Extinguishment Of Native Title

Justice Brennan held that native title survived the Crown's acquisition of sovereignty over the Australian colonies. But, if this was the case, how could the Crown grant titles to settlers, or acquire land for its own purposes? And could the acknowledgment of native title put a question mark over the validity of two centuries of land grants in Australia?

The answer offered by the High Court was similar to that put forward by the Supreme Court of the United States in the early nineteenth century: that is native title is more vulnerable than title derived from Crown grant because it is subject to the doctrine of extinguishment; and so government grants of title override native title where there are inconsistencies between the two.

From this it seemed to follow that native title had been extinguished in most parts of Australia, and that the past two hundred years of land dealings were legitimate.

• Terra Nullius Defined
• International Law
• Colonisation
• Human Rights
• Takeovers
• Bases For Takeovers
• Justifications
• Barbarism
• Hierarchies Of Land Use
• Recent Changes To International Law
• Territorial Integrity
• The Common Law Of England
• Common Law Rules For New English Territories
• Settled & Conquered Colonies
• The Status Of The Australian Colonies
• Reception Of English Law
• Sovereignty & Ownership Distinguished
• Other Lands Settled By The British
• Terra Nullius & Australia
• Crown Land
• Gove Case
• The Gove Decision Questioned
• The Mabo Case
• The Mabo Decision
• Britain's Acquisition Of Sovereignty
• Pre-Existing Land Rights
• The Doctrine Of Tenures Reconsidered
• Extinguishment Of Native Title
• Sovereignty & Indigenous Self-Government