TLLB106 Introduction to Public Law Debate: Indigenous Sovereignty

This report presents a debate on the topic of Indigenous sovereignty within the framework of Australian public law. It begins with an introduction defining public law and its relevance to the relationship between the government and individuals, including constitutional, administrative, and criminal law. The main body of the report delves into the core argument: the impact of the High Court's decisions in relation to Indigenous sovereignty, particularly the intersection between Aboriginal Australians and the concept of 'alien' under the Constitution. The report discusses key cases, such as Love v Commonwealth of Australia; Thoms v Commonwealth of Australia, and explores the debate surrounding who is considered an Australian citizen and the application of laws to both citizens and non-citizens. The arguments presented consider the implications of different legal standards, the importance of equal treatment under the law, and the potential conflicts arising from the application of state versus commonwealth laws. The report concludes by summarizing the arguments and emphasizing the need for clarity and consistency in the application of public law, particularly regarding Indigenous sovereignty and the rights of all individuals within Australia. The report references relevant legal literature and case law to support the arguments presented.

Debate in Public Law

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................3
Indigenous sovereignty has been released from over two centuries in hibernation by the
decision of the majority of the High Court..................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
Public law is explained as the law which discusses about the relation which is required to
maintained by government and individuals. This relation has a direct impact on society where it
comprises of constitutional law, administrative law, taxation law as well as criminal proceeding.
In context of the file, argument will be done on the topic of indigenous sovereignty.
MAIN BODY
Indigenous sovereignty has been released from over two centuries in hibernation by the
decision of the majority of the High Court
There has been the argument within the Australian law that they constitute laws and
regulations where Commonwealth plays the most crucial role and even if I mandatory for
everyone to follow those law. Even state level government has the power to commence law
which is applicable in certain area. But, there are certain drawbacks such as person who is not
the citizen of Austrlia will not have to follow the law. One of the famous case Love v
Commonwealth of Australia Thoms v Commonwealth of Australia, says that person
who is born outside the boundary of Australia will not be counted as the citizen of
Australia. High Court considered the intersection between being Aboriginal Australian and that
of 'alien' within the meaning of section 51(xix) of the Constitution. They discuss the difference
between the alien and aboriginal Australian (Phillips and Spinks, 2013). Both, Love and Thoms
were not from Australia but after living within the premises of Australia they got the citizen but
later on their citizenship was withdrawal because they were non-citizen of Australia.
Now the question for debate is that how should be called Australian and who must follow
the law and regulations. Here, argument can be presented that any of the person who is living
within the premises of Australia whether they are from any part of the world must follow the
legislation of Australia to ensure that no one gets the right to breach the law. Although Alien
people are from another part of the world but this should not allow them to take their own
decision because it will directly create issues for the local people (Pearson, 2012). It is becoming
on a daily basis thousands of people visits Australia for different purpose and if all of them will
have to similar form of law then it will be easy for government to maintain the situation and
chances of conflict will not remain in that particular situation. The judgement in case was given

that they do not fall under the category of Migrant Act which means different penalty will be
imposed for outsiders. It is among the controversial decision because as per human rights every
people should be treated equally. Whenever there is different plans and policies for different
people then there is huge problem to decide that what types of remedies should be imposed upon
them.
Here, argument can be explained in detail which can simply state that although Migrant Act
should be applicable upon alien people but it should be made mandatory for the people to follow
the local laws and regulation because it will force them to not take any of those decision due to
which other people or society has to suffer. If there will be same laws and regulation, then
declaring the decision could be easy for the judges (Barker, 2012). But, there can be some of the
circumstances, where state law should not be applicable for them but Commonwealth law should
be applicable for them so that they will also consider the terms and condition before taking any
of the major decision. This can also raise question that who should be called Aboriginal person
because there are some of the people who are born in Australia but even then they had taken the
citizen of another nation. Then in this particular situation which law should be implemented
upon them (Turner, Abercrombie, Hill and Turner, 2014). Commonwealth had made some of the
section confusing where they must bring changes because if they will be able to treat everyone
equally then they will not be any sort of problem to decide whether person has taken right
decision or not. Simply if same law will be applicable for all of them then problem of declaring
the decision can be sorted out in a very decent manner. Sometimes, Aboriginal people and their
custom tradition plays the crucial role and in this particular situation it is necessary to decide that
whether people are of Citizen of Australia or of any other nation.
Whenever any of this situation arises it becomes very difficult to decide that who can buy
property and who should not be allowed to buy it. For example, person was born in Australia but
had the citizen of another country then permission should be granted to buy land should be given
to them or not. Keeping in this mind, law maker or common law should understand that equal
rights should be given because it will not restrict the people to take those decisions which can
create issues for the government (Flew, 2012). An Aboriginal person can belong to their
traditional land in one sense, but this is different to a citizen belonging to a country.

CONCLUSION
From the above debate, it can be concluded that there is certain decision which had been taken
by the commonwealth government which raise the question. Law is confusing due to which
number of time judges had taken those decisions which can raise question against them. It is
necessary for them to understand that if same law will be formed for both Aboriginal people and
Alien people then decision making process of the nation can be improved easily.
REFERENCES
Books & Journals
Phillips, J. and Spinks, H., 2013. Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. Parliament of Australia,
Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliamentary Library.
Pearson, M., 2012. The media regulation debate in a democracy lacking a free expression
guarantee. Pacific Journalism Review: Te Koakoa, 18(2), pp.89-101.
Barker, R., 2012. The full face covering debate: an Australian perspective. UW Austl. L. Rev., 36,
p.143.
Flew, T., 2012, September. Revisiting the debate about public service media exceptionalism.
In RIPE@ 2012 Conference-Workgroups and Papers. University of Sydney.
Turner, B. S., Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S., 2014. Australia: the debate about
hegemonic culture'. Dominant Ideologies (RLE Social Theory), p.158.