recent times and could do with some more work...) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Laterthanyouthink. Sorry but as far as I can tell they should be kept sepaarate.  Yes you are correct, the differences are not explained very well.  It seems to me that NT is the recognition that the presumption of terra nullius was invalid, whereas ALRIA is where NT was extinguished but the land title is now given back.  It also seems to be that NT can coexist with other forms of land title and rights whereas ALRIA cannot coexist?  I think the articles should remain separate, and perhaps there needs to be an overview article of all forms of land rights, title, and tenure in Australia, eg, freehold, lease, pastoral lease, crown, NT, ...  Aoziwe (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I have been meaning to get back to this. Since posting the merge proposal, I've come across a bit more on related topics and I think added a bit to one or both of the articles too. Needs more concentrated work to ensure that the definitions and usages in other articles linking to these are using the appropriate link too, but perhaps I should remove the merge proposal. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Given this, closing without a merge. Klbrain (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)