澳洲《原住民族土地所有權法》研究一個批判性的觀點

A Study of the Native Title Act 1993 of Australia: A Critical View

澳洲聯邦最高法院（High Court）在1992年作成《瑪莫案第二號 判例》（Mabow Queensland No. 2））判例，明確承認原住民族的土地 「權（native title），迫使工黨保羅·基廷政府加緊通過《原住民族土地 所有權法》（Native Title Act， 1993），來處理原住民對於取回土地權所 作的聲索（claim）。我們想要瞭解該法通過以來，實際上運作的情形 如何、面對哪些批判、以及國會歷年來有哪些修訂，特別是聯邦最高 法院在1996年作成《威克民族判例》（Wik Peoples v. Queensland）判 例，判定儘管非原住民跟政府簽訂了契約書承租牧地或農地，然而並 未因此自動消除原住民族的土地權，自由黨約翰·霍華德政府卻又通 過《原住民土地所有權修正法》（Native Title Arriendrent Act， 1998）來 加以反制，巨幅限縮原有的法定權利。整體看來，儘管法律落實司法 判例，政權轉移卻左右著法律的修訂、偏離司法判決的初衷。

The High Court of Australia delivered the ruling of Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2) in 1992, affirming the existence of native title. In order to handle the forthcoming land claims, the Labor Paul Keating government hurriedly passed the Native Title Act in 1993. In this study, we like to explore how the Act had operated, what criticisms had been leveled against it, and what amendments have been made, particularly the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 passed by the Liberal John Howard government to counter the High Court ruling that pastoral or farm leases have not automatically extinguished native titles in Wik Peoples v. Queensland in 1996, which has drastically limited native entitlements rendered briefly so far. In reflection, the Australian experience of recognizing native titles demonstrates that the even if the judicial ruling may have been benevolent and the subsequent legislation may have seemed to be benign the original good intention may be eventually jeopardized after the change of government.