|
Case Study: INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS
- Around 300,000 people were living in Australia when Europeans
arrived, yet the colonisers treated the land as if it belonged
to no one.
- Not until 1992 did the Australian law courts recognise "native
title".
- Despite advances over land ownership, the UN has stated
that Aborigines still face discrimination in other areas.
Analysis
When the British arrived in Australia in 1788 they saw a vast
empty territory that was ripe for colonisation and despite the
presence of an estimated 300,000 aborigines the land was judged
to belong to no one.
The indigenous inhabitants were looked upon
as savages who could not be trusted to own land and in any case
were nomadic, not staying in any one spot long enough to lay
claim to it. This attitude towards the aboriginal people remained
largely unchanged until relatively recently.
It was not until June 1992 that the High Court
of Australia ruled that aborigines could lay claim to 'Native
title' over the lands they had inhabited for generations. The
Mabo judgement as it was called, which later became the Native
Title Act of 1993, overturned the previously held legal definition
of 'terra nullis', that the land belonged to no one until the
British arrived.
The judgement found that native title to land
had existed back in 1788 and continued to this day as long as
it had not been quashed by acts of government and that indigenous
groups had continued to observe their traditional customs and
laws.
Some aboriginal groups claim the Government
still has far to go in restoring full rights to indigenous Australians.
Although they now have equal rights when it comes to owning
land, a United Nations report claimed they continue to be disadvantaged
in employment, housing, health and education.
The Australian government was incensed by the
report and claimed the UN was concentrating on relatively minor
issues in democratic countries like Australia, while ignoring
more serious abuses in others. It has retaliated by announcing
controversial restrictions on future visits by United Nations
human rights inspectors.
As this case shows, communal and individual
property rights are an important issue of debate and sometimes
conflict, not only in Australia but in many other parts of the
world.
|
