| Land Title programs |
|
Blue Mud Bay High Court Decsion 01 of 10
This program discusses the effect of the Blue Mud Bay decision delivered on 30 th July 2008 by the High Court (ḻiya-ŋärra’mirr mala). It explains that the Northern Territory Government doesn’t have the power to grant licences to fisherman to fish in areas that are Aboriginal Land according to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act1976 (Cth). It also explains that Aboriginal people now control access to the inter-tidal zone and tidal rivers which make up over 80% of the Northern Territory’s coastline. The program goes on to explain that the High Court’s 5-2 majority decision applies to all Aboriginal Land in the Northern Territory.
12:47 |
 |
Blue Mud Bay High Court Decsion 02 of 10
This program discusses the phrase “intertidal zone” and explains that the High Court ruled that Aboriginal Land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act1976 (Cth) extends to the low water mark and therefore includes the intertidal zone and tidal rivers. The program explains that the phrase ‘Aboriginal Land’ doesn’t only refer to dry land but includes intertidal land which is sometimes covered by water and sometimes exposed. The discussion then considers the implications of this definition of Aboriginal Land. As the intertidal zone is Aboriginal Land, Aboriginal people own and control access to that area. They can grant or withhold permission for people to fish and hunt in that area. The concept of the common law public right to fish is also introduced. 15:10 |
|
Blue Mud Bay High Court Decsion 03 of 10
This program looks at the historical link between the common law public right to fish (which was relied upon in argument before the High Court) and the Magna Carta. The program briefly traces the abuses of power by King John of England that led to a rebellion and his subsequent signing of the Magna Carta. It discusses the rights of landowners with respect to wild animals occurring on their land under English Common Law before the Magna Carta. 13:47 |
|
Blue Mud Bay High Court Decsion 04 of 10 Rights for Yolngu
This program follows on from the discussion in Program 02. It explains that the High Court judges were considering the rights that Aboriginal people have under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) (i.e. whether they had the right to exclude people who held a licence from fishing in tidal areas covering Aboriginal Land). The discussion aims to emphasise that the case is about land rights rather than sea rights – (even though tidal areas include land that is covered with water at high tide) and that it involved the High Court giving a judgment about the meaning of “Aboriginal Land” under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth). The High Court was considering whether “Aboriginal Land” included intertidal areas when those areas are covered by tidal waters. The program goes on to explain that the High Court concluded that “Aboriginal Land” goes to the low water mark irrespective of whether intertidal areas are covered or uncovered by water.
15:26 |
|
Blue Mud Bay High Court Decsion 05 of 10
This program picks up the discussion from program 04 and explains that ownership of land by Aboriginal people extends to the low water mark. The effect of this is that the decision-making power for the intertidal land is in the hands of Yolŋu people. The discussion then moves to consider the following issue: who has decision-making power regarding the fish and sea-life found in the intertidal areas when the tide is in? The program suggests that this issue was a major area of interest for the NT Government. It then explains that one of the arguments that the High Court considered was whether Yolŋu people had the right to control access to the intertidal zone when covered with water. The intertidal zone is where many species of fish and sea life are found. 12:28 |
|
Blue Mud Bay High Court Decsion 06 of 10 Tidal Zone
The program begins by stating that the High Court has said that Yolŋu traditional owners (yirralka-waṯaŋu mala) own the area called the intertidal zone. The program explains that because they own the intertidal zone, Yolŋu (traditional owners) now get to decide whether fisherman can access the intertidal zone to catch fish and mud crabs and other seafood. The program then considers the central issue that was raised in the High Court, namely whether a fishing licence allowed a person to fish in the intertidal zone even though it was Aboriginal Land owned by Yolŋu. It explains that the Court ruled that a fishing licence doesn’t give a person a right of access to the intertidal zone for the purpose of catching fish or crabs.9:53 |
|
Blue Mud Bay High Court Decsion 07 of 10 Rights
What will happen to fishermens who have licence to fish??
The court decided it's alright for the Commercial fishermen to get the licence but it doesnt gived them the righht to fish in the Inter Tidal Zone.
Another question raised by Mararja Dhamarrandjil is Does Yolngu own the fishes in the Inter Tidal Zone?15:46 |
|
Blue Mud Bay High Court Decsion 08 of 10 Who owns the Fishes in the Tidal Zone
On this program Maratja question was anwered.
No one owns the crabs and fishes because they move around. 14:45 |
|
Blue Mud Bay High Court Decsion 09 of 10 Rights Options that Yolngu have
Yolngu have every right to say No to recreational and comercial fishermen
Maratja Dhamarrandjil asked the question if the High Court mentioned anything about compensation. 15:31 |
|
Blue Mud Bay High Court Decsion 10 of 10 Pressure coming from Commercial Fishermen
Amesty runs out in December 2009
A lot of pressure is coming from the Commercial fihermen but it's too late the High Court had already made their decision 8:45 |
|
Blue Mud Bay Federal Court Decision March 2007
Info on the decision which gives native title rights to rivers 11:06 |
|
Land Rights Act Changes: Part 1 of 7
Introduction to Economic Development 13:47 |
|
Land Rights Act Changes: Part 2 of 7
Discussing Inalienable Land Title & Leasing Changes 10:51 |
|
Land Rights Act Changes: Part 3 of 7
Discussing ministerial involvement in Leasing Agreements 12:28 |
|
Land Rights Act Changes: Part 4 of 7
Discussing mortgage Security on Aboriginal Land 12:28 |
|
Land Rights Act Changes: Part 5 of 7
Discussing township Head Leases 12:36
|
|
Land Rights Act Changes: Part 6 of 7
Discussing Aboriginal Land Trusts 15:46
|
|
Land Rights Act Changes: Part 7 of 7
Discussing Rights of Traditional Owners, the Role of Land Owners & Land Trusts 24:12 |
|
Native Title Leases : Part 1 of 6
Talking about where the name "lease" comes from 12:58 |
|
Native Title Leases : Part 2 of 6
Describing how long a lease lasts and if it can be changed 11:48 |
|
Native Title Leases : Part 3 of 6
Asking if owners can ask questions about the lease contract 9:19 |
|
Native Title Leases : Part 4 of 6
Asking how native title fits into the concept of leases 10:02 |
|
Native Title Leases : Part 5 of 6
Meaning of head lease and sub leases is discussed 11:28 |
|
Native Title Leases : Part 6 of 6
Meaning of the expression "a new lease on life" 8:08 |
|
Yilparra Sea Claim: Part 1 of 3
Talking about the Yilparra statement of claim over sea rights 12:03 |
|
Yilparra Sea Claim: Part 2 of 3
Discussing how Yolngu ownership rights are not really recognized 11:19 |
|
Yilparra Sea Claim: Part 2 of 3
Talking about paintings used as Legal title documents over sea 14:00 |
|
