Native Title Act 1993

Last updated

Native Title Act 1993
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Parliament of Australia
  • An Act about native title in relation to land or waters, and for related purposes. [1]
Citation Act No. 110 of 1993 or Act No. 110 of 1993 as amended
Territorial extent States and territories of Australia
Royal assent 24 December 1993 [2]
Status: Amended

The Native Title Act 1993(Cth) is a law passed by the Australian Parliament, the purpose of which is "to provide a national system for the recognition and protection of native title and for its co-existence with the national land management system". The Act was passed by the Keating government following the High Court's decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992). [3] The Act commenced operation on 1 January 1994.

Contents

Background

Act

This legislation aimed to codify the Mabo decision and implemented strategies to facilitate the process of recognising native title in Australia. The Act also established the National Native Title Tribunal, to register, hear and determine native title claims. According to the Australian Government:

The Native Title Act 1993 establishes a framework for the protection and recognition of native title. The Australian legal system recognises native title where:

The Native Title Act sets up processes to determine where native title exists, how future activity impacting upon native title may be undertaken, and to provide compensation where native title is impaired or extinguished. The Act gives Indigenous Australians who hold native title rights and interests—or who have made a native title claim—the right to be consulted and, in some cases, to participate in decisions about activities proposed to be undertaken on the land. Indigenous Australians have been able to negotiate benefits for their communities, including in relation to employment opportunities and heritage protection.

The Act also establishes a framework for the recognition and operation of representative bodies that provide services to native title claimants and native title holders. The Australian Government provides significant funding to resolve native title issues in accordance with the Act, including to native title representative bodies, the National Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia. [4]

Under the Act, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner was required to prepare an annual report to the Attorney-General of Australia on the operation of the Act and its effect on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and report, when requested by the Attorney-General, on any other matter relating to the rights of Indigenous people under the Act. [5]

The objectives of the Commissioner were to provide and promote a human rights perspective on native title; to assist in developing more efficient native title processes; and to advocate for the co-existence between Indigenous and non-Indigenous interests in land based on compatible land use. [5] All of the reports from 1994 to 2016 have been published online; since 2013, the Native Title and Social Justice Reports have been combined and published as one report. [6]

Changes brought about by the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act 2017 removed the statutory obligation for an annual Social Justice and Native Title Report such as those produced up to and including 2016; however, the Commissioner continues to produce reports at the culmination of key projects. [7]

Amendments

The Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth), [8] also commonly referred to as the "10-Point Plan", is an amendment to the Native Title Act by the Howard government made in response to the Wik Decision by the High Court. [9] The Wik decision held that Native Title could co-exist with pastoral leases and were not necessarily extinguished. This contradicted the assumptions of many in government and the community (although not the entire legal community [10] ), causing a great deal of uncertainty, unease and debate. [11] McHugh J stated that the reason for this surprise was due to statements in Mabo (No 2) that leases extinguish native title, the preamble to the native title act stated that "native title is extinguished by valid government acts... such as the grant of freehold or leasehold estates", that the Land Act 1910 (Qld) and the Land Act 1962 (Qld) described pastoral leases as leases (which suggested a right to exclusive possession) and for 126 year Queensland lawyers had argued and believed this. [12]

Some States were concerned that mining leases granted after the passing of the Native Title Act would no longer be valid, as the right to negotiate under the Native Title Act was not respected. [13] The ruling also created fears by some that a huge amount of land claims in Australia would now be in doubt, with the head of the National Farmer's Federation claiming that even residential plots in Canberra could be threatened by claims. [14] This was despite the fact that the ruling stated that the rights of pastoralists would override native title rights in the event of any inconsistencies. [15] The resulting amendments substantially restricted Native Title by narrowing the right to negotiate, increasing the threshold test for Native Title claims to be made, extinguishing Native Title on all leases issued before 1994 that granted exclusive possession and granting more power to the states to manage claims. [16] The laws also introduced Indigenous land use agreements as an alternative to native title claims. [17] The text of the legislation was extremely specific and complex in order to override the protections and use of the Racial Discrimination Act in interpreting the legislation. [18]

The ten points in the "10-Point Plan" were:

  1. The National Native Title Tribunal holds absolute authority over claims for native title.
  2. State governments are empowered to extinguish Native Title over crown lands for matters of "national interest".
  3. Lands providing public amenities are exempt from Native Title claims.
  4. Mining and pastoral leases are allowed to co-exist with Native Title.
  5. The National Native Title Tribunal can create access to traditional lands rather than granting full Native Title.
  6. A registration test is imposed on all claimants.
  7. The right to claim Native Title in or around urban areas is removed.
  8. Government is permitted to manage land, water, and air issues in any site.
  9. Very strict time limits will be placed on all claims.
  10. Indigenous land use agreements will be created to promote co-existence.

ANTaR (Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation) helped to coordinate a response to the amendments; native title rights became the focus of a national campaign by ANTaR in 1997–8, with a central project called the Sea of Hands. [19] In Parliament, the legislation was opposed by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. Additionally, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed concern that the amendments might breach Australia's obligation under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) as they appeared to significantly "extinguish or impair the exercise of indigenous title rights and interests". Additionally the committee noted that the lack of Indigenous participation in the creation of the amendments and re-affirmed their recommendation that "no decisions directly relating to [indigenous peoples] rights and interests are [to be] taken without their informed consent". [20] [21]

The final legislation was amended to gain the support of Independent Senator Brian Harradine, whose vote was required for the bill to pass. [22]

In 2007, the Howard government passed the Native Title Amendment Act 2007 , [23] and the Native Title Amendment (Technical Amendments) Act 2007, [24] a package of coordinated measures and technical amendments to improve the performance of the native title system. [25] [26] These are aimed at making the native title process more efficient and to speed up the determination of whether native title exists on the 580 claims that had been registered but not yet determined.

The Native Title Act 1993 was further amended by the Rudd government by the Native Title Amendment Act 2009 . [27] [28] It allows the Federal Court to determine who may mediate a claim, whether that be the court itself, the Native Title Tribunal, or otherwise. [29]

The Act continues to be reviewed and amended. A major review of the Act by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2015 made 30 recommendations to reform it. [30] It did not suggest altering the fundamental framework and model of native title and the claims process, but recommended a "refocus on the core elements of native title law to facilitate an effective determination process". [31] As of June 2020 it has had six amendments since 2015. [32]

Legacy

The High Court in Western Australia v Commonwealth (1995) upheld the Native Title Act and struck down a conflicting Western Australia statute. [33]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Mabo v Queensland (No 2)</i> 1992 High Court of Australia decision which recognised native title

Mabo v Queensland is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that recognised the existence of Native Title in Australia. It was brought by Eddie Mabo against the State of Queensland and decided on 3 June 1992. The case is notable for being the first in Australia to recognise pre-colonial land interests of Indigenous Australians within the common law of Australia.

<i>Wik Peoples v Queensland</i> 1996 High Court of Australia decision

Wik Peoples v The State of Queensland is a decision of the High Court of Australia delivered on 23 December 1996, on whether statutory leases extinguish native title rights. The court found that the statutory pastoral leases under consideration by the court did not bestow rights of exclusive possession on the leaseholder. As a result, native title rights could coexist depending on the terms and nature of the particular pastoral lease. Where there was a conflict of rights, the rights under the pastoral lease would extinguish the remaining native title rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian Indigenous sovereignty</span> Concept and political movement regarding land ownership by Indigenous peoples in Australia

Australian Indigenous sovereignty, also recently termed Blak sovereignty, encompasses the various rights claimed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within Australia. Such rights are said to derive from Indigenous peoples' occupation and ownership of Australia prior to colonisation and through their continuing spiritual connection to land. Indigenous sovereignty is not recognised in the Australian Constitution or under Australian law.

Native title refers to rights, recognised by Australian law, held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups or individuals to land that derive from their maintenance of their traditional laws and customs. These Aboriginal title rights were first recognised as a part of Australian common law with the decision of Mabo v Queensland in 1992. The doctrine was subsequently implemented and modified via statute with the Native Title Act 1993.

<i>Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976</i> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 (ALRA) is Australian federal government legislation that provides the basis upon which Aboriginal Australian people in the Northern Territory can claim rights to land based on traditional occupation. It was the first law by any Australian government that legally recognised the Aboriginal system of land ownership, and legislated the concept of inalienable freehold title, as such was a fundamental piece of social reform. Its long title is An Act providing for the granting of Traditional Aboriginal Land in the Northern Territory for the benefit of Aboriginals, and for other purposes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)</span> 1967 constitutional referendum on the legal status of Indigenous Australians

The second question of the 1967 Australian referendum of 27 May 1967, called by the Holt government, related to Indigenous Australians. Voters were asked whether to give the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians in states, and whether Indigenous Australians should be included in official population counts for constitutional purposes. The term "the Aboriginal Race" was used in the question.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian legal system</span>

The legal system of Australia has multiple forms. It includes a written constitution, unwritten constitutional conventions, statutes, regulations, and the judicially determined common law system. Its legal institutions and traditions are substantially derived from that of the English legal system. Australia is a common-law jurisdiction, its court system having originated in the common law system of English law. The country's common law is the same across the states and territories.

<i>Mabo v Queensland (No 1)</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Mabo v Queensland , was a significant court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 8 December 1988. It found that the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985, which attempted to retrospectively abolish native title rights, was not valid according to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

Native title legislation in Australia includes legislation by Commonwealth, state, and territory parliaments of Australia which codifies and modifies common law regarding native title in Australia.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

<i>Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd</i> First Australian Aboriginal land rights case, heard in the NT Supreme Court in 1971

Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, also known as the Gove land rights case because its subject was land known as the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory, was the first litigation on native title in Australia, and the first significant legal case for Aboriginal land rights in Australia, decided on 27 April 1971.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title</span> Concept in common law of indigenous land rights persisting after colonization

Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty to that land by another colonising state. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.

<i>Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981</i> South Australian law giving certain land rights to two Aboriginal peoples; created APY

The Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 grants certain land and other rights to the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara in South Australia. It began its life as the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act and commenced operation on 2 October 1981. Its long name title is "An Act to provide for the vesting of title to certain lands in the people known as Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara; and for other purposes". The Act has since had several amendments, the latest in 2017.

Indigenous Australian customary law refers to the legal systems and practices uniquely belonging to Indigenous Australians of Australia, that is, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Radical title is a concept in English common law that refers to the Crown's underlying title to all land held in overseas plantations and colonies. It grants the Crown the power to alienate others from land and to transfer beneficial ownership of the land to itself or others, but by itself does not grant beneficial ownership.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984</span> An Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984(Cth), is an Act passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to enable the Commonwealth Government to intervene and, where necessary, preserve and protect areas and objects of particular significance to Australia's Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples from being desecrated or injured.

There is no absolute right to privacy in Australian law and there is no clearly recognised tort of invasion of privacy or similar remedy available to people who feel their privacy has been violated. Privacy is, however, affected and protected in limited ways by common law in Australia and a range of federal, state and territorial laws, as well as administrative arrangements.

Indigenous land rights in Australia, also known as Aboriginal land rights in Australia, are the rights and interests in land of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia; the term may also include the struggle for those rights. Connection to the land and waters is vital in Australian Aboriginal culture and to that of Torres Strait Islander people, and there has been a long battle to gain legal and moral recognition of ownership of the lands and waters occupied by the many peoples prior to colonisation of Australia starting in 1788, and the annexation of the Torres Strait Islands by the colony of Queensland in the 1870s.

<i>Akiba v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Seas Claim Group v Commonwealth of Australia [2013] HCA 33; 250 CLR 209 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to Native title rights, their extension to other persons and their extinguishment by Statute.

<i>Northern Territory v Mr Griffiths and Lorraine Jones</i> Law case in the Northern Territory, Australia

Northern Territory v Mr A. Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples [2019] HCA 7 is an Australian native title court case that was heard in the High Court of Australia. This case was an appeal by the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth of Australia of the decision handed down by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths [2017] FCAFC 106. The High Court of Australia ruled to reduce the amount of compensation awarded to the Ngaliwurru People and the Nungali People by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. This compensation had been granted to the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples as a remedy for deeds taken by the Northern Territory Government that were previously established by the judicial system to have extinguished native title. The total amount of compensation awarded was reduced from $2,899,446 to $2,530,350. This compensation had been awarded for the monetary and non-monetary loss, as well as interest, associated with the extinguishment of native title. The decision made by the High Court meant the appeals made by the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth were "allowed in part". The case of Northern Territory v Mr Griffiths and Lorraine Jones has been labelled one of the most significant native title court cases since Mabo v Queensland and Mabo v Queensland. The Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples reside in Timber Creek, Northern Territory. The High Court granted special leave for the appeal on 16 February 2018. The High Court, which is situated in Canberra, had not heard a case in the Northern Territory prior to this.

References

  1. ↑ Native Title Act 1993 - Long Title (Cth).
  2. ↑ "Native Title Act 1993 - Act No. 110 of 1993". ComLaw . Retrieved 4 February 2015.
  3. ↑ Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23 , (1992) 175 CLR 1(3 June 1992), High Court.
  4. ↑ Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia), Indigenous land rights and native title Archived 26 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine , retrieved 30 January 2012.
  5. 1 2 "Native Title". Australian Human Rights Commission. 27 November 2015. Retrieved 4 August 2020. CC-BY icon.svg Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. (Statement here.)
  6. ↑ "Native Title Reports". Australian Human Rights Commission. 29 November 2015. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  7. ↑ "Social Justice and Native Title Reports". Australian Human Rights Commission. 1 August 2019. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  8. ↑ Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth).
  9. ↑ Wik Peoples v Queensland [1996] HCA 40 , (1996) 187 CLR 1(23 December 1996), High Court.
  10. ↑ Bartlett, Richard (December 1992). "The Aboriginal Land which May Be Claimed at Common Law: Implications of Mabo" (PDF). University of Western Australia Law Review. 22 (2): 287–290. Retrieved 8 December 2022.
  11. ↑ Fagan, David; Kennedy, Fiona (9 January 1997). "State orders rural freeze over Wik". The Australian.
  12. ↑ Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 at para. 474, (2002) 213 CLR 1, High Court (Australia)
  13. ↑ Creyke, Robin (2021). Laying Down the Law (11 ed.). Australia: LexisNexis. p. 86. ISBN   9780409351934.
  14. ↑ Campbell, Roderick; McPhedran, Ian (24 December 1996). "Ruling Turns Heat On PM". The Canberra Times. Fairfax Media.
  15. ↑ Bartlett, Richard (1 December 2019). Native Title in Australia (4 ed.). Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. p. 57. ISBN   9780409350920.
  16. ↑ Bartlett, Richard (1 December 2019). Native Title in Australia (4 ed.). Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. pp. 56–68. ISBN   9780409350920.
  17. ↑ Bartlett, Richard (1 December 2019). Native Title in Australia (4 ed.). Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. pp. 56–57. ISBN   9780409350920.
  18. ↑ Bartlett, Richard (1 December 2019). Native Title in Australia (4 ed.). Australia: LexisNexis Butterworths. p. 59. ISBN   9780409350920.
  19. ↑ Giles, Glenn (2002). "'Fair go'? Equality? The people's movement for reconciliation (ANTaR) and critical information literacy". The Australian Library Journal. 51 (3). Informa UK Limited: 203–218. doi: 10.1080/00049670.2002.10755989 . ISSN   0004-9670. S2CID   111838571.
  20. ↑ Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (29 September 1999). Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (A/54/18(SUPP)) (Report). United Nations. p. 7.
  21. ↑ Butt, Peter; Eagleson, Robert; Lane, Patricia (2001). Mabo, Wik & Native Title (4 ed.). Federation Press. p. 110. ISBN   1-86287-386-0.
  22. ↑ "Lateline: At Wik's End". Australia: ABC News. 2 July 1009. Archived from the original on 8 October 1999.
  23. ↑ Native Title Amendment Act 2007 (Cth).
  24. ↑ Native Title Amendment(Technical Amendments) Act 2007 (Cth).
  25. ↑ Frith, Angus (November 2008). "The 2007 Amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth): Technical Amendments or Disturbing the Balance of Rights?" (PDF).
  26. ↑ Clayton Utz – Amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 – some improvements for the energy and resources sector
  27. ↑ Native Title Amendment Act 2009 (Cth).
  28. ↑ "Native Title Amendment Act 2009 – Information sheet". Department of Social Security.
  29. ↑ Australian Local Government Association. Native Title Amendment Act 2009 Information Sheet (PDF).
  30. ↑ "Connection to Country: Review of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (ALRC Report 126)". ALRC. 4 June 2015. Retrieved 31 July 2020.
  31. ↑ "Summary of recommendations". ALRC. 22 May 2015. Retrieved 31 July 2020.
  32. ↑ "Native Title Act 1993". Federal Register of Legislation. Australian Government. Retrieved 31 July 2020.
  33. ↑ Western Australia v Commonwealth [1995] HCA 47 , (1995) 183 CLR 373, High Court.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.