Timeline+of+Native+Title

//Further information//: [|Analysis of the Mabo decision] by Australian Government Solicitor. A summary of the public debate following the decision can be found in the Parliamentary Library Background Paper [|The Mabo Debate: A Chronology], vol. 23, 1993. || //Further information//: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, [|Native Title Report January–June 1994]. || //Further information//: [|Native Title Facts], a series of fact sheets about native title in Australia as it is administered under the //Native Title Act 1993;// [|Short guide to native title]. || //Further information//: [|Wik: the aftermath and implications], articles from the University of NSW Law Journal; [|The Wik Peoples v the State of Queensland], analysis by the Australian Government Solicitor. || //Further information:// ATSIC, [|//Detailed Analysis of the Native Title Amendment Act//]. || //Further information:// Lisa Strelein, '[|Extinguishment and the Nature of Native Title, Fejo v Northern Territory]', //Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title//, no. 27, February 1999. || //Further information:// Australia. Parliament. Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, [|Consistency of the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 with Australia's international obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)]. || //Further information:// [|High Court upholds bush tucker rights], Analysis of Yanner v Eaton (Parliamentary Library Research Note no. 11, 1999). || //Further information:// Gary D Meyers, '[|The Content of Native Title: Questions for the Miriuwung Gajerrong Appeal]', //Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title//, vol. 2, no. 7, November 2000. || //Further information:// AIATSIS Native Title Research Unit, [|Sea Rights Resource Page: The Croker Island Decision and Native Title Offshore]. ||
 * Milestones || Details ||
 * 28–30 August 1981 || Townsville Treaty Conference at James Cook University discussed strategies for bringing about a definitive High Court decision on land rights. Koiki (Eddie) Mabo (1937–92), then living in Townsville, spoke at the conference about land rights in the Torres Strait. Papers and discussion from the conference were published in E. Olbrei (ed.), //Black Australians: the prospects for change//, 1982. ||
 * 20 May 1982 || Eddie Mabo, Dave Passi and James Rice brought an action against the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth claiming 'native title' to the Murray Islands. ||
 * 1985 || In an attempt to pre-empt the case, the Queensland Parliament passes the //Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act// extinguishing retrospectively the Islanders' claimed rights to the Murray Islands. ||
 * 27 February 1986 || Constitutional validity of the //Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985// challenged in the High Court. ||
 * December 1988 || High Court in [|Mabo v. Queensland (No. 1) (1988) 166 CLR 186]finds //Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act// invalid because it is inconsistent with the //Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)//. As a result the original Mabo proceedings could continue. ||
 * 21 January 1992 || Edward Koiki Mabo died in Brisbane. ||
 * 3 June 1992 || High Court in [|Mabo And Others v. Queensland (No. 2) (1992) 175 CLR1] recognises native title is part of Australian land law. Native title continues in cases where Indigenous people have an on-going connection with their traditional lands as determined by their own laws and customs, and an act of the Crown has not extinguished these rights.
 * 19 December 1993 || Parliament enacts the [|//Native Title Act 1993.//] It addresses the consequences of recognising native title for past actions by governments and sets up rules for future dealings in native title land and waters. The legislation followed lengthy debate and negotiations between Indigenous stakeholders, governments, pastoralists and the mining industry.
 * 19 December 1993 || Parliament enacts the [|//Native Title Act 1993.//] It addresses the consequences of recognising native title for past actions by governments and sets up rules for future dealings in native title land and waters. The legislation followed lengthy debate and negotiations between Indigenous stakeholders, governments, pastoralists and the mining industry.
 * January 1994 || //Native Title Act// (NTA) commences operation, [|National Native Title Tribunal] (NNTT) established and Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRBs) recognised in law.
 * January 1994 || //Native Title Act// (NTA) commences operation, [|National Native Title Tribunal] (NNTT) established and Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRBs) recognised in law.
 * March 1995 || High Court in [|Western Australia v. Commonwealth] rejects Western Australia's constitutional challenge to the //Native Title Act// and invalidates Western Australian Government's attempt to enact legislation that offered less protection of Indigenous rights. ||
 * 1995 || [|Indigenous Land Corporation] (ILC) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund established. The ILC's main functions are to assist Indigenous peoples in Australia to acquire land and to manage indigenous-held land in a sustainable way to provide cultural, social, economic or environmental benefits for themselves and for future generations. ||
 * 1996 || The first resolution of a native title claim for mainland Australia involving the Dunghutti people of Crescent Head and the New South Wales government. ||
 * December 1996 || High Court decides in [|Wik Peoples v Queensland] that native title is not necessarily extinguished by the grant of a pastoral lease and that native title can co-exist with other interests in land.
 * December 1996 || High Court decides in [|Wik Peoples v Queensland] that native title is not necessarily extinguished by the grant of a pastoral lease and that native title can co-exist with other interests in land.
 * 8 May 1997 || Howard Government releases [|Amended Wik ten point plan] foreshadowing major amendments to the NTA (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet). ||
 * 1997 || [|Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR)], a coalition of non-government organisations and concerned citizens, formed. ||
 * 6–8 July 1998 || After two long parliamentary debates in late 1997 and early 1998, 293 amendments and a compromise agreement between the government and Senator Brian Harradine, the [|//Native Title Amendment Act 1998//] is passed. The Act makes substantial changes to the future act regime, the registration test, the validation provisions, the relative roles of the Federal Court and the NNTT, the statutory regulation of NTRBs and the law on Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs).
 * 6–8 July 1998 || After two long parliamentary debates in late 1997 and early 1998, 293 amendments and a compromise agreement between the government and Senator Brian Harradine, the [|//Native Title Amendment Act 1998//] is passed. The Act makes substantial changes to the future act regime, the registration test, the validation provisions, the relative roles of the Federal Court and the NNTT, the statutory regulation of NTRBs and the law on Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs).
 * 6 July 1998 || A Federal Court judge in [[[|http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/1998/771.html|Yarmirr] v Northern Territory [1998] 771 FCA]] finds that native title exists over the entire area of sea and sea-bed claimed in the Croker Island case. However the rights granted were 'non-exclusive' and 'non-commercial' and the decision was appealed. ||
 * 10 September 1998 || High Court confirms that the grant of freehold extinguishes native title in [|Fejo v Northern Territory].
 * 10 September 1998 || High Court confirms that the grant of freehold extinguishes native title in [|Fejo v Northern Territory].
 * September 1998 || The National Native Title Tribunal's first national audit of native title agreements reveals that over the previous five years more than [|1200 agreements] had been struck between Indigenous groups and miners, pastoralists, industry bodies and governments. ||
 * 24 November 1998 || Justice Lee, of the Federal Court, in the [|Miriuwung Gajerrong] judgment upholds a native title claim to 7900 square kilometres of the east Kimberley region, Western Australia, and across the border into the Northern Territory. The judgment was notable for the broad scope of the native title rights confirmed. ||
 * 18 December 1998 || Justice Olney, of the Federal Court, in [|Yorta Yorta v Victoria [1998]] judgment determines that native title did not exist over Crown land and water in the claim area along the Murray River in New South Wales/Victoria. He said the 'tide of history' had washed away the Yorta Yorta's traditional laws and customs and thus any claim to recognition of native title. ||
 * 18 March 1999 || The United Nation's Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which monitors compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), [|expresses concern] about several key amendments to the Native Title Act in its Decision 2(54) on Australia.
 * 18 March 1999 || The United Nation's Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which monitors compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), [|expresses concern] about several key amendments to the Native Title Act in its Decision 2(54) on Australia.
 * July 1999 || [|Australian Government rejects CERD Committee's March 1999 decision] claiming 'there is no breach of the Convention by the Native Title Act'. ||
 * August 1999 || The CERD Committee, in Decision 2(55) on Australia, reaffirms the findings of its March decision. ||
 * August 1999 || Northern Territory's alternative right to negotiate procedures, enacted under Northern Territory law and approved by the Commonwealth Minister, are disallowed by the Senate under disallowance powers given to both Houses of Parliament in the Native Title Act. Once disallowance occurs the provisions of the Native Title Act re-apply. ||
 * 7 October 1999 || High Court decision [|Yanner v Eaton] finds that statutory vesting in Queensland of property in fauna did not extinguish native title rights to take crocodiles for traditional purposes.
 * 7 October 1999 || High Court decision [|Yanner v Eaton] finds that statutory vesting in Queensland of property in fauna did not extinguish native title rights to take crocodiles for traditional purposes.
 * 3 December 1999 || Commonwealth appeal against Croker Island native title claim dismissed by the full Federal Court in [[[|http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/1999/1668.html|Commonwealth] v Yarmirr [1999] FCA 1668]]. In the same case, the claimant group also loses its appeal on question of recognising their //exclusive// rights off shore. ||
 * February 2000 || New South Wales's alternative procedures for opal mining at Lightning Ridge under section 26C of the NTA commence operation after surviving Senate scrutiny. ||
 * September 2000 || Queensland's alternative procedures under section 26A (low impact exploration) and section 43 of the Native Title Act commence operation after meeting Senate approval. Procedures under section 26B and section 43A were disallowed by the Senate under disallowance powers given to both Houses of Parliament in the Native Title Act. ||
 * November 2000 || Senate disallows Western Australia's proposed alternative right to negotiate scheme under section 43A of the Native Title Act. ||
 * December 2000 || New South Wales's alternative procedures for low-impact exploration under section 26A of the Native Title Act commence operation after surviving Senate scrutiny. ||
 * March 2001 || High Court reserves its decision in //Miriuwung Gajerrong// test case, a case expected to clarify strength of native title and the law on extinguishment of native title.
 * March 2001 || High Court reserves its decision in //Miriuwung Gajerrong// test case, a case expected to clarify strength of native title and the law on extinguishment of native title.
 * 11 April 2001 || Full Federal Court in [|Lardil v Queensland] confirms serious flaws in the protection offered by future act regime to registered native title claimants. ||
 * 11 October 2001 || High Court in [|Commonwealth v Yarmirr [2001 HCA 56]] (Croker Island case) finds native title to exist over the entire area of sea and sea-bed which was claimed. The decision confirms that the common law can recognise native title offshore but rejects applicants' claim to exclusive rights.
 * 11 October 2001 || High Court in [|Commonwealth v Yarmirr [2001 HCA 56]] (Croker Island case) finds native title to exist over the entire area of sea and sea-bed which was claimed. The decision confirms that the common law can recognise native title offshore but rejects applicants' claim to exclusive rights.
 * 14 December 2001 || High Court grants claimants in [|Yorta Yorta] case special leave to appeal against Federal Court decision that the 'tide of history' has washed away their traditional connection and native title rights. ||
 * 8 February 2002 || Federal Court, in [|Central Queensland Land Council Aboriginal Corporation v Attorney-General (Cth) and Qld]**,** finds Commonwealth approval of Queensland alternative procedures under section 43 of the Native Title Act invalid. Rejects challenges to alternative right to negotiate procedures approved under section 26A of the Native Title Act. ||
 * 30 April 2002 || Eddie Mabo's widow, Bonita Mabo, calls for a national public holiday on the anniversary of the High Court's decision. (AAP 30 April 2002.) ||
 * 30 April 2002 || Eddie Mabo's widow, Bonita Mabo, calls for a national public holiday on the anniversary of the High Court's decision. (AAP 30 April 2002.) ||