Land Law Reform

The court case consisted of the Queensland government passing an act and trying to pass a law which prevented Aboriginal people, from claiming native title. Native title in Australia being the government recognising the traditional connection that the Indigenous people have with the land and waters. Mabo eventually won this case, the result not being that they could claim native title but that the possibility was

In 1992, the doctrine of terra nullius was overruled by the High Court in the case Mabo v Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. After recognising that the Meriam people of Murray Island in the Torres Straits were native title landholders of their traditional land, the court also held that native title existed for all

The lengthy period, undertaken by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, shows the resource inefficiency in relation to the Native title law reform. The Mabo V Queensland began in 1985 and concluded in 1992 where the High Court ruled the Australia was not terra nullius, reinstating the original Indigenous Australians with native title over the land. This case lead to the Mabo V Queensland (no 2) which resulted in the legislation Native Title Act 1993. This case took place in the High court of Australia proving very inefficient in the way of time and money, due to the high costs and long trial period. This legislation met

Importantly for Australia has been the take over of land by the British under the doctrine of

Indigenous Australians have been fighting for their civil rights since European colonisation in 1788, in particular, for their rights to land ownership. Prior to the Mabo land rights case, there was very little success when it came to indigenous Australians making claims. The Mabo case took land rights to the highest court in Australia. It succeeded in achieving land rights and overturning Terra Nullius. The Mabo case helped to continue to chip away at the barriers of civil rights. The Mabo Case was a step towards Indigenous equality.

The case of Mabo decision with Queensland government was one of the most significant legal case in Australia, which recognised the land rights and the original ownership of Murray islanders in the Torres Strait. It was acting by Murray islanders and the High Court upheld. Based on the successful legal case, there are some key issues in the process for Indigenous’ land rights, which were changed in Australia law and affect future rulings in Australia, such as the Native Title ruling of the Aboriginal people’s land rights after the High Court passed the Act in 1993; in addition, due to this alteration of Australian laws, it not only had a big impact of Murray islanders but also on some other groups of Aboriginal people’s land rights reform.

It involved the High Court considering the application of Australian law to the rights of Indigenous Australians, in particular regarding the legal concepts of terra nullius and native title

The term ‘Native Title’ refers to the right of Indigenous people to their traditional land. In Australia it has a legal significance of the right to an area of land, claimed by people whose ancestors were the original inhabitants of the land before European settlement. Also who can prove that they have had a continuous connection with the land. Native Title is the term given by the High Court to Indigenous land rights by the Court in Mabo and others v State of Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. The case required

Eddie Mabo was a revolutionary figure in the rights of Australia’s Indigenous people. With the introduction of white people to Australia in 1788, they followed the idea of terra nullius which was a Latin term meaning ‘land belonging to no one’. The white settlers ripped the Indigenous people’s land from under their feet therein making the original Australians a displaced group of people. Mabo’s court case enabled the Aboriginal people to have ownership of their own land. By taking the request for land rights to the High Court of Australia, Eddie Mabo brought the plight of the landless Indigenous people into the public spotlight.

The high court made a judgement (15) which was Mabo 1992, which attempted to assist the Indigenous people with the act of racial decimation dealt with the injustices that were served by the government. Attempts were made to help the government that was under the rule of Paul Keating, who tried to help with the injustices that both parties were dealing with the RDA. This acknowledged the idea that there were things like native title had been beyond the likeness that some places were either private or public and had ownership which included idea that terra nullius was then wiped out. The opposition at the time was John Hewson with support of John Howard. After the decision was made, Keating was then compelled to act in the face of the high court’s

The NSW Native Title Act 1994 was introduced to ensure that the laws of NSW are consistent with the Commonwealth legislation on future dealings and validates past

With the change from Keatings progressive labour government to John Howard's’ conservative Coalition government, came resounding regression to the Native Title act, with the 10 point plan, and the coinciding Wik decision nine months after. The Wik VS Queensland case (1996) established that in cases of conflict between pastoral leases and native title, pastoral leases override and can successfully extinguish native title , which was adopted with the change of legislation and introduction of the Native Title amendment Act (1998). If there is no conflict, they can coexist. Many cases of Native Title extinguishment has occurred, and only approximately 600 areas hold Native Title in all of Australia, with less than 1% in NSW. As a procession from the Native Title declaration, this legislature has digressed justice to the ATSI community , and as further iterated by Sydney Morning Herald has “undone the good of the Mabo decision”. ATSI discrimination following the legislation of the Native title Act (1996) significantly rose in the public discourse with renowneded personalities claiming they could “take their backyards”, and an unspoken deeply-rooted fear for many, dating back to Australia’s colonization; that Australia could be declared completely under Native Title, and the sovereignty of the Crown could be questioned . For ATSI peoples’, the introduction of the 10 point plan, and the Native Title Ammendment Act (1998) marks a significant national regression upon achieving justice for their community as they sought to pour “"bucket-loads of extinguishment" on the native title rights of Indigenous Australians. Law reform, in this case has been dominantly ineffective in achieving justice for the ATSI peoples, and rather revoking

The defendant in this case was the Australian government; they claim that the island of Mer as well as other Murry islands belongs to them as crown land. The case was a test case that aimed to clarify the legal rights of the Meriam people. The case lasted for 10 years and a decision was made on the 3rd of June 1992.

There have been many significant cases that have dealt with the issue of jurisdiction. Among these cases was the Sparrow case of 1990. The Court determined that “Aboriginal Rights were constitutionally protected, and that those rights can only be extinguished with First Nations consent.” Moreover, the Court ruled that “Aboriginal rights could only be limited with justifiable reasons and that Aboriginal rights have to be interpreted in a generous and liberal manner.”

The United States has been a country whose slogan is the “Land of the Free”. “O, beautiful the patriot dream” - a dream of those who wanted freedom and rights established in 1789. The United States has since outlined its government, policy, and laws using the Constitution. This Constitution was first signed by 39 delegates and created a foundation for which the country to abide by. Surely with 39 men, there were bound to be differing ideas on how to interpret this document. The way one interprets it to make rulings can be classified into Judicial Philosophy and ideology. With this and the Judiciary Branch, the United States can make well informed decisions on laws and statutes.