Decisions
Mabo V. Queensland (No.1) [1998]
Mabo and others V Queensland (No.2) [1992]
Legislation: Native Title Act 1993 (NTA)
1998 Eddie Kioki Mabo along with 5 other Meriam people began their legal journey to claim ownership of the island of Mer located in the Torres Strait islands. The Supreme Court of Queensland was required by the High Court of Australia to determine the facts of the case but while the case was held at the Queensland Court the act “Any rights that Torres Strait Islander had to land after the claim of sovereignty in 1879 is herby extinguished without compensation” was passed by the state Parliament. The case was then put on hands of the high court of Australia, it was decided the case Mabo No.1 was invalid due
…show more content…
It was agreed by 6 judges of the high court (Dawson J. dissenting) that the Meriam people have traditional ownership of the Mer and British Control would not disregard their title, “the Meriam people are entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands of the Murray islands” and agreed “that the common law of this country recognizes a form of native title which, in the cases where it has not been extinguished, reflects the entitlement of the indigenous inhabitants, in accordance with their laws or customs, to their traditional lands and that, subject to the effect of some particular Crown leases, the land entitlement of the Murray Islanders in accordance with their laws or customs is preserved, as native title, under the law of Queensland. The main difference between those members of the Court who constitute the majority is that, subject to the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), neither of us nor Brennan J. agrees with the conclusion to be drawn from the judgments of Deane, Toohey and Gaudron JJ. that, at least in the absence of clear and unambiguous statutory provision to the contrary, extinguishment of native title by the Crown by inconsistent grant is wrongful and gives rise to a claim for compensatory damages. We note that the judgment of Dawson J. supports the conclusion of Brennan J. and ourselves on that aspect of the case since his Honour …show more content…
In fact despite that the Meriam people may have won the Mabo decision, the Meriam people and other indigenous communities have had less control of their lands. They were required to seek state departmental head approval before building any homes or any buildings, since the Mer island along with other communities was under the trusteeship of state (60) as “reserve”. It was not until 2012 the Queensland government passed the reserve title (60) back to the Meriam people but the remaining indigenous communities in Australia still cannot buy/own or sell individual land as the rest of
Eddie Koiki Mabo was a successful land rights activist born on Mer (Murray) Island in the Torres Strait in 1936. When he was sixteen, he was exiled from the island and lived in Queensland and the Torres Strait before moving to Townsville with his young family in 1962. In 1982 Mabo and four other islanders took legal action to the High court, claiming ownership of their lands on Murray Island. The case went for over ten years until the lands were ruled as being not ‘terra nullius’ and the Meriam people then gained the rights to own their land.
Eddie Mabo was a recognised Indigenous Australian who fought for his land, Murray Island. Mabo spent a decade seeking official recognition of his people’s ownership of Murray Island (Kwirk, 2012). He became more of an activist, he campaigned for better access for indigenous peoples to legal and medical services, to house, to social services and to education. The Mabo case was a milestone court case which paved the way for fair land rights for indigenous people. The Merriam people wanted to ensure its protection. Eddie Mabo significantly contributed to the civil and land rights of Indigenous people in Australia due to his argument to protect his land rights. In a speech in 1976, at a conference on the redrawing of the Torres Strait border, Mabo articulated a vision for islander self-determination and for an independent Torres Strait Island (Stephson, 2009).
Jeff Lambert’s thesis suggests “the proclamation delivered an injustice to the Aboriginal nation that took over 200 years to legally reject Terra Nullius, albeit under certain conditions” (Lambert 2012. pg15). Lambert explains the stages before and after the Proclamation 1835 formed also noting a statement by Joseph Bank “Sir Joseph Banks’ prediction that no Aborigines would be found in the interior of the continent, because they only lived on fish and shellfish, but rather a few nomadic peoples along the coast line, may have influenced the British government’s decision to declare Terra Nullius” (Lambert 2012. pg15). The statement is discussed in and evidenced with a map. Jeff Lambert also explains the European attitudes towards Aboriginal and Torres islander sovereignty. Jeff Lambert states Europeans perceived Torres Islanders and Aboriginals as ‘inferior’ (Lambert 2012. pg.12). Lambert (2012. pg13) suggests that “There were some who asserted that terra nullius implied that unoccupied land was not the only meaning of the phrase and that it could also be interpreted as an absence of civilised society.”. The principle of terra nullius means no-man’s land, therefore after the Governor Bourke Proclamation Aboriginals had no legal ownership of land. According to Lambert (2012. pg13) Torres Islanders and Aboriginals ownership of
in the country can afford the best lawyer and it is true to say that
The Mabo case was a legal case held in 1992. It was named after an Aboriginal man called Eddie Mabo, who challenged Australian legal system. He fought for claiming the legal rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait inhabitants. From Mabo’s perspective, Aboriginal people are the traditional owners of their land as they occupied and lived in Australia for thousands of years, much longer and earlier than British people’s arrival in 1788. However, after British people took charge of this continent, Aboriginal people’s life went from bad to worse. They had no legal rights and were treated like animals. Their lives were severely threatened. Moreover, they lost their homes although they were the original owner of the land. After ten years
The National Apology of 2008 is the latest addition to the key aspects of Australia’s reconciliation towards the Indigenous owners of our land. A part of this movement towards reconciliation is the recognition of Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders rights to their land. Upon arrival in Australia, Australia was deemed by the British as terra nullius, land belonging to no one. This subsequently meant that Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were never recognised as the traditional owners. Eddie Mabo has made a highly significant contribution to the rights and freedoms of Indigenous Australians as he was the forefather of a long-lasting court case in 1982 fighting for the land rights of the Torres Strait Islanders. Eddie Mabo’s introduction of the Native Title Act has provided Indigenous Australians with the opportunity to state claim to their land, legally recognising the Indigenous and the Torres Strait Islanders as the traditional owners.
This essay is about the land rights of of Australia and how Eddie Marbo was not happy about his land been taken away from him. In May 1982 Eddie Marbo and four other people of the Murray Islands began to take action in the high court of Australia and confirming their land rights. Eddie Marbo was a torres islander who thought that the Australian laws were wrong and who went to fight and try and change them. He was born in 1936 on Mer which is known as Murray Island. The British Crown in the form of the colony of Queensland became of the sovereign of the islands when they were annexed in1978. They claimed continued enjoyment of there land rights and that had not been validly extinguished by the sovereign. (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012)
Indigenous People. In evaluating the Legal System’s response to Indigenous People and it’s achieving of justice, an outline of the history of Indigenous Australians - before and during settlement - as well as their status in Australian society today must be made. The dispossession of their land and culture has deprived Indigenous People of economic revenue that the land would have provided if not colonised, as well as their ... ... middle of paper ... ...
Their main vision is to empower the idea of a shared country and encourage opportunities for growth. With the perplexed requirements set out by the Native Title Act, this tribunal has helped claimants by providing legal aid to increase the chances of regaining lost land. For example, the Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 case was successful in recognising the lost land of the Wik people of Cape York. “They claimed native title over land that had previously been leased by the State Government to farmers for pastoral use” (Woodgate, Black, Biggs & Owens, 2011, p.354). The court then decided by a 4:3 majority that pastoral leases did not necessarily extinguish native title. This means that, in some cases, native title rights will co-exist with the rights of the pastoralists. Therefore, through progression and more native title cases heard, the laws surrounding the Native Title Act will adapt to further assist the Indigenous Australians in reclaiming their land. For instance, the processes surrounding Native Title issues are constantly being refined. As more and more people and political parties become aware of this process, the easier court litigation will become (Dow, 2002)
How can we not own it?’ as a clarification for Mabo when he was deal with the case. After he died the government finally said Merry island is belong to aboriginal people. This is a powerful clue show racialism was a momentous aspect for Mabo fighting for aboriginal people’s rights let everyone turn be
Struggles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people for recognition of their rights and interests have been long and arduous (Choo & Hollobach: 2003:5). The ‘watershed’ decision made by the High Court of Australia in 1992 (Mabo v Queensland) paved the way for Indigenous Australians to obtain what was ‘stolen’ from them in 1788 when the British ‘invaded’ (ATSIC:1988). The focus o...
The Effectiveness of Native Title The debate about native title issues has tended to see issues from idealistic perspectives ignoring the practical realities that native title poses to governments, industry and indigenous people. The implementation of the Native Title is an appropriate and significant aspect of Australia’s common and statute law, which effectively strives to develop a fair outcome for all Australian citizens. The Native Title Act 1993, like the court Mabo decision in 1992, transforms the ways in, which indigenous ownership of land may be formally recognised and incorporated within Australian legal and property regimes. The process of implementation, however, raises a number of crucial issues of concern to native title claimants and to other interested parties. These issues will need to be settled in court however, despite the many disputes between opposing stakeholders, the Australian Native Title effectively reaches the best and fairest possible outcomes for all Australian citizens.
The journey for the Aboriginals to receive the right to keep and negotiate land claims with the Canadian government was long but prosperous. Before the 1970's the federal government chose not to preform their responsibilities involving Aboriginal issues, this created an extremely inefficient way for the Aboriginals to deal with their land right problems. The land claims created by the Canadian government benefited the aboriginals as shown through the Calder Case, the creation of the Office of Native Claims and the policy of Outstanding Business.
Before the Indigenous Australians gained Land Rights in Australia, in 1788 the East Coast of Australia was claimed by the English Monarch and was called Crown Land. The reason behind the English Monarch's claim for Crown Land was that they believed that that land was “terra nullius”, meaning land belonging to no one”. In 1976 the Northern Territory was the first state government to allow Indigenous Australians to claim Crown Land and reserves in the Northern Territory that no one had the use for. Commission and increased funding was also granted to Indigenous Australians through the 1975 Racial Discrimination act made by the Whitlam Government. These acts and decisions were then overruled against in 1985 by the High Court. Article 8 “everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution of law” and Article 16 “the family (...) is entitled to protection by society and the State” of the UDHR are evidence of the discrimination Indigenous Australians faced by the government as they were once again stripped away of their human rights and land titles. Indigenous Australians only began to grant land from the English Monarch after the case between Mabo and others versus the State of Queensland took place that decided in favour of
Land rights now referred to the continual legal exertion to reclaim ownership of the land and waters that was called home prior to British colonisation (Creative Spirits, 2011). Australian Museum (2015) and Creative Spirits (2011) acknowledge the struggle to gain legal recognition and ownership of Indigenous land is difficult and expensive. Furthermore, the history behind the struggle in earlier years often resulted in violence as Indigenous Australians were dispossessed of their land (Australian Museum, 2015). Subsequently, the struggle for land rights continued through the legal and political systems; as demonstrated in 1982 when Eddie (Koiki) Mabo and four other Meriam people decided to pursue declaration of their customary land rights in the High Court of Australia (Hill, 1995). Based on the findings of Creative Spirits (2011) Indigenous Australian land rights appeared promising in 1983 when the Hawke Government promised legislation to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s land rights are protected throughout Australia. The legislation was said to permit Indigenous Australians to exercise the right of control over mining on Indigenous Australian land to ensure sacred sites are protected (Creative Spirits, 2011). However, in 1984 the mining companies fought back to repossess control over land. Mining and pastoral industries were considered too powerful and