81 0 obj<>stream For example, the classification of a country such as Australia was in 1788 as unoccupied territory (terra nullius) might well be incorrect if that classification had to be made by the standards of modern international law. Reminds. Whether Aboriginal groups could be said to have constituted nations (they were, of course, not a single nation), to have had sovereignty, or to have had a political organisation outside family organisation, has been the subject of considerable debate. The Governor of the colony, before 1824, had made a land grant that CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONS OF AUSTRALIAS - Murdoch The reassessment now of Australias status as a settled colony would not as such bring about appropriate forms of recognition. That debate is of great importance, quite apart from any specifically legal consequences it may have. WebJ. 0000036526 00000 n Spanning the centuries from Hammurabi to Hume, and collecting material on topics from art and economics to law and political theory, the OLL provides you with a rich variety of texts to explore and consider. As he points out, if Australia had been regarded as conquered, no Aboriginal rights would have been enforceable against the Crown without recognition by the Crown (which did not occur); even the application of Aboriginal customary laws as between Aborigines themselves would have been excluded because those laws would have been regarded as malum in se: Calvins case (1608) 7 Co Rep 1a, 77 ER 377, and cf para 62. Special Protection for Aboriginal Suspects? Aboriginal Customary laws and the Criminal Justice System, The Interaction of Aboriginal Customary Laws and the Criminal Law, Legal Pluralism in the Criminal Law: Overseas Experience, 18. WebThis commentary explains the Privy Councils opinion in Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286, a case which continues to influence Australias constitutional framework. Criminal Investigation and Police Interrogation of Aborigines, The Law relating to Interrogation and Confessions, The Need for Special Protection of Aboriginal Suspects, Judicial Regulation of Aboriginal Confessional Evidence, Safeguards for Aboriginal Suspects in Legislation and Police Standing Orders. The last lingering doubts, if there were any, were firmly removed when the British authorities refused to give any form of legal recognition to John Barmans claim that he could acquire land rights by treating with Aboriginal tribes in the Port Phillip district.[37]. 12 0 obj Indigenous Justice Mechanisms in some Overseas Countries: Models and Comparisons, 31. <<858E00CE4FFAF342A410969D82250243>]/Prev 348379>> 17 0 obj What Are the Legal Difficulties in Building Envelope Consulting? 0000061065 00000 n The second is the application of British law to Australia, and the con sequences of that application for the continued existence and enforcement of Aboriginal customary laws and traditions. Local Justice Mechanisms: Options for Aboriginal Communities, Aborigines as Officials in the Ordinary Courts. But the Maori experience suggests that such recognition would have been grudging and temporary. Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286. to receive all of the latest news from the world of Law. Cooper v Stuart (1899) Held that the land was unoccupied upon discovery and so it was settled. 0000033715 00000 n 0000065632 00000 n Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. Web14 William Holdsworth, History of English Law (Methuen, 3rd ed, 1932) 410-6. 25 See Blackstone, above /Length 10 0 R Eventually the scramble for Africa in the late 19th century saw the English formulation temporarily win out.5 But by 1975, in international law, the anti-dispossession view of terra nullius was re-established: Occupation being legally an original means of peaceably acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid occupation that the territory should be terra nullius a territory belonging to no-one at the time of the act alleged to constitute occupation. Those territories inhabited by tribes or peoples having a social and political organization were not regarded as terra nullius.6 Thus we can state proposition 6. So terra nullius was never part of the law of the land, and Mabo no 2 did not overturn it. 64. See para 37, 203. As Connor has pointed out, it was the Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara in 1975 which led directly to the idea of terra nullius taking hold of the historical and legal imagination in Australia. Conclusions and Implementation: The Way Forward? William Cooper was killed by multiple shots before he made it inside. 0000003422 00000 n % But they also empowered him to take possession of uninhabited country, by setting up Proper Marks and Inscriptions as first discoverers and possessors. 0000020755 00000 n /Filter /LZWDecode He shot the other deputy as he ran from his truck to the house. /F1 8 0 R The problem is how to explain how that ownership appeared to be ignored when the law was based on mere assertion and could hardly ground a reasonable justification for Crown absolute beneficial ownership of land, and when that common law was promulgated in the context of battles over the extent of the Crown prerogative in the new colony of NSW without reference to indigenous interests. cXDNc8>-D 0APP9d%Hl$#=JJ*%%Z$a (b` Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Act, 1987, Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory), 1976, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, AMEC (Assoc' of Mining & Exploration Co's), ATSIC Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association, Department of Aboriginal & Islander Affairs (DAIA), FCAATSI Federal Council For Aboriginal Advancement, Ganalanja Corp v Queensland and Ors (1996), Hamlet of Baker Lake v Minister for Indian Affairs (1979), Miriuwung Gajerrong Peoples v Western Australia (1998), Oneida Indian Nation v County of Oneida (1974), Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act , 1985, Southern Rhodesia, Amodu Tijani V Secretary, 1921, Te Weehi v Regional Fisheries Office (1986), Teddy Biljabu and Ors v Western Australia (1995), The Administration of Papua v Daera Guba 1972-3, The Land Titles and Traditional Usages Act, Walley v State of Western Australia (1996), This is an NFSA Digital Learning resource. [40] Except so far as it has been altered by Australian Parliaments or courts, or by Imperial Acts applying to Australia, British law as it existed at these dates is still the law applicable to all citizens, including Aborigines. William G. Cooper, et al., Members of the mqF-iX=x&h0xT(n\Al |(J")Jb /01N@C4004jX;Ph P@8Hs)zNr\,\SX9oX3EjhJ 0000030966 00000 n 2023 Lawyer Monthly - All Rights Reserved. There was no recognition of common law native title: only a recognition of a right of occupancy fatally qualified in the southern hemisphere colonies by the word actual. The effect was of course to force an actual occupancy by the policy mechanisms just described, thus wresting Aboriginal people from their spiritual connection to country. There are other factors also. [35] According to Castles, each of the steps taken by Cook demonstrated that he was following those parts of his instructions which assumed that Australia was to be treated as uninhabited. xref WebSouth Wales: Cooper v Stuart (1889), 14 App Cas 286, at p 291. @*" b@ 'd"7Jd(./n,nA,ho+ +Z> c|>Tzb&8&B* `hbFGs.CLCE3ddFq1#:E ;=0hm'n*J+bafLl9S$S9ERL3dP &W2b -h 2 "B,2@)"":j,* (AF}2H\LY/rA\= 11 0 obj The second part sets out the legal argument for a compact/Makkerata or recognition of prior sovereignty in Indigenous Australians, based both on part 1 and the New Zealand precedent. 34. Special Aboriginal Courts and Justice Schemes, Support Structures for the Aboriginal Courts, 30. WebWilliam Cooper v The Honourable Alexander Stuart (New South Wales) [Delivered by Lord Watson] 1. /Type /Page 0000001189 00000 n Supreme Court of the United States. 0000006318 00000 n 35. As a matter of present Australian law it is clear that the Crowns acquisition of sovereignty over Australia was an act of state unchallengeable in the courts. Several propositions derived from the literature can be baldly stated, and then examined more closely. stream Whatever the position in 1788 or in 1837, it is much too late to suggest that justice to Aboriginal people today can be achieved thro ugh attempts to[53] reconstruct or recreate the past. But unease at the insensitive disregard for the facts of Aboriginal life, and at the way in which terms such as peaceful annexation gloss over the reality of the relations between European settlers and Aboriginal groups,[45] has been a significant factor in recent suggestions that the question needs to be re-evaluated. But the Maori experience suggests that such recognition would have been grudging and temporary. << Its interest to a wider Australia is obvious; its own In passing their Lordships referred to NSW as a Colony which consisted of a tract of territory practically unoccupied, without settled inhabitants or settled law, at the time when it was peacefully annexed to the British dominions. In this sense the comment was more akin to obiter than a ratio. See all. 0000061385 00000 n 0000001952 00000 n \9d +9 yb &`h`.Fc8PJP\ cn9& a9 &lH,G#LDFCpEQ] -QApS : 8sJ1Ny]"fSo9_#eNFIE1Tq&Qz+JTZ1a1%\0x\6B6VY 2B There are no files associated with this item. As a result, neither conquest, cession by treaty nor settlement establish an uncontestable legal relationship to property of each State and Territory in the land those jurisdictions encompass. 0000032924 00000 n 6 Legal Tips On Protecting Yourself Against Dental Malpractice, Drugmaker Endo Signs $65 Million Opioid Settlement With Florida, Inos 17-049 GmbH Acquires Werther International, Bancomext raises $600 million to face COVID-19, 5 Great Tools for Attorneys to Improve Sales. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. For the purpose of deciding whether the common law was introduced into a newly acquired territory, a distinction was drawn between a colony acquired by conquest or cession, in which there was an established system of law of European type, and a colony acquired by settlement in a territory which, by European standards, had no civilized inhabitants or settled law. /Resources << [42], The assumption, which underlay the proclamation of British sovereignty over Eastern and later Western Australia and the subsequent gradual occupation of the continent, that Australia was legally uninhabited because it was desert and uncultivated[43] was, it has been argued, wrong as a matter of fact. As part of an imagined Makarrata Commission, a Research Partnership is established to support future truth-telling. [44]cf G Blainey, Triumph of the Nomads, rev edn, Sun Books, Melbourne, 1983, 67-83, and see further para 883-7. However it is desirable to deal with the issue at the general level at which it is raised. 13. The Crown in right of the State of Queensland had difficulty establishing to the satisfaction of their Honours a legal relationship or right to the property it claimed it had vested in a crocodile under the Fauna Act. A Legal Justification for a Treaty between Australia and Its Indigenous Peoples, Enter the World of Tech Start-Ups and Investments in Turkey, French and International Property and Tax Matters in 2023. Webis generally regarded as settled, a legal principle laid down in Cooper v Stuart7 in 1889 and followed by Blackburn J in Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd in 1971. See also GS Lester, Submission 468 (19 February 1985). Argued September 11, 1958. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Dr. William Cooper Despite the Treaty of Waitangi, this idea of actual occupation coupled with the labour theory of property was applied not just by British settlers but by the Crown in New Zealand as well as Australia (where no treaties were made by the Crown). TOPIC 2: HISTORY OF AUSTRALIAN LAW Flashcards | Quizlet >> biXDN>[ 57h$%42TPd0vX:{ ~4an``)Tpv%qX;V0]`pVVP1(X"y5 X} 7b The decisive date was deliberately made the date of the passing of the Act, 25 July 1828, in order to gain the benefit of Peels criminal law reforms introduced during the 1820s. Hunting, Fishing and Gathering Rights: Legislation or Common Law? 0000003584 00000 n Aboriginal Customary Laws and Sentencing, Aboriginal Customary Laws and Sentencing: Existing Law and Practice, The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws in Sentencing, Aboriginal Customary Laws and the Notion of Punishment, Sentencing and Aboriginal Customary Laws: General Principles, Taking Aboriginal Customary Laws into Account, Incorporating Aboriginal Customary Laws in Sentencing, Related Questions of Evidence and Procedure, 22. Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws at Common Law: The Settled Colony Debate. << It then surveys the debates over . But, we shall see in part 2, these cases were all to attack or defend the Crowns prerogative against settlers pushing the envelope to narrow that prerogative so as to enlarge individual rights in a colony far from the centre of British metropolitical power. [26] The general principles for the introduction of English law into a settled as distinct from a conquered colony were laid down by Blackstone in 1765. Aboriginal Traditional Marriage: Areas for Recognition, Functional Recognition of Traditional Marriage, Legitimacy of Children, Adoption and Related Issues, Questions of Maintenance and Property Distribution, Spousal Compellability in the Law of Evidence, 15. It will examine these further three propositions: 1 Ulla Secher The doctrine of tenure in Australia post-Mabo: Replacing the feudal fiction with the mere radical title fiction Part 2 (2006) 13 Australian Property Law Journal 140, 2 Coe v Commonwealth (1979) 53 ALJR 403; Mabo v State of Queensland (no 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 31, 3 A Fitzmaurice The Genealogy of Terra Nullius (2007) 129 Australian Historical Studies at 7 quoting Francesco de Vitoria, 5 In re Southern Rhodesia, [1919] AC at 232, 6 Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara, [1975] ICJR at 39, 7 M Connor, The Invention of Terra Nullius: historical and legal fictions on the foundations of Australia Sydney: Maclaey Press 2005. This was the case, at least initially, in New Zealand. [29] The classification of the British acquisition of Australia as acquisition by settlement might therefore seem to be established, although it is possible that the question may be reopened in the High Court. In Attorney-General v Brown, a landowner tried to take coal from his granted land where a reservation clause in the grant provided for Crown ownership of the coal. /Type /Page ;:Da>C[D{n+)ptz]fm=X#(L60 uq!AffW+2M^:.zctt'TPmm;CH*Ox@AmMu. [33]id, 138. 0000002143 00000 n Module 4: Arrival and Reception of English Law in Colonial Australia [54] But such a presumption is hardly needed. In particular, they are not a sovereign entity under our present law so that they can enter into a treaty with the Commonwealth. 0000008784 00000 n It has been argued that such a reassessment would open the way to wider recognition of customary laws by the common law. (1979) 24 ALR 118 (Full Court). 0000015739 00000 n Whether Eastern Australia was desert and uncultivated in Blackstones sense may be another question. Despite being overturned by Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (Mabo [No 2]), the case remains important because of the Privy Councils justification for the application of English common law to the colony of New South Wales. Director : Stuart Heisler Media Format : NTSC, Subtitled Run time : 1 hour and 30 minutes Release date : February 6, 2018 Actors : Gary Cooper, Loretta Young, William Demarest, Dan Duryea Subtitles: : English Studio : Classicflix ASIN : B076DR791M Number of discs : 1 Difficulties of Application: The Status and Scope of the Interrogation Rules, 23. Parliament, and want to work more slowly towards a national treaty.9 Nevertheless, Victoria and South Australia have started consultation towards provincial treaties.10 Proposition 10 is the consequence: On this view, Mabo is only a step on the path to the establishment of that legal relationship. It asserts that treaty-making between the Commonwealth, the States and indigenous Australians has a legal justification. The Distinction Between Settled and Conquered Colonies. Yrz]PI\_E[jcCY& =B2Hc|07nz"g3)(gswdK\'v213 V4hj!B h%b8FoqO9s3= bHaA1'9"lJy]9X3| m!3@wR7/rWxVejodq UcS[9(Y(N*XM1T&=8$HqA[$y1]8vQ j:yS`rhD. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. [45]See eg the discussion of initial European contact in Cape York in R Logan Jack, North West Australia, Simpkin Marshall, Hamilton Kent and Co Ltd, London, 1921. >> |D!"U#W7;vAp! stream @&fI@DQQg'jk[;y`}8$L &9kf{w _8zoZ3qh#M/F|xrgc"cLf|1H" 0000035325 00000 n The second part of this essay will address the basis as it appears in the archive. 0000060797 00000 n XCIC3MRM!t,k*8j7#`4 c`# 7A 0@ 0000006169 00000 n Current student The consequence of the settlement doctrine producing a justification of Crown full ownership of most of the land in Australia in this way is, as Mick Dodson has pointed out, that the sovereign pillars of the Australian state are arguably, at the very least, a little legally shaky.5 Neither conquest, cession nor settlement provides a proper legal basis for the establishment of the Crowns legal relationship to property in land. Foundations Of Law | Oxbridge Notes 4 0 obj 9 http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/news/2017/06/symbolic-constitutional-recognition-table-after-uluru-talks- indigenous-leaders-say ; see also M. Davis, Political Timetables Trump Workable Timetables: Indigenous Constitutional Recognition and the Temptation of Symbolism over Substance in S Young, J. Nielsen, J. Patrick (ed) Constitutional Recognition of Australias First Peoples Theories and Comparative Perspectives, Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press 2016; speech at University of Queensland, 20 April 2018. >> Community Wardens and other Forms of Self-Policing, Policing Aboriginal Communities: Conclusions, 33. startxref 0000037337 00000 n However, the Committee concludes that, as a legal proposition, sovereignty is not now vested in the Aboriginal peoples except insofar as they share in the common sovereignty of all peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia. 8. 0000001908 00000 n 0000005271 00000 n ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS A Comparative Assessment %%EOF On this view. Jonathan is a Partner and the Head of the leading Resources and Energy practice. The question is whether and how those laws and traditions, as they now exist, should be recognised. It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. For more information, visit http://journals.cambridge.org. >> See para 66 for statements of this view. By this means the Australian colonies directly inherited a vast body of English statute and common law. Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws (ALRC Report 31), 5. But problems regarding its application led in 1828 to the passing of the Australian Courts Act,[38] s 24 of which provided that: all laws and statutes in force within the Realm of England at the time of passing of this Act shall be applied in the administration of justice in the Courts of New South Wales and Van Diemens Land respectively, so far as the same can be applied within the said colonies . Web1889 case of Cooper v Stuart (Cooper),6 albeit in bald dictum, was accepted as binding. In the light of subsequent anthropological research, the assumption that Eastern Australia in 1788 had neither settled inhabitants nor settled law cannot be sustained. Native title in its historical context Additional Instructions for Lt James Cook, appointed to command His Majestys Bark Endeavour, 30 July 1768, in JM Bennett & AC Castles. 66. cf A Frame, Colonizing Attitudes towards Maori Custom (1981) NZLJ 105; MR Litchfield, Confiscation of Maori Land (1985) 15 Vict U Well L Rev 335. Each of the cases (Attorney-General v Brown, Cooper v Stuart) in the 19th century were designed to guard the Crown against the unwarranted overreach of powerful and wealthy colonists intent on challenging the skeleton of principle underpinning English land law and the exercise of the Crowns prerogative through Governors in granting land before any representative assembly was established. To justify the acquisition of land in Australia, the British combined the common law notion of settlement (from Blackstone), an argument of indigenous rights to land where the indigenous people were in actual occupation, and a scale of civilisation framework borrowed from both the Lockean idea of property rights being generated from labour mixing with the soil and the Scottish moral philosophers four stages of civilisation arising out of political economy (Hunter- gatherers, Agriculture, Mercantilism and Industrialisation). A more usual though not necessarily more fruitful approach to the question of common law recognition of customary law is through a reassessment of the way in which the basic common law rules with respect to colonial acquisition were applied to Australia in 1788 and thereafter. Aboriginal timeline: Politics Request Permissions, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. When the House of Commons Select Committee on Aborigines reported: see para 64. of 10% of the land fund being devoted to Aboriginal welfare. Arguments for the Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, Arguments against the Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, 9. Provided Always that nothing in those our Letters Patent contained shall affect or be construed to affect the rights of any Aboriginal Natives of the said Province to the actual occupation or enjoyment in their own Persons or in the Persons of their Descendants of any Lands therein now actually occupied or enjoyed by such Natives. %PDF-1.2 Despite 0000038727 00000 n Lawyer Monthly is a news website and monthly legal publication with content that is entirely defined by the significant legal news from around the world. 1936 0000002726 00000 n 0000003844 00000 n If we do not, the Australian legal system will continue to rest on a dubious basis of either fraud or a mistake of fact. George Street Post Shop NO DECOROUS VEIL: THE CONTINUING RELIANCE /F2 14 0 R This commentary explains the Privy Councils opinion in Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286, a case which continues to influence Australias constitutional framework. Even Blackstone himself remarked that the American plantations were obtained in the last century [that is, the 17th century] either by right of conquest and driving out the natives (with what natural justice I shall not at present inquire) or by treaties.6 Blackstone was not sure of the legality of what occurred, but with an unwarranted delicacy declined to examine the issue of indigenous rights further. >> [39] In Western Australia, the State was deemed to have been established on 1 June 1829 for the purposes of determining the application of Imperial Acts. Although the Privy Council referred in Cooper v Stuart to peaceful annexation, the aborigines did not give up their lands peacefully: they were killed Each of the cases (Attorney-General v Brown, Cooper v Stuart) in the 19th century were designed to guard the Crown against the unwarranted overreach of Email info@alrc.gov.au, PO Box 12953 0000038209 00000 n Queensland 4003. [52]Two Hundred Years Later (1983) para 3.46. The Governor of the colony, before 1824, had made a land grant that was subject to a reservation that the government could reacquire, at any time, a portion of the land that might be needed for public purposes. 6jJckD~"zv,%WZ[ZEIE)JMeo;[37njq7 wqoG erqB@JMx;lz~. [32] Justice Murphy considered neither Cooper v Stuart nor Milirrpum to have settled the point: Although the Privy Council referred in Cooper v Stuart to peaceful annexation, the aborigines did not give up their lands peacefully: they were killed or removed forcibly from the lands by United Kingdom forces or the European colonists in what amounted to attempted (and in Tasmania almost complete) genocide. 0000005665 00000 n The Issue for the Commission. This paper seeks briefly to survey some of the voluminous literature on these related topics. From the first days of settlement, the interaction of British administrative policies and legal principles relating to the colonies provided the foundation for asserting of English law at the expense of the customary laws and practices of Aboriginal groups. Mabo/Cooper V Stuart What Are the Advantages of Legal Apprenticeships? Section 24, in effect, reaffirmed that New South Wales was a settled colony, but provided a later date of reception for reasons of convenience. Discrimination, Equality and Pluralism, Criteria for Equality: A Comparative Perspective, The Position under the United States Constitution, The Position in Other Comparable Jurisdictions, Pluralism, Public Opinion and the Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws, Human Rights and Indigenous Minorities: Collective Guarantees, The Recognition of Aboriginal Customary Laws and Human Rights Standards, 12. The Waitangi Tribunal was set up by the government in 1975 by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. f. 0000063863 00000 n Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation, Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws, 2. Full case name. Aboriginal Legal Service The lack of treaties in Australia is one more obstacle to such a reestablishment in Australia. The South Australian Colonization Commissioners followed this up with instructions to the Protector of Aborigines, narrowing the legal meaning of Aboriginal rights in land to cover only lands used for cultivation, fixed residence or funereal purposes.4 Land not actually occupied by Aboriginal people was beneficially owned by the Crown. It was applied in the Australian colonies and in New Zealand, regardless of the existence of treaties (be it Batman or Waitangi). xb```f``u2l@q ^z49nOekLP5UZl[T:>y]YNaq``r``1`Pf4(%=H@?sPD Ff}@a I9bI(xpk@y hTu,,b~g1h~y THE RECEPTION OF LAND LAW INTO THE AUSTRALIAN The contrary view was expressed, for example, by Justice H Zelling, Submission 369 (26 January 1983) 1, on the grounds that the settled colony rule was established practice for other colonies with indigenous inhabitants, and that it was in any event established, for South Australia at least, by statute (4 & 5 Wm IV c95), not merely by judicial decision. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286, 291. Announces that a, OSCAR DEADLINE ALERT: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. 140 0 obj <> endobj See also para 23, 24. [41] The recognition of Aboriginal customary laws now, it has therefore been argued, depends at least in part on a reassessment of the initial classification of Australia for the purposes of the application of law. 0000020370 00000 n ATNS - Agreements, Treaties and Negotiated Settlements project The Crown in London gave up the fight to stop leases being given to those who had simply spread out beyond the limits of location, and passed the 1846 waste lands legislation providing for leases of Crown land. The difference between the laws of the two kinds of colony is that in those of the former kind all the English laws which are applicable to the colony are immediately in force there upon its foundation. 0000036242 00000 n 8 The case that recognised the Treaty of Waitangi principles was the Lands Case (New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641). Sign up to receive email updates. His Excellency Sir Thomas Brisbane, then Governor-in-Chief of New South Wales and its Dependencies, on the 27th May 1823, made a grant to one William See also Logan Jack (1921), and cf para 39. The statement by the Privy Council may be regarded either as having been made in ignorance or as a convenient falsehood to justify the taking of aborigines land.[33]. This is summed up by proposition 8: In Canada and America, the domestic dependent nation status of indigenous peoples produced perhaps no less injustice than in the south.