Theme three: “A suspicious interpretation of the Australian government's action might argue that the Mabo decision was in fact devastating to land rights, as was the initial colony in 1788. From this perspective Mabo failed to give sovereignty to indigenous peoples and reduced real political power. Critically discuss this assessment of native title in light of debates since 1992 over indigenous land rights and/or indigenous sovereignty. “Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayThe 1992 Mabo decision and developments since the Native Title Act could in some way be compared to the devastating impact of colonization initial on land rights in 1788. Although Mabo and the Native Title Act appear to grant land rights to indigenous communities, this has not been the case and many events since 1992 demonstrate how detrimental Mabo has been to the community indigenous. The original intention of the Mabo decision may have been to restore land rights; however, events and developments since 1992 demonstrate how damaging Mabo has been to the indigenous community. This essay will argue that despite some arguments suggesting that Mabo greatly helped indigenous communities for the better, the Mabo decision and the impact of the Native Title Act had a devastating effect on indigenous land rights and sovereignty. First, this essay will demonstrate how Mabo only addressed the issue of land rights, but failed to recognize sovereignty, leading to economic and cultural damage in many indigenous communities. Second, this essay will address the impact of the barriers and limitations created by the Native Title Act and the Mabo decision on Indigenous agency and political power. Finally, this essay will argue that the Mabo decision failed to secure rights and sovereignty because native title is vulnerable given that it is in the hands of the Crown, ultimately demonstrating how Mabo was used as a tool for the dominance of white colonial government over indigenous sovereignty. First, the Mabo decision only addressed the issue of land rights, but did not recognize indigenous sovereignty over their lands and laws. In 1992, the Australian High Court handed down its decision, declaring that the Meriam Aboriginal people were the absolute true owners of parts of Australia's Murray Island; that indigenous groups could claim title and ownership of certain lands, thereby overturning the colonial notion of terra nullius (Manwaring 1993, 177). However, as Manwaring (1993, 177) argues, the Mabo decision contained aspects that limited its practical effect in terms of granting sovereignty to indigenous peoples. The overthrow of terra nullius was simply limited to the recognition of indigenous ownership of land, excluding their jurisdiction and sovereignty over the land, ultimately reducing indigenous political action (Korosy 2008: 83). In contrast, Cullinane (2002, 18) argues that the Mabo decision brought indigenous peoples to the negotiating table on an equal footing with the settler government and commercial corporations. However, the lack of recognition of indigenous sovereignty in the Mabo case has led to economic damage in many indigenous communities, particularly due to the lack of compensation provided by the government. Watson (1993, 7) argues that the lack of compensation is an issue that demonstrates the lack of sovereigntygranted to indigenous peoples by the Mabo decision. An example of how the Mabo decision and the Native Title Act have been detrimental to Aboriginal communities since 1992 is the case of the town-bush divide between the towns of Roeburne and Karratha (Langton 2010, 1). Langton (2010) uses the case of Roeburne and Karratha to demonstrate how devastating the Mabo affair and the lack of sovereignty and compensation afforded to indigenous peoples was. The lack of sovereignty means that the large indigenous community of Roeburne, a poor town neighboring the booming Karratha, has little to negotiate when dealing with the large mining companies that use its land (Langton 2010 ). Additionally, due to the lack of compensation provided, the indigenous community of Roeburn has suffered economically, especially as the cost of living increases due to the presence of the mining company (Langton 2010). Furthermore, O'Fairchealleigh (2006, 12) argues that although some indigenous communities have benefited somewhat from the Mabo decision by exercising greater control over land, the Native Title Act often provides little protection to their rights and other unconventional means are necessary to negotiate. Halloran (2007, 2) states that there has been a shift in the understanding of indigenous land rights and the need for reconciliation in Australian society, but that this has not manifested itself or led to better outcomes for indigenous communities. The lack of economic growth, largely due to the inadequacies of the Mabo decision to ensure sovereignty and economic benefits from mining, has led to further poverty and a sense of political powerlessness within these communities , which can be compared to the devastation of the original colonies. the lack of sovereignty and political power recognized in the Mabo decision has led to much cultural damage. Yunupingu (1998) described the invisibility of their indigenous law in the eyes of white law. For example, Yunupingu (1998, 238-239) tells a story that demonstrates the damage that white law and the question of sovereignty cause to their culture; where a mining company in their community was going to destroy a tree on their land, however this tree was the heart of their country and culture and was destroyed because the Yunupingu community had no power. The lack of sovereignty and political power held by this indigenous community demonstrates the lack of agency that native title provides to indigenous peoples. Second, the obstacles and limitations created by the Mabo decision have negatively impacted other indigenous claims to land rights, limiting their sovereignty and political power in the process. Manwaring (1993, 188-189) argues that the requirements for claiming native title make it very difficult for indigenous people to assert these claims. Requirements, such as having to prove that the traditional connection has been maintained from initial colonization to the present day, are unrealistic and constitute major obstacles to claiming native title (Manwaring 1993, 189). Due to these barriers, only a small number of indigenous groups and individuals have been able to provide sufficient evidence to prove that they still hold the traditional connection, particularly indigenous peoples who were dispossessed during initial colonization or throughout the 20th century (Watson 1993, 7). The difficulty of being able to cross these barriers and prove that their connection to the land is the same as it was two centuries ago demonstrates the lack of political power that the Mabo decision gave to indigenous peoples, ultimately undermining their sovereigntyand their ownership of the land. As Keon-Cohen (2012, 27) argues, land rights are inaccessible to many communities because the old regime of settler denial is still in place. Additionally, O'Fairchealleigh (2006, 12) argues that the economic cost and cultural differences of obtaining land title constitute a major barrier for many indigenous groups. Many indigenous communities live in poverty and are therefore often unable to afford a lengthy process, particularly when many fail to obtain title or sovereignty. Cultural differences in the provision of evidence are also an obstacle; White courts and government generally do not accept oral evidence, as opposed to written evidence, when recording the traditional connection to the land, thereby disempowering Aboriginal people, placing the culture and norms of settlers over indigenous traditions (Alford, 1999). Additionally, the Yorta Yorta Tribe's Native Title case can be used to demonstrate the impact and limitations created by the Mabo decision and the Native Title Act on Native rights and power. Korosy (2008, 82) argues that the annulment of terra nullius in Mabo was simply limited to the recognition of land rights and excluded the recognition of indigenous sovereignty over land. The notion of terra nullius, however, was ultimately replaced by “the flow of history” in the Yorta Yorta case (Atkinson 2001, 233). In the Yorta Yorta case, the indigenous Yorta Yorta tribe claimed land rights and ownership, but their claim was rejected by the courts, saying any traditional connection to the land since the 19th century had been washed away by the "tide ". of history” (Atkinson 2001: 233). Atkinson (2001:234-235) ultimately argues that the Yorta Yorta affair highlights the betrayal and lack of rights afforded by the Mabo decision, where the barriers in place serve to protect the interests of white government and commercial enterprise. . Ultimately, as Strelein (2006, 226) argues, the level of intolerance and injustice in the justice system places an undue burden on many Indigenous peoples to prove their continued connection. Additionally, lack of access to land and culture only exacerbated rates of unemployment, alcoholism, and dysfunction in indigenous communities (Hill 1995, 317). Mabo and its evidentiary requirements acting as barriers to claiming land ownership, as demonstrated in cases such as the Yorta Yorta case, ultimately demonstrate the negative impact of the Mabo decision on action and indigenous political power. Third, because of the Mabo decision, the Native Title Act is vulnerable in the hands of white government, which more often than not fails to protect the rights of indigenous peoples and limits their sovereignty; ultimately demonstrating how the Native Title Act was used as a tool for white settler control over Native sovereignty. Manwaring (1993, 188) argues that the Mabo case placed the issue of land rights and indigenous sovereignty in the judicial arena, meaning that their rights were made vulnerable by being placed in the hands of the courts and the government. For example, while members of the Meriam tribe, following the Mabo decision, gained title to their land, their ownership and sovereignty were ultimately subject to the government's decision to extinguish their title by valid exercise of their powers (Manwaring 1993, 188). The fact that native title is subject to extinction by the government based on interests.