Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Land Rights

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Land Rights

    I was doing a bit of reading the other day which brought me to a question which I don't know the answer to.

    "What is the difference between land rights legislation and the processes involved in native title claims?"

    is anyone able to answer that?

  • #2
    Red tape and a lot of whinging?
    AKA Lady Jonas

    Comment


    • #3
      Land rights and native title seem to be used interchangeably. Land rights seems to me to be an umbrella term, and allow people to both march on parliament and demand all sorts of silly stuff, or wilfully dismiss someone else's complaint that might be valid. Native title claims seem to be getting the notions into case law,

      Layman's (obviously unclear) grasp of the process. An applicant can put a case that they've had uninterrupted use and care for the land for a long time, and the guys who don't want them to have control over the land they've been using can come back and say, "no that's not true, I had a sheep here some time back."

      Guys in suits make a lot of money that's ultimately provided by the tax payer, and other guys in suits listen to their arguments and decide whether the applicants are indeed descended from a bunch of people who used and cared for the land for a long time, and whether that use of the land has been over ridden by progress. The second lot of guys in suits take a bunch more money from the tax payer. The tax payer keeps working and either a small numvber of white guys or a small number of black guys take control of the land and make use of it as they will. Mostly the white guys either dig it up and sell it to asia, or run sheep/ cows on it, or the black guys sit under a tree, eat a kangaroo, and see what happens.

      the same layman might guess what eventually happens is that the first lot of white guys pay the black guys a bunch of money, dig up the land and sell it to asia. The tax payer keeps working.
      www.hurtlegear.com.au

      Comment


      • #4
        They are not interchangeable. They are legally very different, however, Native title and Land rights both recognise the traditional rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' to land. Native title is based on traditional indigenous ownership of land and waters, while the Land rights is a legislative response by parliaments to those traditional rights. The National Native Title Tribunal has all the information you will need if you want to look into it further. I like Xavier Rudd but sometimes I think I am the "company man/greedy man/heartless man" he refers to in some of his songs!
        Spiral out, keep going...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Stu View Post
          They are not interchangeable. They are legally very different, however, Native title and Land rights both recognise the traditional rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' to land. Native title is based on traditional indigenous ownership of land and waters, while the Land rights is a legislative response by parliaments to those traditional rights. The National Native Title Tribunal has all the information you will need if you want to look into it further. I like Xavier Rudd but sometimes I think I am the "company man/greedy man/heartless man" he refers to in some of his songs!
          Which, I think, backs up what I was saying. They're actually pitched differently, one being a legislative and broad brush approach to the issue, and the other about specifics and case law. And for someone who doesn't spend the time getting knowledgable, both a bit inaccessible. I defer to your knowledge on it, and I'm happy to read what [MENTION=19953]Bowlen[/MENTION] eventually synthesises from his reading, save my own need for analysis.
          www.hurtlegear.com.au

          Comment


          • #6
            I should point out that I am not an expert on native title nor do I work directly in that field. But anyone who is involved with mining exploration companies, particularly in Western Australia, will cross both fairly regularly.
            Spiral out, keep going...

            Comment


            • #7
              as far as the local noongah people down here are concerned land rights gives them the right to use land under other people's or crown ownership, where native title gives them control of the land title....

              eg: the bunbury port is on public access land controlled by the crown and the bunbury council and port authority, but the noongah people have land rights allowing access to fishing at the rivermouth as it was traditional practice, the fact that the rivermouth has been moved in the construction of the port doesn't remove cultural significance of the practice.

              native title would mean they could take a share of revenues generated by the port operation.

              we also have the munda biddi trail and bibbulmun track criss crossing the south west and most of that is covered under aboriginal land rights but not native title.

              obviously just my understanding of it as a layman and there could be a lot more to it
              Do you remember the good old days before the internet?

              when arguments were only entered into by the physically or intellectually able.

              Comment

              Working...
              X