|
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.
|
