Racial discrimination act 1975 cth archived 19 august 2016 at the wayback machine native title act 1993 cth. This is done by overturning the terra nullius, which imply. Mcneil, kent, common law aboriginal title, have been free to fash io n a d. Mabo v queensland no 2 commonly known as mabo was a landmark australian court case which was decided by the high court of australia on june 3, 1992. Queensland iis recognition of indigenous peoples rights to their traditional lands, the jurisprudence of native title has undergone significant development. Court of queensland, moynihan j in finding the facts in mabo appears to have.
The legacy of the mabo decision on vimeo the mabo decision inquisitive lesson paul keating ignored advice to do nothing over mabo clips from behind the news 28 enhancetv. She brings a unique and valuable perspective to this landmark constitutional case. Mabo v queensland no 2 mabo case 1992 hca 23, 1992 175 clr 1 1992. Justice brennan delivered what is regarded as the lead judgment in the mabo case.
This was to be a major deciding factor in the decision of mabo and others v queensland no. 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. The majority judgments in full are the largest, and perhaps also the plainest in appearance, of australias key constitutional documents. The high court is the highest court in australias judicial system. Mabo v queensland no 1 wikimili, the free encyclopedia. Join us in september as the hon margaret white ao presents an indepth look at one of the most important judgments ever delivered by the high court, mabo v state of queensland no 2 1992 175 clr 1 the hon margaret white ao acted as junior counsel for the queensland government for the ten years of litigation. The mabo case the mabo decision altered the foundation of land law in australia by overturning the doctrine of terra nullius land belonging to noone on which british claims to possession of australia were based. The legal decision was made by the high court on 3 june 1992. Mabo v queensland pdf mabo v queensland no 2 mabo case 1992 hca 23 1992. Mabo v queensland no 1 wikipedia republished wiki 2. It found that the queensland coast islands declaratory act 1985, which attempted to retrospectively abolish native title rights, was not valid according to the racial discrimination act. It found that the queensland coast islands declaratory act 1985, which attempted to retrospectively abolish native title rights, was not valid according to the racial discrimination act 1975. Greg was solicitor for the meriam people in mabo v queensland 198292 and counsel for.
However, under australian law they had no rights to land ownership. Of course, indigenous people are free to buy land in the mainstream system. Eddie koiki mabo, sam passi, reverend dave passi, james rice and. The mabo cases are some of the most well known cases in the australian legal system, this paper will focus on the mabo v. Austlii website legislation native title act 1993 cth background on 20 may 1982, eddie koiki mabo, sam passi, david passi, celuia mapo salee and james rice. Foundations of the legal system, 2nd ed, melbourne, oxford university press, 2009, pp. He was a fighter for equal rights, a rebel, a freethinker. Nevertheless, it appears that the queensland authorities exercised some. The case was closely related to another proceeding in the high court mabo v queensland no 2, decided in 1992 which was a dispute between the meriam people of the mer islands in the torres strait and the government of queensland, in which several meriam people, principally eddie mabo, contested that they had certain native title rights over the murray islands.
Case study maboessay federalism students coursework for free. Five things you should know about the mabo decision the. Aboriginesconstitutional lawreal property aboriginesnative title to landwhether extinguished by annexation by crownreception of common law in australiaeffect on native titleterra nuliuswhether doctrine applicable in australia. Detail from the cover of the mabo v queensland document. Introduction in eddie mabo v the state of queenslandl the high court handed. The mabo case began when the plaintiffs, the merriam people of the murray islands in the torres strait initiated proceedings in the high court in 1982, in retort to the queensland amendment act 1982, which established a system of making land grants on trust for aboriginals and torres strait islanders. Mabo is a massive and prolific case which is discussed in many of the subjects offered on this site. It allows access to land for living, traditional purposes, hunting or fishing andor to teach laws and. Mabo v state of queensland no 2 22 september 2016 5. For more information on selden society lecture series visit.
Discusses such topics as the constitutional background to the decision, public law aspects, the admissibility of traditional evidence, the implications for aborigines and torres strait islanders, and native title and pastoral leases. In an action before the high court, mabo v queertsland,7 the queensland act was. The high court held that the doctrine of terra nullius, which imported all laws of england to a new land, did not apply in circumstances where there were inhabitants present if those inhabitants had been regarded at the time as uncivilized. The mabo case is actually the case between mabo v queensland in the year 1992 in australias high court. The effective result of the judgement was to make irrelevant the declaration of terra nullius, or land belonging to noone which had been taken to occur from the commencement british colonisation in 1788, and to recognise a form of native title. On 12 june 1991 the torres strait island land act 1991 qld9 is enacted and the queensland 3 mabo v queensland no. Oct 20, 20 2016 selden society lecture the hon margaret white ao on mabo v state of queensland no 2 duration. This bibliography was generated on cite this for me on thursday, october 12, 2017. Sir harry gibbs legal heritage centre supreme court. Mabo v queensland no 1 1988 hca 69, 1988 166 clr 186 8 december 1988, high court. It is short for mabo and others v queensland no 2 1992.
Mabo v queensland no 2 1992 facts of the case the murray islands are a group of three islands mer, dauar and waier that lie in the torres strait in northern queensland. This recognition inserted the legal doctrine of native title into australian law. Mabo v state of queensland 1992 66aljr408 the recognition of native title by the full court of the high court of australia in mabo v queensland 3 june 1992 is an important development in the relationship between australias indigenous people and its european settlers. Brisbane, evidence, exile, mabo, edward koiki, mabo v queensland no. The mabo case was commenced at a time when there was no national.
Mabo v queensland no 1, was a significant court case decided in the high court of australia on 8 december 1988. For court use, a full pdf copy is required or preferred. This case only considers mabo in the context of the. Oct 03, 2016 the selden society 2016 lecture series continues with the hon margaret white ao on mabo v state of queensland no 2 1992 175 clr 1. Home databases worldlii search feedback high court. The decision of manbo has altered the main foundation of australias land law. The high court held that the doctrine of terra nullius, which imported all laws of england to a new land, did not apply in circumstances where there were already inhabitants present even if those inhabitants had been regarded at. To maintain the pages relevant and succinct, we have a dedicated mabo page for each one of the subjects in which it is covered, which only contains the issues relevant to that subject. Collection of 11 essays that examine the implications and ramifications of the mabo decision on australia and its law. These are the sources and citations used to research the mabo v. The queensland government had earlier tried to extinguish the meriam peoples property rights under the queensland coast islands declaratory act 1985. Murray islanders in accordance with their laws or customs is preserved, as native title, under the law of queensland. The mabo case was a landmark decision in progressing.
However, the high court ruled in 1988 mabo v the state of queensland no. In this article, the author considers the extent to which the cases of mabo v. The 1992 mabo decision led to the native title act 1993 which created a framework that recognises aboriginal and torres strait islander peoples have rights to, and interests in, certain land because of their traditional laws and customs. Case study maboessay federalism students coursework for. The mabo case began when the plaintiffs, the merriam people of the murray islands in the torres strait initiated proceedings in the high court in 1982, in retort to the queensland amendment act 1982, which. High court case study high court overturns 200 years of. Wik peoples v queensland 1996 hca 40, 1996 187 clr 1 23 december 1996, high court. Guide 0 study mabo pages 1 8 text version fliphtml5. The mabo decision was named after eddie mabo, the man who challenged the australian legal. The mabo decision was named after eddie mabo, the man who challenged the australian legal system and fought for recognition of the rights of aboriginal and torres strait islander peoples as the traditional owners of their land. Mabo v queensland no 2 read ebooks online free ebooks. Queensland, a case that was litigated over for almost a decade in the australian high court, this case was a monumental step for indigenous people in australia. Mabo v queensland no 2 commonly known as mabo was a landmark high court of australia decision in 1992 recognising native title in australia for the first time.
State of queensland s defence pleads that the murray islands are islands to which the queensland act applies par. Mabo v queensland no 2 commonly known as mabo was a landmark high court of. The wider significance of mabo v queensland, 17 no 4 alternative l. The mabo decision altered the foundation of land law in australia by overturning the doctrine of terra nullius land belonging to noone on which british claims to. The meriam people have occupied these islands for thousands of years.
Implications of the mabo queensland that the meriam people were entitled as decision. Queensland have altered the basis of land law in australia. Atns agreements, treaties and negotiated settlements project. The decision was the judgment of the high court in mabo v queensland no 21. Sir harry gibbs legal heritage centre supreme court library.
Mabo v queensland no 1 note 94 infru at 236 per dawson j. In mabo v queensland no 1 1988 the high court found that the legislation passed by the queensland government was invalid as it was. Edward koiki mabos mother had passed away weeks after his birth and was the adopted son of his uncle, as was the meriam nations peoples cultural tradition. Mabo v queensland no 2 wikipedia republished wiki 2.
Mabo, wik and the art of paradigm management by nehal bhuta. Mabo v queensland no 2 laws2381 property, equity and. Mabo v queensland was a landmark high court of australia decision in 1992 recognising native title in australia for the first time. Mabo v queensland overturning the doctrine of terra nullius.
The facts of the case the australian high court decision in mabo v. These six judgments in the mabo case comprise hundreds of pages, of which just three pages are shown here. Use the information presented to explain the mabo case. The high court rejected the doctrine of terra nullius, in favour of the common law doctrine of aboriginal title, and overruled milirrpum v nabalco pty ltd 1971, a contrary decision of the supreme court of the northern territory.
The mabo decision is short for mabo vs queensland no 2 1992. To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the pdf icon next to the case name. The mabo case and indigenous resistance to english settler colonialism 200 6 653 australian journal of. In response, eddie mabo and his fellow applicants were left with no choice but to challenge the validity of the legislation in the high court if they wanted their case to continue, which they did in june 1985. Mabo v queensland no 2 mabo case 1992 hca 23, 1992. The group mark gregory queensland rejects the doctrine of terra consists of three.