Son, this land will belong to you when I die.” These are the words Eddie Koiki Mabo’s father once said and it is the beginning of what is to be known as “Mabo v Queensland (No 2), or the Mabo Case. In year 1982, Eddie Koiki Mabo and some fellow plaintiffs from Murray Island, wanted to claim back their rights and ownership of what they claimed was their land. They went up in front of the High Court of Australia and ten years later the parliament passed the Native Title Act 1993. Eddie Koiki Mabo died in 1993, before the High court of Australia legislated the new act. At Eddies funeral, Bryan Keon-Cohen said “…without Eddie the case would probably never have begun” .
In 1992, ten years after the case began, the High Court of Australia ruled
…show more content…
This act of the British colony has continued under the doctrine of terra nullius, which states that the land in Australia belonged to no one, prior to 1788 .
In 1537, Pope Paul III made a statement regarding freedom and land rights. In his declaration Sublimus Dei, he wrote;
“Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians are to be by no means deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property; … should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect”
This statement was made long before the British colony claimed Australia as theirs, and it clearly indicates the rights of the indigenous inhabitants.
Terra nullius denied both the existence and humanity of the indigenous inhabitants, and it also separated the indigenous inhabitants from the white people, which today would have been an act against the law. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 states
…show more content…
The consequences of terra nullius, before it got rejected, were that it parted the indigenous inhabitants from their rights in their land, and even if terra nullius is rejected today they still do not have the same rights as other Australians. An article in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states
From an early age, Mabo was taught about his family’s land. In 1959 he moved to Townsville and settled down with his wife and children. He started becoming more involved in the community around Townsville, becoming an activist in the 1967 Referendum campaign, helping to found the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Health Service and co-founding and directing Townsville’s black community school. Mabo’s motivation towards land rights didn’t start until 1974, when he was working as a gardener at James Cook University. Two historians, Noel Loos and Henry Reynolds recall a
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).
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)
Eric Williams starts his essay by telling us about the use of Indians as slaves. He mentions that it was attempted to only enslave those Indians that didn't give up their heritage for Christianity. This brings me back to Winthrop Jordan's essay in which we recall the Christians encountering heathenism in Africa which certainly applies here:
Key events in Aboriginal Australian history stem from the time Australia was first discovered in 1788. For instance, when Federation came into existence in 1901, there was a prevailing belief held by non Aboriginal Australians that the Aborigines were a dying race (Nichol, 2005:259) which resulted in the Indigenous people being excluded from the constitution except for two mentions – Section 127 excluded Aborigines from the census and Section 51, part 26, which gave power over Aborigines to the States rather than to the Federal Government. Aboriginal people were officially excluded from the vote, public service, the Armed Forces and pensions. The White Australia mentality/policy Australia as “White” and unfortunately this policy was not abolished until 1972. REFERENCE
The laws regarding native title have continually been questioned about its legitimacy in providing justice to Indigenous Australians and their lost land. The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) was recently established in response to the Mabo v Queensland case in 1992. Eddie Mabo and four other Torres Strait Islanders went
Of the 8 successful, the 1967 referendum which proposed the removal of the words in section 51 (xxvi) ‘… other than the aboriginal people in any State’ (National Archives of Australia ND), and the deletion of section 127, both, which were discriminative in their nature toward the Aboriginal race, recorded a 90.77% nationwide vote in favour of change (National Archives of Australia, 2014). As a result, the Constitution was altered; highlighting what was believed to be significant positive political change within Indigenous affairs at the time (National Archives of Australia, 2014). Approaching 50 years on, discussion has resurfa...
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
The Calder Case was the spark that led to the Canadian government recognizing Aboriginals and their rights. Firstly, the aboriginals used the Calder Case to inform the government that they were taking away their rights. The Calder Case was launched after the Attorney General of British Columbia declared “that the Aboriginal Title, other wise known as the Indian Title, of the Plaintiffs to their ancient tribal territory...has never been lawfully extinguished.”1 The statement made by the government claimed that the Aboriginal Title did not exist in the eyes of the law and before the Calder Case, it allowed them to ignore Aboriginal land rights all over the country. In addition, The Calder brought the issues the Aboriginals were facing with land claims to the attention of the Canadian government. “According to Kainai Board of Education The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where the court ended up rejecting the native's claims after being split on it's validity. However, the Supreme Court of Canada's recognition required new respect for Aboriginal land claims.”2 The Supreme Court of Canada's recognition of the Calder Case benefited the Aboriginals as the government was...
“It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.” (Jackson).
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
Germov,(2009) stated that the invasion and subsequent settlement of Australia by the British was declared to be terra nullius which means an unoccupied land. “The term reveals the ethnocentric belief that the indigenous occupants of the continent had no claim to the land,because they did not exploit it as Europeans would,” (Germov, 2009,p.160).Indigenous Australia were nomads and search for food from one place to another.According to Germov (2009)however,after the British people began cultivating the land for ...
Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.
Without a treaty, Aboriginal peoples had no rights under British rule, and most were driven from their land and at worse tribes were systematically slaughtered.