Origins of the modern land rights movement
Vincent Lingiari , elder of the Gurindji people and leader of the group which came to be known as the Wave Hill mob, instigated the modern land rights movement in
1966. After a protracted dispute between the Gurindji people of the Northern Territory and English Cattle baron, Lord Vesty, the Whitlam Federal Government passed the first land rights legislation in 1975 , which provided certain parcels of land to particular Aboriginal communities.
Importance of land rights movement
Since the Dreaming is inextricably linked to the land , the land rights movement is an important movement in helping Aboriginal people re-establish spiritual links with the land which were lost as a result of European settlement. Considering the central role which land occupies in Aboriginal spirituality, as land is the medium through which the Dreaming is lived and communicated the importance of the land rights movement for Aboriginal spirituality should not be underestimated.
The ancestor spirits continue to inhabit the land; totems bind people with particular aspects of the land; and there are sacred duties and rituals that are required for the wellbeing of the land and all who dwell on it.
It should be noted that though all land is important to Aboriginal people, what makes native title even more important to Aboriginal spirituality is if native title can be granted over sacred sites . Sacred sites are certain parts of the land, which carry with them a special significance to particular Aboriginal groups because significant events of the Dreaming look place there and thus they are important places to carry out ritual duties.
Overturned notion of "terra nullius" in establishing Native Title
In June 1992 the High Court of Australia ruled in favour of an action brought by
Eddie Mabo on behalf of the Merriam people of the Murray Islands . The court ruled that Australia was in fact an occupied land at the time of British settlement in 1788.
This overturned the long held legal fiction that Australia was "terra nullius" at the time of European settlement, a term which meant that Australia was a "land belonging to no one". Furthermore, the High Court ruled that in certain circumstances a form of title known as "Native Title" existed under Australian law. Native title refers to communal or individual rights or interests of Aboriginal people or Torres Strait
Islanders in relation to land or waters . Indigenous Australians have claimed native title based on the stories of the Dreaming, the location of totems and sacred sites, and the elders customary possession of the land.

Native Title Act
In 1993, the Keating Labor Government passed the Native Title Act . This legislation aimed to codify the Mabo decision and implemented strategies to facilitate the process of granting native title. One of the key provisions of this act was to set up a Native
Title Tribunal to register, hear and determine native title claims. There are two prerequisites necessary in order to claim native title : firstly, it needs to be proven that native title has not been extinguished by freehold title , and that native title is not inconsistent with the way the land is currently used. Basically, this means that native title could only be claimed for vacant Crown land (i.e. land owned by the government) and land being leased by the Crown. If the land had been bought by an individual, then it was freehold land (i.e. owned by that individual) and native title could not be claimed.
The second necessary prerequisite for a native title claim is a continued connection with the land prior to 1788 . This is particularly difficult to prove, as traditional
Aboriginal societies are not based upon written contracts. Such provisions meant that native title could only be claimed on a very small percentage of Australian land , as almost all land had been previously bought, sold or granted to other people.
Limitations on the effectiveness of native title
Though native title is an important step in the history of Aboriginal selfdetermination, some activists argue that the current provisions for native title do not go far enough. They argue that in many cases native title does not ensure access to sacred sites . Many sacred sites are located on freehold or on pastoral leases such as farms or mines where Aboriginal people are unable to visit and perform the necessary rituals. However, native title has assisted some Aboriginal groups to gain economic and social independence , thus enabling them to preserve their culture in a way that is deemed appropriate by them.
Rights of leasehold and native title owners can co-exist
In 1996 the High Court ruled in favour of the Wik people of Cape York ,
Queensland, by clarifying the common law position regarding the question of whether leasehold title extinguishes native title. Leasehold (or pastoral) title refers to land that is owned by government (Crown land) which has been leased - lent or rented out by the government - usually to farmers or mining companies. The High Court handed down the historic precedent that leasehold title does not automatically extinguish native title . Thus in certain circumstances native title and leasehold title can co-exist.
This decision had wide-reaching implications because mining companies and pastoralists occupied approximately 40% of Crown Land in Australia under a leasehold title. The High Court also decided that in areas of dispute where the rights of the leasehold titleholder cannot be reconciled with the native titleholder, the interests of the leasehold titleholder would override the rights of native title holders.

Ten Point Plan
In 1998 the Howard Liberal Government introduced legislation, which amended the
Native Title Act in favour of the leasehold title holder, in response to pressure from rural investors who wanted to reduce the potential rights of native title claimants. This
Native Title Amendment Act is commonly referred to as the Ten Point Plan .
The main feature of this legislation was to transfer the power to upgrade the leasehold title to freehold title from Federal to State Government , hence making it simpler to extinguish native title. A secondary feature of the Ten Point Plan was the sunset clause , which prevented Aboriginal people from making native title claims beyond a certain date in order to minimise confusion as to when native title claims could be made, to ensure that the law could be applied with certainty.
This legislation has effectively cut off the ability of many Aboriginal groups to claim native title . This is because firstly many Aboriginal groups cannot afford the litigation fees involved in native title claims. The high cost of legal fees is partly exacerbated by the fact that the court process is an extremely time consuming procedure. Secondly, native title claims are difficult to make because it is difficult for a society based on the oral tradition to produce written evidence to substantiate their claims.
Dreaming is inextricably connected to the land
The Dreaming and its inextricable connection to the land is the driving motivation behind the Aboriginal people's desire for rights over certain parcels of land and bodies of water. In essence, the modern land rights movement is testament to the centrality of the role of land to Aboriginal spirituality. This is because without the land, the
Dreaming cannot be communicated because it is from the land that the stories of ancestor spirit beings in the Dreaming flow . The land therefore, acts as a mother for the Aboriginal people because it is through their intimate connection to the land that the foundational concept which lies at the heart of Aboriginal spirituality, that is, the Dreaming can be accessed. It follows, therefore, that since the land is revered as a mother of the people, the identity of every Aboriginal person is inextricably linked to the land .
The first grant of land rights in 1975 by the Whitlam Government, the Mabo and the
Wik decisions of the 1990s is essentially a public recognition and acknowledgement by the Australian people of the importance of land to Aboriginal spirituality.
Similarly, the fact that the Ten Point Plan has been heavily criticised by various
Aboriginal advocacy groups for its reduction of potential rights of native title claimants, is a reflection of the fact that the land rights movement is an important movement in helping Aboriginal people re-establish spiritual links with the land and their cultural identity.

Sacred sites
All aspects of Aboriginal life are rooted in the stories of the Dreaming which emerge from the land . Thus, Aboriginal belief systems, rituals, traditions and laws are all intimately connected with the land. Since the land occupies a position of such paramount importance, Aboriginal people have ritual responsibilities to take care of the land which is a resting place for ancestral spirit beings. One common manifestation of these ritualistic responsibilities is the performance of balance rites on sacred sites as a part of the Aboriginal totemic system. In light of this, what makes the land rights movement even more significant therefore, is if native title can be granted over sacred sites. Advocates of native title have noted that when native title is granted it is often not granted over sought after sacred sites because these sacred sites are located on land which is under freehold or pastoral leases. Nevertheless, it should be noted that native title has assisted some Aboriginal groups to gain economic and social independence .