LAWS7067 Property Law Assessment

SCENARIO :

Khan N. Singh, a student at Western Sydney University Law School, required a Generative AI Chatbot to respond to the following request: Assess the extent to which Native Title in Australia is recognized as a form of proprietary interest in land by both the common law and the statutory legal framework underpinning the Commonwealth legal system.

Discuss whether or not (and if so then how) the present legal framework governing Native Title ought to be amended to further incorporate traditional indigenous conceptualisations of interests in relation to land.

The Chatbot produced the following response:

Native Title refers to the recognition of traditional Indigenous rights and interests in land that predate the arrival of Europeans in Australia. The legal recognition of Native Title has been a complex and evolving issue in Australian law, involving both the common law jurisprudence and the statutory legal framework. Native Title rights and interests are not identical to common law proprietary rights and interests. While common law property rights are based on a system of exclusive possession, Native Title is always based on a system of communal ownership and use.

The common law’s concept of property as a “bundle of rights” is translatable to Native Title. However, it’s important to note that the bundle of rights associated with Native Title can be limited by other laws and regulations, and that the recognition of Native Title does not necessarily result in the transfer of ownership of the land or waters to Indigenous people.

Rather, it recognizes and protects their rights to access and use the land and waters for traditional purposes. The recognition of Native Title as a form of proprietary interest in land is also enshrined in the statutory legal framework underpinning the Commonwealth legal system. The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) provides a suitable framework for the recognition and protection of Native Title rights and interests, because it balances the interests of Native Title claimants and the non-Indigenous landholders, to ensure that they are equitable and sustainableThere is an ongoing debate about whether the current legal framework governing Native Title should be amended to further incorporate traditional Indigenous conceptualisations of interests in relation to land. One approach could be to recognise and protect traditional Indigenous claims on land by negotiating a treaty between relevant indigenous people groups and local government authorities.

AN ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS:

Critically analyse the adequacy of the Chatbot’s response to the student’s original request.

Your critical analysis may ONLY reference any material from the following sources (i.e. this is NOT a research essay and your analysis of the AI response is confined to referencing material drawn from any of the following sources where relevant):

• Chapter 1: The Concept of Property and Chapter 4: Native Title of Gray et al Property Law in New South Wales (LexisNexis, 5th Ed, 2022)
• Chapter 1: The Concept of Property and Chapter 3: The Fragmentation of Proprietary Interests in Land paras [3.63] – [3.109] of Edgeworth et al Sackville & Neave Australian Property Law (LexisNexis, 11th Ed, 2021)
• S Young ‘Native Title as Displaced Mediator’ (2021) 44 UNSW Law Journal 1739
• R Bartlett ‘Humpies not Houses, or The Denial of Native Title: A comparative Assessment of Australia’s Museum Mentality’ (2003) 10 Australian Property Law Journal 83
• Katy Barnett ‘Western Australia v Ward; One Step Forward and Two Steps Back: Native Title and the Bundle of Rights Analysis’ (2000) 24 (2) Melbourne University Law Review 462
• https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/chatgpt-openai-artificialintelligence-writing-ethics/672386/ (available as a PDF on vUWS)

Your critical analysis of the response may consider the following issues:

• A ‘fact check’ of the information in the Chatbot’s response (i.e. verify the accuracy of assertions by reference to recognized primary and secondary sources
• A consideration of the extent to which the Chatbot’s response actually comprehensively addresses all aspects of the original request (i.e. are any critical perspectives missing from the answer? How would these critical perspectives improve the response?)
• How might an understanding of legal theory relating to property law assist a critical analysis of the Chatbot’s response? (Students enrolled in LAWS7067 must include a consideration of this issue).

GUIDELINES

• Word Limit: The word limit for this assignment is 1500 words (excluding footnotes) for students in LAWS3082 and 2000 words (excluding footnotes) for students in LAWS7067. This limit will be strictly enforced. Markers will be instructed to stop reading the response when it reaches the word limit.
• Referencing: Students are required to comply with the AGLC (4th edition) for referencing.
• Students should NOT perform additional research for this assignment and may respond to the question ONLY by drawing upon / referencing the materials set out above.