Search results

Australia is a wealthy nation. In 2003, Australia ranked fourth in the United Nations Human Development Index (1) indicating Australians enjoyed one of the highest qualities of life in the world. Overall, Australia ranks equal fourth with the highest life expectancy at birth (79.0 years) suggesting Australians are among the healthiest people in the world. (2)

Human rights principles require that Indigenous people's relationships to land, based on traditional laws and customs, be given legal recognition and protection. International legal principles also recognise that Indigenous peoples have economic, social and cultural human rights. Native title, as it is constructed through the Australian legal system, has a limited capacity to meet these human rights standards.

State, Territory and Commonwealth native title policies (1) direct the way in which governments conduct negotiations with native title claimant groups and the scope and content of the agreements they make as a result of these negotiations. Such policies may influence whether negotiations will be confined to native title rights and interests as they are legally defined, or whether they address the broader economic and social development needs of the claimant group.

The failure in Australia to perceive native title and land rights as the basis on which to address Indigenous economic and social development has been evident at legal, policy and administrative levels. Legally, the increasingly narrow interpretation of native title by the High Court has, as Noel Pearson has pointed out, stripped native title of much economic meaning or benefit.

The year under review in this, my fourth Native Title Report, is a year in which the High Court has handed down its decision in several significant native title cases thus elucidating the principles upon which the recognition and extinguishment of native title are determined. 2002 marks the end of a ten year period since the Mabo decision [1] first introduced the dual concepts of recognising and extinguishing native title.

Native title is an intersection of two different legal systems and cultures. The way in which Australia chooses to give recognition to the relationship that Indigenous people have with their land, and the range of options it considers to express that relationship, are matters that affect the human rights of Indigenous people.

The two recent High Court decisions in Miriuwung Gajerrong [1] and Wilson v Anderson [2] have clarified some important issues regarding the extinguishment of native title under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (‘NTA’) and its relationship with extinguishment under the common law. They also provide some important insights into the meaning of discrimination as it responds to the specific issues raised by the recognition of native title, a proprietary interest which is inherent to a particular racial group.

The resolution of the debate as to whether the extinguishment of native title by the common law and the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (‘NTA’) is racially discriminatory, depends upon the interpretation given to its two essential components: extinguishment and discrimination. The interpretation that the High Court has given to the extinguishment provisions of the NTA and its relationship with the common law was the subject of the chapter 2. It is to the second of these components, the meaning of discrimination as it applies to the extinguishment of native title, that I now turn.

The reasoning of the High Court in Wilson v Anderson [1] and Miriuwung Gajerrong [2] provides a comprehensive analysis of the operation of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (‘NTA’). It is detailed and legally complex. In discussing NSW crown land legislation, Justice Kirby made the following observation about the NTA and the native title system:

In the past 12 months the High Court has handed down several significant decisions which clarified the principles upon which the recognition and extinguishment of native title are determined. These principles are set out and discussed in the first three chapters of this report. In clarifying these principles, some of the Judges of the High Court have been mindful of their effect on Indigenous people.

Miriuwung Gajerrong [1] reiterates the principles which guide the High Court’s interpretation of whether laws of the Commonwealth, State or Territory are discriminatory under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cwlth) (‘RDA’), particularly as they apply to legislation which authorises dealings with land. These principles are based on the High Court’s decisions in Gerhardy v Brown, [2] Mabo (No 1), [3] and Western Australia v The Commonwealth [4] (‘Native Title Act Case’). The key principles are set out below.

It is important to note that most tenures and interests continue to affect native title even after they have ceased. So, for instance, an area of land may currently be unallocated crown land, but all previous tenures/interests in that land will have permanently affected, and possibly extinguished, native title rights (unless the land comes within the few exceptions under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (‘NTA’) – sections 47, 47A & 47B). The following table summarises tenures examined in Miriuwung Gajerrong [1] and Wilson v Anderson. [2]

In the High Court’s formulation of native title in Mabo (No 2), [1] delivered on 3 June 1992, it was made clear that in the past, governments could validly grant interests in land that would extinguish native title. These grants could be made without payment of compensation to native title holders. [2] At least that was as far as the common law was concerned. The Court did not need to consider the effect of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cwlth) (‘RDA’) on laws and grants after the RDA came into force on 31 October 1975.

The Social Justice Report 2002 discusses initiatives currently underway or in development at the federal, state and territory levels in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. The report commends the following positive developments in Indigenous policy:

This document is intended to provide a brief overview of the main findings of the Social Justice Report 2002. See the executive summary of the report for a more detailed description of the reports findings.

Native title was recognised by the High Court, nearly ten years ago, on 3 June 1992. The Mabo decision [1] gave recognition to the unique and profound relationship that Indigenous people have always had with their land.

The 'right to negotiate' is a fundamental right assured by the Commonwealth Native Title Act (the 'NTA') and reflected in international human rights standards. Yet in practice the capacity of native title parties to exercise their 'right to negotiate' is determined by factors other than the mere existence of the right. Given the primary role of state and territory governments in land administration, their policies regarding the administration of the right to negotiate have a significant impact on native title parties' capacity to exercise their 'right to negotiate'.

The recognition and protection of native title and the participation of Indigenous people in decisions affecting their land are critical priorities within a human rights framework.

A stable and enduring basis for a dynamic and long term relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people over land is emerging through negotiation and agreement-making. Native title agreements are increasingly seen as an important tool in defining the rights of native title holders over their land. But here, as in other aspects of native title, there is concern that there are currently no mechanisms to safeguard human rights principles. Substantive, just and equitable outcomes are only achieved if there are minimum standards in place to recognize and protect these principles.

back to contents Native Title Report 2001 Appendix 1: Compiled Recommendations Chapter One - The right to negotiate and human rights That state and territory government departments administering the issue of future act notifications develop strategic plans, in consultation with NTRBs, with the aim of improving the efficiency of their administrative practices. The manner and rate of administering ...