Do you support the recognition of Aborigines in the Australian constitution? (1 Viewer)

[Sathius005]

As a convict settlement in what was considered unoccupied land English law was to apply under the Doctrine of Reception. The high court decision in Mabo resulted in the high court deciding that Australia had been acquired by settlement and that Australia wasn't terra nullius at the time of settlement. This meant that Indigenous people had rights to native title under the common law which could not survive the grant of a pastoral lease. The Wik judgement states that pastoral leases and native title can coexist but in the events of a conflict the rights of the pastorlist prevails. The Australian constitution is an Act of the UK parliament that created the federal system. Should there be constitutional recognition of Aborigines?

 

[isildurrrr1]

looks like somebody is doing a law assignment.

 

[jdennis]

I'm not really sure why this question even needs asking to be honest.

 

[isildurrrr1]

I'm not really sure why this question even needs asking to be honest.

He's trying to be really smart by pulling some law extract about the constitutional question.

The sad thing about Australia is that most people have no idea about the consequences of terra nullius/settlement and its impact on native customary law (think common law for aborigines).

It's mostly about would aboriginal's life be better if we recognized them as the first people in the constitution.

 

[TheShepard256]

From what I learned in Year 11 Legal Studies, the purpose of the Constitution is to provide a framework for the laws set by the Australian Government. To me, acknowledging that a certain group of people arrived here 50,000 years before pretty much anyone else doesn't seem like something that should influence lawmaking in a fair/just society.