Topic Three: 'A suspect interpretation of the Australian Government's action might argue that the Mabo Decision was in fact devastating to land rights as it was the original settlement in 1788. In this perspective, Mabo has failed to guarantee sovereignty to indigenous peoples and has reduced real political power. Critically discuss this assessment of native title in light of debates since 1992 over Indigenous land rights and/or Indigenous sovereignty. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The 1992 Mabo decision and subsequent developments to the Native Title Act could be compared in some ways to the devastating impact of the original land rights agreement in 1788. Although Mabo and the Native Title Act appear to guarantee land rights to indigenous communities, this was not the case and many events since 1992 demonstrate how harmful Mabo has been to indigenous communities. Indigenous community. The original intention of the Mabo decision may have been to restore land rights; however, events and incidents since 1992 demonstrate how harmful Mabo has been to the indigenous community. This essay will argue that, although some arguments suggest that Mabo has greatly helped indigenous communities for the better, the Mabo decision and the impact of the Native Title Act have had a devastating effect on indigenous land rights and sovereignty. First, this essay will demonstrate how Mabo only addressed the issue of land rights, yet did not recognize sovereignty, causing economic and cultural damage in many indigenous communities. Secondly, this essay will address the impact of the barriers and limitations created by the Native Title Act and the Mabo decision on Aboriginal agency and political power. Ultimately, this essay will argue that the Mabo decision failed to secure rights and sovereignty as native title is vulnerable being in the hands of the Crown, ultimately demonstrating how Mabo was used as a tool for the prevalence of white colonial rule over indigenous sovereignty . First, the Mabo decision only addressed the issue of land rights, but did not recognize indigenous sovereignty over their land and laws. In 1992, the Australian High Court issued its decision, stating that the Meriam indigenous people were the absolute beneficial owners of some parts of Australia's Murray Island; that indigenous groups could claim title and ownership of certain lands, overriding the colonial notion of terra nullius (Manwaring 1993, 177). However, as Manwaring (1993, 177) argues, the Mabo decision contained aspects that limited its practical effect in granting sovereignty to indigenous peoples. The overturning of terra nullius was simply limited to the recognition of indigenous ownership of the land, excluding their jurisdiction and sovereignty over the land, ultimately reducing indigenous political agency (Korosy 2008, 83). In contrast, Cullinane (2002, 18) argues that the Mabo decision brought indigenous people to the negotiating table on equal terms with the settler government and trading companies. However, the failure to recognize indigenous sovereignty in the Mabo case has led to economic harm in many indigenous communities, particularly due to the lack of compensation provided by the government. Watson (1993, 7) argues that the lack of compensation is an issue that demonstrates the lack of sovereignty granted to indigenous peoples through the Mabo decision. An example that demonstrates how damaging the Mabo e decision wasthe Native Title Act on indigenous communities since 1992 is the case of the city-forest divide between the towns of Roeburne and Karratha (Langton 2010, 1). Langton (2010) uses the case of Roeburne and Karratha to demonstrate how devastating the Mabo case was and the lack of sovereignty and compensation afforded to indigenous peoples. The lack of sovereignty has meant that the large indigenous community of Roeburne, a poor town next to thriving Karratha, has little to bargain for when dealing with the large mining companies that use their land (Langton 2010). Furthermore, due to the lack of compensation awarded, the indigenous community of Roeburn has suffered economically, especially as the cost of living is increasing due to the presence of the mining company (Langton 2010). Furthermore, O'Fairchealleigh (2006, 12) argues that while some Aboriginal communities have benefited in some ways from the Mabo Decision by having greater control over land, the Native Title Act often provides little protection of their rights and other unconventional means are required to negotiate. Halloran (2007, 2) states that there has been a change in the level of understanding of Indigenous land rights and the need for reconciliation in Australian society, however this has not manifested itself or led to better outcomes for Indigenous communities. The lack of economic growth, largely due to the inadequacy of the Mabo decision to guarantee the sovereignty and economic benefits of mining, has led to greater poverty and loss of political power within these communities, phenomena that can be compared to the devastation of the original settlements. the lack of sovereignty and political power recognized in the Mabo decision has led to much cultural damage. Yunupingu (1998) described the invisibility of their indigenous law in the eyes of white law. For example, Yunupingu (1998, 238-239) tells a story that demonstrates the damage that white law and the issue of sovereignty have on their culture; where a mining company in their community was about to destroy a tree on their land, however this tree was the heart of their country and culture and was destroyed as the Yunupingu community had no agency. The lack of sovereignty and political power held by this indigenous community demonstrates the lack of agency that native title provides indigenous peoples. Second, the barriers and limitations created by the Mabo decision have negatively impacted other indigenous people's claims to land rights, limiting their options. sovereignty and political power in the process. Manwaring (1993, 188-189) argues that the requirements for claiming native title make it very difficult for indigenous peoples to obtain such claims. Requirements, such as having to demonstrate that the traditional connection has been maintained from the original settlement to the present day, are unrealistic and constitute major obstacles to claiming native title (Manwaring 1993, 189). As a result of these barriers, only a small number of indigenous groups and people have been able to provide sufficient evidence showing that they still maintain the traditional connection, particularly those indigenous peoples who were dispossessed during the original settlement or during the 20th century (Watson 1993, 7). The difficulty of overcoming these barriers and demonstrating that their connection to the land is the same as two centuries ago demonstrates the lack of political power that the Mabo decision gave to indigenous peoples, ultimately undermining their sovereignty and ownership of the land. Earth. As argued by Keon-Cohen (2012, 27), land rights are unattainable for many communities because the previoussettler denial regime is still in place. Furthermore, O'Fairchealleigh (2006, 12) argues that the economic cost and cultural differences in obtaining title to land constitute a major barrier for many indigenous groups. Many indigenous communities live in poverty and are therefore often unable to afford the lengthy process, particularly when many fail to obtain title or sovereignty. Cultural differences in providing evidence also act as a barrier; white courts and government generally do not accept oral evidence over written evidence in recording traditional connection to the land, thus disempowering Indigenous agency, placing settler culture and norms above Indigenous traditions (Alford 1999). Furthermore, the Yorta Yorta tribe's native title case can be used to demonstrate the impact and limitations created by the Mabo decision and the Native Title Act on indigenous rights and agency. Korosy (2008, 82) argues that the overturning of terra nullius in the Mabo decision was limited simply to the recognition of land rights and excluded the recognition of indigenous sovereignty over the land. The notion of terra nullius, however, was eventually replaced by “tide of history” in the Yorta Yorta case (Atkinson 2001, 233). In the Yorta Yorta case, the indigenous Yorta Yorta tribe claimed rights and ownership to the land, however their claim was rejected by the courts stating that any traditional connection to the nineteenth century land had been swept away by the tide. of history” (Atkinson 2001, 233). Atkinson (2001, 234-235) finally argues that the Yorta Yorta case highlights the betrayal and lack of rights guaranteed by the Mabo decision, where the barriers in place act to secure the interests of the white government and commercial corporations. Ultimately, as argued by Strelein (2006, 226), the level of intolerance and injustice in the justice system placed an undue burden on many Indigenous people to demonstrate their ongoing connection. Furthermore, the lack of access to lands and culture has simply exacerbated rates of unemployment, alcoholism, and dysfunction in indigenous communities (Hill 1995, 317). Mabo and its evidentiary requirements that act as barriers to claiming ownership of land, as demonstrated in cases such as the Yorta Yorta case, ultimately demonstrate the negative impact that the Mabo decision has had on indigenous agency and political power. Third, as a result of the Mabo decision, the Native Title Act is vulnerable in the hands of the white government, more often than not failing to protect the rights of indigenous peoples and limiting their sovereignty; ultimately demonstrating how the Native Title Act was used as a tool for white settler control over indigenous sovereignty. Manwaring (1993, 188) argues that the Mabo case placed the issue of indigenous land rights and sovereignty in the judicial arena, meaning that their rights were made vulnerable by being placed in the hands of the courts and government. For example, while the people of the Meriam tribe following the Mabo decision gained title to their land, their ownership and sovereignty were ultimately subject to the government's decision to extinguish their title through a valid exercise of powers (Manwaring 1993 , 188). The fact that native title is subject to government extinction on the basis of economic and political interests ultimately demonstrates how white power is prevalent and overbearing over indigenous sovereignty (Watson 1993, 7). As a consequence of the vulnerability of Native Title, Korosy (2008, 84) argues that the government has been able to choose the extent to which white law will govern indigenous communities and their rights; in.