The Mabo Case Study

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

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 was started by five Meriam people, Eddie Koiki Mabo, Reverend David Passi, Celuia Mapoo Salee, Sam Passi and James Rice. (Keon & QC, 2011) These men fought against the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia. In the early years, Mabo expelled from the island by Murray Council because of Mabo’s father, Robert Zezou Sambo was the leader of Murray islanders’ maritime strike at the same year when Mabo was born in 1936. The Mabo case was started in 1982; after ten years working on the litigation, the “Native Title Act” was passed in 1993. It signalled the success of the lawsuit and the rights of Murray people of their traditional lands, as well as Aboriginal people.

Mabo was a long-running case launched by the Meriam people of the Murray Islands to challenge the validity of state land laws and seek recognition of rights to land.

This case and the resulting test were instrumental in defining aboriginal rights. However, it was also very controversial as it confirmed one thing: aboriginal rights are not absolute and this has been highlighted in numerous cases whereby aboriginal rights being denied.

The Mabo decision challenged the Australian Legal system and fought for recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Strait islanders being the traditional owners of the land. The Mabo decision was a 10-year case and on the 3rd of June 1992 the High Court declared that the term ‘terra nullius’ should not have been applied to Australia when first discovered by Captain James Cook. The decision saw that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People have rights to the land, rights that existed before the British settlement took place. This decision acknowledged the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander Peoples unique connection with the land and acknowledged their traditions and customs. Evidence that support this is Source 1, a newspaper article from The Age 1993. “It also ensures that Aboriginal title holders will have un-impeded access to pastoral leases for customary

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

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

In essence, the Court found that oral history should be examined as a “legitimate form of testimony” given that Aboriginal culture and history is passed down through oral storytelling. Additionally, the Supreme Court reconsidered and outlined the tests that Aboriginal groups had to pass in order to prove that they have an Aboriginal title to the land the occupied. The tests laid out in this case was less severe than the one they previously used. Nevertheless, the burden of proving Aboriginal Title was still on Aboriginal groups. To put it differently, it is the responsibility of Aboriginal groups to demonstrate that they had Aboriginal title and “exclusive use and occupancy and, perhaps, continual use and occupancy.”

The Mabo Decision challenged the Australian Legal system and fought for recognition of Aboriginals being the traditional

Previously the Commonwealth Government tried to keep away from the conflicts between State Governments over indigenous land rights. However, the then PM Paul Keating of the Labour Government wanted to find a way to help those in need of rights. There was a risk with this decision as some other State Governments might try to legislate to stop indigenous land rights as Western Australia had done. This led to the Commonwealth Government putting forward its own legislation. The Act that was created was the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth). It was passed in late December 1993 and began in force in January 1st

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.”