The term ‘Mabo’’, as described in media reports refers to all the issues concerning the Australian High Court Judgment in the Mabo against Queensland Case. The Mabo decision was named after Eddie Mabo, a Torres Strait islander who regarded the Australian Law on land ownership wrong and challenged the Australian legal system. Eddie Mabo was born on the 29th of June 1936 on Murray Island. Murray Island is between mainland Australia and Papua New Guinea. In his early days of childhood, at the age of 16, Mabo was banished from Murray Island for breaking a customary law and moved to Queensland, where he worked various jobs such as a deck hand and cane cutter. At the age of 23 he married Bonita Nehow and settled in Townsville and had ten children. In Townsville he was a spokesperson for the Torres Strait Islander community and was involved in the Torres Strait islander advancement league. While working as a groundskeeper on James Cook University in 1974, he discovered that his people’s traditional land was actually owned by the government.
Legal proceedings for the case began in 1982 when a group of Meriam man, including Mabo himself, bought an action against the state of Queensland and the commonwealth of Australia, claiming native title to the Murray Island’s in the high court. Native title is a form of land title which reflects the indigenous
…show more content…
Unfortunately Eddie Mabo died 4 months before this decision and unable to see the fruits of his lifetime commitment and passion. This decision was a turning point for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people’s rights as it acknowledged their unique connection to the land. Later on, in 1993, the parliament passed the native title act, allowing other indigenous people to claim ownership of their
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).
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
Throughout Australian history, there have been men and women who fought for the entitlements of the indigenous people. The most respected and recognised of these is Eddie Mabo, a Torres Strait Islander. Mabo stood up for the rights of his people from a very young age all the way to his death, in order to generate changes in the policies and laws of the government. Mabo battled for his right to own the land which he had inherited from his adoptive father, a fight which was resolved only after his demise. Despite this, Eddie Mabo became one of the key influential figures in the Aboriginal rights movement, as his strong will, determination, and intelligence allowed him to bring about change.
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 ... ...
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...
Those two key points incited him to protect his land. He participated a lot of debates for those cases in the court. When he was alive most of people were against Mabo’s speech saying Merry island is not belong to aboriginal people, even showed on televisions. ‘We’ve been farming on that place before you mob set foot on the land. We handed it down from father to son.
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.
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
The events surrounding land rights at Noonkanbah in 1980 highlighted the contrasting ideas between the native and non-native people in Western Australia and the incredible lack of rights for aboriginal people at the time. For Western Australia, this was just the beginning of the increasing awareness to the general community of the issues created by white society to the aboriginal people and culture. As stated by Frank Gare, retiring Director of the Department of Native Affairs in 1978, “The basic trouble is that Australia as a whole does not appreciate the enormity of what disinheritance has meant to the aboriginal people... It remains to be seen if the rising Aboriginal leadership will be able to effectively convince the community at large
Since European invasion in 1788, Indigenous Australians have struggled to maintain their rights and freedoms and to have governments recognise them. Over time, state and Commonwealth governments have implemented policies that have discriminated against Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, denying them equality, opportunity and control of their own lives and those of their children (Jacaranda, 2012). Indigenous Australians have been politically active in demanding their rights. Charles Perkins was an Aboriginal Activist who fought in the struggle for recognition, justice and legal acknowledgments for Indigenous people. To a large extent Charles Perkins has impacted the civil rights of Indigenous Australians; significantly advancing human rights and paving the way for reconciliation.
In its broadest sense ‘Reconciliation’ is the Australian term that refers to the unity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. To support reconciliation means working to overcome the separation and inequality between all Australians (Australia, n.d.). In 1992, then Prime Minister Paul Keating, delivered the Redfern Park speech that publically acknowledged European soldiers were responsible for many crimes against Indigenous communities, "We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practiced discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice (Government, 1992)." Since 1993, Reconciliation Week is a national event that celebrates a positive and respectful relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. It enables all Australians to close the gaps, and to achieve a shared sense of fairness and justice. The ultimate goal of the week is to build a strong and trusting relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and other Australians, as a foundation for success and to enhance national wellbeing (Australia, n.d.). However, this advocacy for Indigenous rights and recognition was advanced be civil right activists in the 1950’s and 1960’s. One significant activist from this period and until her death in 1993 was Oodgeroo Noonuccal. Oodgeroo Noonuccal has significantly contributed to the civil rights of the Indigenous people in Australia due to her tireless campaigning to educate non-Indigenous Australians and enact political change that would not only recognize Indigenous Australian and Torres Strait Islander people within the census but further understand their rich and diverse culture. Noonuccal’s contribution can be seen through her significa...