Individual and collective rights -Australian Law

Question 1

Milirrpum v Nabalco Property Ltd(1971)

Answer 1

The Yolngu people could not prevent mining on their lands. Native title was not part of the law of Australia and even if it had existed , any native title rights were extinguished. Indigenous peoples’ relationship to the land is ‘more obligation than ownership’ ; it is ‘easier to say that the clan belongs to the land than that the land belongs to the clan’ . They preferred terra nullius

Question 2

Gerhardy v Brown(1985)

Answer 2

The Australian High Court found a local Act to be valid although it discriminates on racial grounds , since it was a “special measure “ to protect the cultural group concerned. A clan has a spiritual , cultural and social ‘identity’ with its traditional lands.

Question 3

Mabo v Queensland (No2) (1992)

Answer 3

The Australian High Court accepted it as impossible that Aboriginal people’s could be merely ‘trespassers on the land on which they and their ancestors had lived’ for tens and thousands of years , and recognised a property right based on clan membership to be exercised collectively.

Question 4

Australian Native Title Act 1993

Answer 4

Indigenous rights and interests to land , deriving from traditional laws and customs, were recognised.

Question 5

Griffiths v Northern Territory (2016)

Answer 5

The Federal Court ordered the government to pay 3.3m AUD for economic loss and for pain, suffering and less of amenity , caused by the impact of land grants and public works on land subject to native title

Question 6

Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1973)

Answer 6

Mr Taylor set up a platform in his property and charged people a certain amount to view the Victoria Park races from it. VPR sued for trespass.

It was held that there can be no property rights in a spectacle. Any profit is made from a premise is made so by charging entrance to an area. A person should not have to divert their eyes from something as you walk past it . The plaintiff could complain that the actions diminish their profits . However, this is a little different to Taylor setting up a racecourse next door .