Feudal tenure and native title: revising an enduring fiction

This article argues that the feudal doctrine of tenure continues to endure as the foundation for Australian land law despite its obvious social and historical irrelevance. The doctrine of tenure is a derivation of feudal history. The article examines some of its historical foundations with the aim of highlighting the disparity between the fiction of this inherited form and the reality of a colonial Australian landscape. Particular attention is given to the fact that Australian feudal tenure was always a passive framework. It was disconnected with the landscape and therefore incapable of responding to the needs of colonial expansion. This resulted in a clear disparity between feudal form and the reality of a land system populated by statutory grants. The article argues that feudal tenure was never truly devised as a responsive land system but rather, adopted as a sovereignty device. In this sense, legal history was utilised with the aim of promoting imperial objectives within colonial Australia. Tenure was equated with absolute Crown ownership over all Australian territory despite the fact that this was inconsistent with the orthodox tenets of feudal tenure.
The article argues that the consequence of adopting feudal tenure and absolute Crown ownership has been the estrangement of indigenous rights, title and culture. The creation and legitimisation of a land framework with a fundamentally Eurocentric perspective completely destroyed indigenous interests during the settlement and colonial era. It created an imperial ideology where colonists silently accepted the denial of indigenous identity. The decision of the Mabo High Court to reassess this historical perspective and accept the validity of proven native title claims clearly disturbed tenurial assumptions. However, the High Courts' reification of the feudal form created a fundamental paradox: indigenous title was accepted as a proprietary right within a framework incapable of and unequipped to recognise the fundamentally different cultural perspectives of customary ownership. The article argues that native title cannot evolve within a common law framework that regards ownership as a derivation of the English Crown. It is suggested that ultimately, a pluralist property culture, where indigenous and non-indigenous title exist as equalised entities, can only be properly nurtured with the full and absolute abolition of the feudal doctrine of tenure.

Reconsidering the scope of the equitable mortgage arising from deposit of title documents

This article examines the underlying fairness of applying equitable security presumptions to the deposit of title documents belonging to third parties. It argues that within such transactions, the focus of the equitable jurisdiction must be upon the intention of the owner of the title documents rather than presumptions arising from the fact of the deposit. It suggests that there is no logic in applying equitable presumptions, founded on the principles of part performance, to infer a security intention in transactions involving third party title documents. The fact that the parties to a loan advance may have intended to create a mortgage between themselves does not mean that the third party owner of the title documents also intended to create a mortgage. In third party transactions, the objectives of the equity jurisdiction are best achieved through a comprehensive assessment of the intention of all parties and the abolition of presumptions based upon the bare fact of title deposit.

Black fella land – white fella tax : changing the CGT implications of aboriginal/native title

The taxation of aboriginal/native title payments gives rise to a number of complex and difficult legal and policy issues. Reform measures announced on 13 February 1998 by the then Federal Treasurer and Attorney-General did not address the possible capital gains tax (‘CGT’) implications and even those relating to ordinary income under s 6-5 Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) remain unimplemented. The much anticipated Report of the Native Title Payments Working group (6 February 2009), while primarily focusing on non-taxation issues, also recognises the need for taxation reform and makes some recommendations in regard to such. Most recently, on 18 May the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Nick Sherry, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, and the Attorney General, Robert McClelland, announced the commencement of a national consultation on the tax treatment of native title, including the interaction of native title, Indigenous economic development and the tax system. The Assistant Treasurer recognised the need for “greater clarity and increased certainty for native title holders on how the tax system and native title interact.” At the same time, they released a paper entitled Native Title, Indigenous Economic Development and Tax to guide the national consultation. The proposed measures considered in the paper, including exempting Native title payments and/or creating a new tax exempt Indigenous Community Fund, provide a welcome step towards reform in this area. This article is part of a broader research project that explores the CGT implications of aboriginal/native title. While these provisions impact on both Indigenous traditional owners and relevant payers, such as mining companies, the focus in the project is particularly on the CGT implications for the traditional owners. This first part of the project examines the status of aboriginal/native title and incidental/ ancillary rights as CGT assets. The broader research project will then build on this analysis in the context of relevant CGT events. As the preliminary findings in this article evidence the CGT implications of aboriginal/native title are far from certain. The application of CGT to aboriginal/native title raises more issues than it answers. The key reason is that the current law is entirely unsuitable to communally held inalienable aboriginal/native title. Nevertheless, it will be seen that it is arguable that aboriginal/native title and/or incidental rights are post-CGT assets and acts in relation to such could trigger a CGT event with tax implications for the traditional owners. It will be suggested that these current tax provisions provide a very pertinent example where the law operates as a blunt tool that does not appropriately promote justice and reconciliation. To tax Indigenous communities as a result of acts that extinguish or impair their traditional ownership is incongruous. A specific provision(s) should be included in the capital gains provisions to ensure any such payments are exempt from taxation. This is not only fair given the history of uncompensated extinguishment of aboriginal title Australia, but also promotes the ability of Indigenous communities to optimise the financial benefits stemming from aboriginal/native title agreements.

Native title rights in the territorial sea and beyond: exclusivity and commerce in the Akiba decision

The principles that regulate the recognition and enforcement of native title rights and interests in both the territorial and the high seas are discussed. The context of the territorial and high seas, where a parallel structure provides a strong foundation for the promotion and recognition of co-coordinated practices, a far greater potential exists for the endorsement of native title rights which connect to evolving social and economic frameworks, as can be seen in the recent decision of Finn J in Akiba.