Talk:Native title
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Native title is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
|
|||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
[edit] 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)
[edit] Question.
Is the Native Title Act 1993 de facto granting of sovreign reinstatement of executive for the aboriginal people on the claimed land? Is sovreign status therefore granted because of the Mabo aknowledgement 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.
- 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)
- 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).
