The above case is a good example for Fijians i.e Indigenous or First Nation Peoples of Fiji to solidify their claims on what has been recently passed on their Native in Fiji as well as surrounding waters and environment.
We are informed, as we write, Fijians are unable to charge anyone fishing in their waters, within their 'Qoliqoli'.
With the Court Decision on the Mabo Case in Australia, Fijians can and ought to challenge the current Fiji Regime for implementing a policy that suffocates these Rural Fijians who depend on these resources for their survival.
More on this later. One thing is for sure, we intend to monitor and conduct an extensive research into the Fiji situation.
NaDina Fiji Truth Admin Team
Read more on Mabo Case or Blue-Mud-Bay Decision;
Native title describes the rights which Aboriginal people have to land and waters according to their customary laws, but viewed from and recognised by, the Australian legal system.
You can think of native title as a bridge between customary Aboriginal laws, which have existed for many thousands of years, and white Australian laws defined and observed by the invading British people.
Native title is tightly linked with a court case the Australian High Court had to deal with in 1982, called the Mabo case.
Native title and land rights are often used synonymously. While native title is an entitlement to land it does not cover the rights to that land.
“Native title puts traditional owners in a stronger position to negotiate agreements, manage their country, and set terms and conditions for access,” explains Kimberley Land Council acting chief executive Nolan Hunter [45]. “As a result of native title, governments and industry will be required to sit down at the table with traditional owners to enter into agreements before anything is done on country.”
State and territories have the primary responsibility to resolve native title claims. The system is funded by taxpayers’ money, and there are no penalties if claims are unsuccessful [54].
Native Title [is] one of the most complex and slowest parts of the justice system.—Tom Calma, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner [21]
What sort of evidence do claimants need?
Aboriginal groups claiming native title need to provide evidence about [59]
- their identity (which might include genealogies),
- their traditional language,
- their connection and responsibilities to country,
- their social and cultural system (law and custom which is acknowledged and observed),
- their rights and interests in land and water, and
- the relationship between the rights and interests and their law and custom.
Can native title take away my backyard?
Many people got a wrong idea of what native title is about and which land can be claimed under it. The media is not innocent about these wrong beliefs being very common. Take the test:
What land can be claimed by Aboriginal people under the Native Title Act?
Native title cannot be claimed when certain things have been done with the land, such as freehold grants, grants of exclusive possession, residential and other leases and public works like roads and hospitals [47].
When nine parks and reserves in South Australia were handed back to Aboriginal people,Central Land Council Director David Ross assured that “non-Aboriginal people who have previously enjoyed access to these parks have nothing to fear from the handback, but can be pleased that the custodians of these places now have a greater involvement in their care and protection.” [27]
Native title is no threat to non-indigenous interests.—Gary Highland, national director Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) [5]
The High Court’s Mabo ruling
The High Court took 10 years to decide. On 3rd June 1992 it ruled that
- The Crown had acquired a title to the land of Australia (meaning Australia as a land had been claimed by the Crown to belong to the white people). This title could not be challenged in court.
- The Aboriginal people are still entitled to a claim of their own.
- In certain cases the Aboriginal people’s claim could be voided (‘extinguished’) by events which have happened since the white people arrived and which broke the continued connection of Aboriginal people with their land.
- Most crucial of them all, the court rejected the notion of ‘terra nullius’.
Native title is extinguished through freehold or land leases, but native title continues to exist on Aboriginal reserves, vacant Crown land, stock routes and national parks, but only if the local system of traditional law recognises present owners or managers [1]. If native title was extinguished Aboriginal people have to be compensated.
To remember this important day in Aboriginal history, June 3rd is a bank holiday in the Torres Shire.
Native title is very important to us because it has allowed us to get our country back, to protect our spirits and sites, to go camping, hunting and fishing. Before native title we never had any recognition as traditional owners, we had no rights in our own country. Now we feel empowered.—Nyaparu Rose, Nyangumarta Elder, Western Australia [24]
Source: http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/land/native-title#ixzz3y9JS7BSD
No comments:
Post a Comment