It is impossible to internalize another person’s point of view without climbing into their skin and walking around in their world. Too often, non-Aboriginals lack even the basic knowledge of the lives of indigenous people.
Aboriginal title refers to the inherent Aboriginal right to land or a territory. The Canadian legal system recognizes Aboriginal title as a sui generis, or unique collective right to the use of and jurisdiction over a group’s ancestral territories (indigenousfoundations).
Aborigines – Native title to land – Whether extinguished by annexation by Crown – Reception of common law in Australia – Effect on native title – Terra nulius – Whether doctrine applicable in Australia.
June 2016 marks two significant anniversaries for the relationship between Australia’s Indigenous and settler populations. June 12 was the 30th anniversary of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) publication of its report on Aboriginal Customary Laws; and June 3 marked 24 years since the Mabo ruling.
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (“Mabo case”)  HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR 1 (3 June 1992)
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MABO AND OTHERS v. QUEENSLAND (No. 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1
Aborigines – Constitutional Law – Real Property
MASON C.J. AND McHUGH J. We agree with the reasons for judgment of Brennan J. and with the declaration which he proposes.
2. In the result, six members of the Court (Dawson J. dissenting) are in agreement that the common law of this country recognizes a form of native title which, in the cases where it has not been extinguished, reflects the entitlement of the indigenous inhabitants, in accordance with their laws or customs, to their traditional lands and that, subject to the effect of some particular Crown leases, the land entitlement of the Murray Islanders in accordance with their laws or customs is preserved, as native title, under the law of Queensland. The main difference between those members of the Court who constitute the majority is that, subject to the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), neither of us nor Brennan J. agrees with the conclusion to be drawn from the judgments of Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ. that, at least in the absence of clear and unambiguous statutory provision to the contrary, extinguishment of native title by the Crown by inconsistent grant is wrongful and gives rise to a claim for compensatory damages. We note that the judgment of Dawson J. supports the conclusion of Brennan J. and ourselves on that aspect of the case since his Honour considers that native title, where it exists, is a form of permissive occupancy at the will of the Crown. Click here to read the full text->