ans, are three times as likely to be alcoholic, be in jail or commit suicide. In place of Aboriginal concentration, youth unemployment among Aborigines is estimated at 85 percent” (Mohan 1).
Mining and other development has continually put pressure on aboriginal land. Aboriginals have fought for self-determination with little success over the years. Further, the John Howard government is unwilling to discuss aboriginal self-determination let alone their rights to land. Howard’s administration in both terms was an often hostile attacked aimed at Aboriginal institutions. However, in order to understand what rights to land Aborigines possess, one must understand two recent court judgments that, while seemingly disconnected, give validation to Aboriginal Australians’ rights to ancestral lands. The first case decided by the High Court is known as the Mabo case, wherein the High Court ruled that indigenous peoples’ rights to land belong side-by-side with the rights of the crown, “The basis of crown ownership is in the feudal doctrine that the ruler is the ultimate owner of the land and that others hold ownership at his or her pleasure. Though this was a piece of legal fiction in late 18th Century England, it was taken from the shelf and dusted off for use in colonizing Australia. By the fact of occupation, the crown acquired radical title over the whole land, which had hitherto been ‘Terra Nullis’ or land belonging to none” (Mohan 1-2). Subsequently, the government disposed of these lands as they saw fit in the name of the crown and civilization. One can see what kind of wide leeway this granted the government over the Aboriginals la
...