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.

Disinterested truth: legitimation of the doctrine of tenure post-Mabo

This article argues that it is time for the complete abolition of feudal tenure in Australian land law and its replacement with an allodial model better able to promote proprietary independence, equality and cultural neutrality. The article considers the questionable constitutional legitimacy of adopting strict feudal tenets in a territory already inhabited by indigenous occupants. It goes on to examine the various legitimation devices that the courts have utilised to sustain the feudal construct and the effect that Mabo has had upon feudal orthodoxy. In particular, the article outlines why post-Mabo tenure is incapable of embracing a pluralist land system; it is suggested that the Eurocentric character of feudal tenure and the structural impediments associated with the acceptance of a non-Crown title prevent it from ever being able to effectively integrate native title into the structure of property law. In light of this, the article argues that post-Mabo tenure lacks both legal and social legitimacy and the 'disinterested' perpetuation of this system must be brought to an end. The article argues that the time has well and truly come to replace feudal tenure with an allodial model based broadly on the system that has developed in the United States but with particularised adaptations. The removal of the Crown and its associated cultural assumptions from the land framework would, it is argued, allow land interests to develop according to their individual cultural origins. This would create a more responsive and balanced system better equipped to embrace the developments of contemporary common law jurisprudence.

Principles of property law

This comprehensive text covers all of the materials relevant to property law in a detailed and thorough manner. The second edition examines the basic tenants of property law,as well as specific property interests such as land interests and the way in which these interests are conveyed, registered and co-ordinated.The book considers the development of native title as a legally recognised form of property in Australia and how such an interest sits within the common law and statutory infrastructure. Principles of Property Law is a vital book for students studying this complex area and is also a valuable addition to the library of academics and practitioners interested in this field.

Real property law

The aim of this book is to provide the student and/or practitioner with a straightforward outline of some of the primary elements underlying the recognition and regulation of real property.

Mineral law and the doctrine of rights : a microscope of magnification?

The doctrine of rights has become part of private law jurisprudence. In this article the application of the doctrine in two decisions dealing with surface support in mineral law is examined. It is argued that the decision of Kriegler J in Elektrisiteitsvoorsieningskommissie v Fourie, namely, that the right to surface support is an entitlement, is more correct than Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd in which it was decided that the right to surface support is a competence. It is submitted that depending on the legal location of the entitlement in the relationship between owner and miner of land one may simply refer to either an owner's entitlement to surface support or a miner's entitlement to undertake opencast-cast mining.

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.

Succession and Indigenous Australians : addressing Indigenous customary law notions of 'property' and 'kinship' in a succession law context

The purpose of this article is to critically evaluate the existing capacity of Indigenous people to exercise succession rights against their estate. This article begins with a discussion of the sources of the general succession laws in Australia, noting that they have derived from UK law, where the common law notions of property, property rights and family, including the expectational right to succeed to property, are all important factors. These common law notions do not easily fit within the spectrum of Indigenous customary law. Generally, many Indigenous Australians will die without executing a valid will (ie, they die intestate) and it is here that this article undertakes an examination of the general intestacy laws in all Australian jurisdictions noting the inadequacy of the provisions to recognise Indigenous persons’ spiritual and cultural obligations to property, land or otherwise, together with a failure to distinguish extended Indigenous kinship relationships under Indigenous customary law. It is argued that Indigenous people who die intestate should be supported by a flexible and adaptive intestacy framework, responsive to the full customary and cultural responsibilities of the deceased, thus promoting an organic and developmental approach to succession entitlements.

The challenges of addressing an Aboriginal responsibility for Country in land-use and national park planning: a South East Queensland case study

This paper presents research insights on the challenges that Australian Aboriginal communities living within the South East Queensland (SEQ) metropolitan region face in seeking to exercise their contemporary responsibilities to care for Country in land-use and national park planning. A case study design was adopted to analyse the incorporation of two Aboriginal communities connections to Country in state-based planning systems, and to explore the responsibilities Aboriginal communities ethically seek to adhere to in maintaining Country from their own understandings.
Country, from an Aboriginal understanding, involves a deep ecological, cultural, economic and social comprehension of ‘law’ guided by a responsibility for Country. Otherwise known as customary law and custom, Country is that which both Aboriginals and their communities are intrinsically connected to. Country is the moral value that guides Aboriginal obligation to care and this obligation could well conflict
with mainstream contemporary Western management policy and legislation.
This research draws on insights from Quandamooka Country (North Stradbroke Island) and Jagera Country (Brisbane City and Ipswich), located within the Brisbane metropolitan region in South East Queensland of Australia. During this research, it was concluded that, in both Quandamooka Country and Jagera Country, the respective Owners are operating within a sphere of increasingly complex challenges that impact upon their ability to conserve and have recognized the values of their obligations to Country care in planning. Common themes occurring on Country identified in this research included issues relating to a neglect of care to maintain Country by planners and government officials, and interactions that prevent Traditional Owners from having their obligation of caring for Country on their terms expressed through land-use planning legislation. Political agendas of the Queensland State that influences the interactions of planners and government with Traditional Owners were also concluded to be detrimental, and to damaging trust, ongoing discussions and understandings. These insights indicate that Aboriginal communities are facing an increasing conflicting range of perceptions and comprehensions that are hindering the expression and execution of their moral responsibility embodied in their deep ecological law to care for Country in Western planning legislative obligations. It illustrates that the responsibilities given to practicing planners and government officials to care for Country under Western law are commonly not adhered to It concludes with the suggestion that for some progress to recognize an Aboriginal responsibility to Country in planning, state-Traditional Owner relations and collaboration is now needed to help transcend the legislative challenges underpinning Western planning law.

Reforms required to the Australian tax system to improve biodiversity conservation on private land

Private land conservation forms an integral part of Australia’s natural resource management and biodiversity conservation efforts, and the past two decades have seen a significant growth in the establishment of in-perpetuity conservation covenants. Specifically, conservation covenants address key national goals such as building the National Reserve System and expanding the markets for ecosystem services. However, a number of financial barriers exist to achieving these goals, and the national tax review in the form of the Tax White Paper Task Force provides an opportunity to address these barriers. This article provides a number of specific recommendations which outline how these financial barriers for private land conservation might be addressed by the Federal Government.