news | action | information | events | contact | search | news | action | information | events | contact | search |
key indigenous australian issues
| home | news lAustralian judge rules against Aboriginal land claim2 November 2002 - Aborigines yesterday lost their first attempt in court to regain control over part of the state of South Australia, as a judge ruled they had lost their spiritual connection to the land. Ten men and women from the Yankunytjatjara community lodged their claim six years ago to 1,800 sq km contained in the De Rose Hill cattle station in the state's far north. The Aborigines based their claim on traditional native title rights and said their demand for access to and use of the land would not conflict with cattle-raising activities. The claim was opposed by the state government and the owner of the De Rose Hill station, and yesterday a federal judge sided with them. Justice Maurice O'Loughlin said that two months of hearings and testimony, failed to support the Aborigines' claim to have maintained spiritual or physical links to the land. "The occasional hunting of kangaroos, whilst no doubt traditional, stands out in isolation. No other physical or spiritual activity has taken place in the last 20 years or so," he said. "There has been a breakdown in the acknowledgment of the traditional laws and in the observance of the traditional customs. That breakdown is fatal to their application." Parry Agius, from the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, said the indigenous elders involved in the case would be hard hit by the ruling. "I think it will cut them up," hesaid. "The claimants have shown to the court their connection with the country, their lifestyle, their interest in the land and the reason why the land is important to them. But we're dealing with a system that makes judgment on what they can see, not on what they can feel." Aborigines, who today account for about 400,000 of Australia's population of 18 million, have lodged several high-profile title claims, with mixed success. In September they regained control of a sweep of desert in Western Australia the size of England in the biggest hand-back of territory yet, and Aborigines have also won back ownership of Uluru, a sacred Aboriginal site formerly known as Ayers Rock. But many other ownership bids have been rejected, and in September a judge ruled that no native title right could extend to underground mineral or oil reserves.
Native Title body blow ATSIC 1 November 2002 - The Federal Court judgement dismissing Native Title over De Rose Hill Station in South Australia's far north is a body blow for Indigenous rights in SA, ATSIC's SA Zone Commissioner Brian Butler said today. "The decision, which comes after eight years of legal argument will shock and astonish many of our people," Commissioner Butler said. "During case hearings, the court visited sites of significance on De Rose Hill Station and Aboriginal people sang songs, dances were performed and the importance of Tjukurpa (the Dreaming) was explained. "In his summary of finding Justice O'Loughlin found Native Title had not been extinguished by historical events and that spiritual connection to land is a valid way to identify the retention of Native Title. "Yet, despite this body of Aboriginal evidence, backed by expert linguistic, anthropological, historical and archaeological advice, the court has dismissed the claim for Native Title. "In essence Justice O'Loughlin has ruled that if you have been physically absent from an area that is culturally significant to you for 20 years and not practised your culture on site then your culture and spiritual beliefs have broken down. "I wonder what, Greek, Italian, German or other people who migrated to Australia 20 years ago would say about this finding - have they lost their spiritual and cultural connection to their original country too? "Aboriginal people will be grieving over this finding - their connection to the land-- their mother-- has been legally severed at the stroke of a pen." Commissioner Butler said many Aboriginal people were angered during the course of the case by the position adopted by the former Liberal Government. "The then government argued for blanket extinguishment of Native Title rights in SA while at the same time trying to promote land use agreements as the way to go," he added. "This Jekyll and Hyde approach has got us nowhere. "It was made even more futile by the fact that virtually since European settlement in this State, the SA pastoral regime has always included specific Indigenous access rights clauses in pastoral leases. "The only bright light in this judgement is that it still appears to support the view that Native Title can co-exist with pastoral leases in SA. "This judgement is a strong reality check for all parties to work to avoid litigation and negotiate real outcomes which benefit all Indigenous and non-Indigenous South Australians. "It was not the choice or desire of the claimants to resolve this application through litigation. "I now call on the Rann Government to now sit down and negotiate with Aboriginal people in the State about resolving their unmet land needs. "Today's judgement has clearly demonstrated what Indigenous people have been saying for years - that Native Title resolutions should be negotiated not litigated. BACKGROUND: De Rose Hill is an isolated pastoral lease of 1,800 square kilometres in the far north of SA just below the northern Territory border and adjacent to the vast Pitjantjatjara Lands. Historically pastoral leases in SA have included an Indigenous access clause. De Rose Hill was specifically chosen to test the effect of these Indigenous access clauses in relation to Native Title in SA. The case first went before the Federal Court in SA in 1994. Source: ATSIC Ramifications of native title test case still unknown November 1, 2002 - The Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement says today's landmark decision on native title in the Federal Court in Adelaide will make other claimants stop and think. Justice Maurice O'Loughlin rejected a claim on the De Rose Hill cattle station in South Australia's remote north-west. The executive officer of the movement's native title unit, Parry Agius, says the decision augurs badly for other claimants. "This is the first case in South Australia, all other cases now will have to think seriously about how we approach it," he said. Mr Agius says it will be very difficult to face his elders and tell them the court did not recognise their spiritual connection with the land. Meanwhile, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee of the South Australian Farmers Federation, Kent Martin, says while it is a landmark decision, it is too early to assess the ramifications. "Very significant and we'd like to congratulate the Fuller family, I guess, on their victory," he said. "But we've only just received notification of this ruling and we'd certainly be seeking more advice on its implications and how it affects native title claims and native title issues in general." Source: ABC News Native title claim rejected By Tim Dornin 1 November 2002 - THE Federal Court today rejected a native title claim on a South Australian cattle station - the first to be determined over SA land. Justice Maurice O'Loughlin ruled against the claim over the 1865 square-kilometre De Rose Hill station in the state's far north, six years to the day after it first came before the court. Justice O'Loughlin said the claimants had lost both their spiritual and physical connection with the land. His decision left Aboriginal groups disappointed, with a spokesman accusing the court of choosing to believe only what it could see. An appeal against the decision was likely, he said. The claim on De Rose Hill was brought by 10 Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal men and woman who claimed traditional ownership of the land, or "nguraritja". They wanted recognition of the right to possess, occupy, use and enjoy the land and waters and the right to access, maintain and protect places of importance under traditional laws and customs. They said those rights could co-exist with the pastoral operations on the property. However, their claim was opposed by both the state government and station owner Doug Fuller. It went to trial in June last year, with the court sitting for 69 days and taking evidence from 26 Aboriginal people and visiting 13 sites at De Rose Hill. In his decision today, Justice O'Loughlin said Aboriginal witnesses claimed to have retained some affinity with the land. "However, their actions belie their words," he said. "The occasional hunting of kangaroos, whilst no doubt traditional, stands out in isolation. "No other physical or spiritual activity has taken place in the last 20 years or so. "The claimants have lost their spiritual as well as their physical connection and, because of that loss, there has been a breakdown in the acknowledgment of the traditional laws and in the observance of the traditional customers. That breakdown is fatal to their application." Outside the court, Parry Agius, from the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, said it would be tough to tell the Aboriginal elders involved that their spiritual connection with the land had not be recognised. "I think it will cut them up," he said. "The claimants have shown to the court their connection with the country, their lifestyle, their interest in the land and the reason why the land is important to them. "But we're dealing with a system that makes judgment on what they can see, not on what they can feel." Mr Agius said the ruling would prompt Aboriginal groups to rethink how they approached future claims in South Australia. He also criticised the court for only giving the claimants 48 hours notice of the decision, which had not allowed them enough time to travel to Adelaide. A spokesperson for the Fuller family was not available for comment today. Source: Herald Sun Court finds native title can exist on South Australian pastoral leases Media Release 1 November 2002 In the first court decision on native title in South Australia, the Federal Court today found that native title may continue to exist on SA pastoral leases where Indigenous people can prove ongoing connection to their country. Justice Maurice O'Loughlin said, however, that the claimant group from the Yankunytjatjara People had lost their spiritual and physical connection to the claimed area which covered 1865 sq km of land and waters 1030 km north west of Adelaide. The claimants' pursuit of native title began in December 1994 when they lodged their claim with the National Native Title Tribunal. "While the court has shown today that some Aboriginal groups will not be able to meet the stringent legal requirements for establishing their native title, the judgment made it clear that native title may continue to exist on pastoral leases in South Australia," National Native Title Tribunal President Mr Graeme Neate said. Around 42 per cent of South Australia is covered by pastoral leases and most native title applications in SA cover current or former pastoral leases. "Native title may survive in relation to some pastoral land in South Australia but each case depends on the evidence," Mr Neate said. This case highlights that the onus is on the claimants to prove the nature and extent of their ongoing links to land. It demonstrates that, for a range of historical and social reasons, some groups will not be able to satisfy a court that they have native title." But Mr Neate said that native title laws were not the only way of meeting the land needs or aspirations of Indigenous people. "Where groups have a legitimate claim to land there are a number of options that they can explore to meet those needs. "The Native Title Act recognises that people may reach agreements that involve avenues other than native title such as land access and cultural maintenance agreements. "The Tribunal can assist people to negotiate practical and enduring outcomes that meet their requirements and circumstances." Source: National Native Title Tribunal related links :
|
a new |
|
