On June 3 1992, the legal decision of the Mabo case was made by the High Court, the highest court in Australia’s legal system (Webb, 2008). For thousands of years before the arrival of the British in 1788, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have had their strong connection to the Australian Land. When the British arrived in 1788, it was declared that the country was terra nullius (land belonging to nobody), which resulted to the absence of recognition towards the connection between the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and the Australian land. The declaration of terra nullius also resulted to the British taking land without agreement or payment towards the indigenous Australians (Webb, 2008).
In the 1970s the Queensland Government …show more content…
Eddie Mabo argued that the people of Mer have settled in stable communities, had their own organizations such as political organizations and social organizations and have continuously inhabited and had owned these lands, aiming to win his second case (www.australiatogether.org.au). When the High Court made their legal decision on June 3 1992, the rights over Australian land changed for the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. The court’s decision stated that terra nullius should not have been applied to Australia (www.reconciliation.org.au). Their decision also recognized that the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have rights to the land as it is acknowledged that they have a unique connection to their land (www.reconciliation.org.au). The high court also recognized the principal of the native title. This means that the high court recognized that there was title to land before the arrival of the European Settlers …show more content…
This is an act that acknowledges the rights to land for the Torres Straight Islanders and Aboriginals because of their traditional laws and customs (www.reconciliation.org.au). It accepts the notion of native title in law and also recognizes the rights of the owners of freehold property. However, the rights to this law are not limitless; it all depends on the traditional laws and customs of the people claiming the title (www.reconciliation.org.au). The interests in, or right to the land from other people are also relevant. This also rules over the Native Title (www.reconciliation.org.au). Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have to prove their connection to the land and prove that they have not done anything to break their connection to their land such as selling the land (www.reconciliation.org.au). There are different ways to look at the Native Title as some Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders may be granted the right to live on the land and live as how they traditionally lived (www.reconciliation.org.au). The Native Title act is important because it determines how Native Title interests are formally documented and acknowledged (www.reconciliation.org.au). It sets the rules for dealing with land where native title still exists or may exist
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The state of Queensland (1992) is of great important to the land rights movement. In 1982, Eddie Koiki Mabo and a group of others took the government to court, as they wanted a legal recognition of the land because their ancestors and families had lived there. The Mabo case has a spiritual significance, as in the court Mabo and his fellow plaintiffs repeatedly quoted stories and morals related with Mambo’s ancestral deity and they explained how the land is related to their ancestors and has a significant importance. Father Dave Passi, another plaintiff in the case said “It is my father’s land, my grandfather’s land. I am related to it, it gave me my identity.
They were counted in the census and the right to vote was given to the Indigenous was given to them by the Commonwealth in 1962 and by all States in 1965. Queensland was the last state to grant Abroginial people these rights. Secondly, the Mabo Decision was important
The situation no longer directly affected the Non-Indigenous Australians, as Non-Indigenous Australians had thought that the process of reconciliation was complete, with the matters of the Indigenous Australians now handed over to the Australian Government. Over the course of the next 10 years, the nation became apathetic towards indigenous affairs, however public interest was revived in 1982 when Eddie Mabo, an Indigenous land rights activist and several others challenged action against the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia in the High Court over Indigenous land rights in the Murray Islands. This gained massive media coverage, as it was the first time that the issue of Indigenous land rights had been raised at a federal level. At this time, it was unexpected, as many, again, believed that the altering of the constitution had closed the seal on reconciliation. It was not a high priority for the Government who, at the time, was trying to meet the political demands driven by the public to fix the Australian economy, which whilst booming, was leaving thousands unemployed, with high-interest rates, a catalyst for impending disaster.
The Legacy of Eddie Mabo, a Milestone of Hope for Indigenous Australia Introduction The life and legacy of Eddie Koiki Mabo continues to be one of the most influential and hopeful milestones in the reconciliation of Australia’s indigenous people. Against all odds, Mabo strived and succeeded in claiming back land rights that were taken away by settlers and brought significance to the land claims of indigenous people. However, this was not a case of one man’s right to land, but a case of many cultures’ right to hope. Eddie Mabo’s legal victory against the Australian government provided hope for the future of culture, traditions and custodians of Indigenous Australia.
Authorities from state and territory parliaments apologised for the actions made. On May 28th , 1997, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Dean Brown sincerely quotes, “ I move: that the South Australian Parliament expresses its deep and sincere regret at the forced separation of Aboriginal children from families and homes, which occurred prior to 1964”, before continuing to say that the apologies are to “ support for reconciliation between all Australians.” This demonstrates on behalf of South Australians, Dean Brown apologises and expresses their deep and sincere regret of the actions taken that effected the Stolen Generations and families. He advises the obligations and responsibilities of the government to legislate with equality and compassion, in order to reconcile all individuals in Australia. Thus, the Bringing Them Home report had impacted the civil rights movement in Australia, as it bought the states to comprehend what they did wrong and the desire to reconcile all
Psychological awareness and an indication of an inner life is central to a portrait – with certain techniques, an artist can represent the emotions and personality of the sitter as well as showing the effect and influence they had on people. Using symbolic colours, styles and depths, Gordon Bennett and Andrew Mezei are successfully able to characterize the inner life of their subjects. Gordon Bennett’s “Eddie Mabo” is a portrait of Koiki (Eddie) Mabo, a Torres Strait Islander responsible for initiating a legal case for native rights against the State of Queensland in 1982. In 1992, Mabo’s case was approved, and it was decided that the Mer people (from Murray Island) were the traditional owners of the land, four months after Mabo died of cancer.
He claims that Australia has relied on the lie of terra nullius for over 200 years until the High Court’s decision on native title in the Mabo Case. Pearson quotes that "There has never been formal recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia. " By frequently referring to the lack of recognition, Pearson indicates that Indigenous Australians' history has not been accurately represented. Pearson argues that "the new Australia never recognized the old Australia", and still has not in any formal and real sense. Pearson's purpose in highlighting this is to draw attention to the historical injustices that indigenous Australians have faced and the need to rectify them.
Mabo: The Mabo case was a judgment in the High Court of Australia in 1992 affirming that Aboriginal people could still have rights to land taken by settlers. Wik: The Wik decision was a legal judgment made in Australia in 1996 that protects the right of Aboriginal people to own land. However, it stated that Native Title could co-exist with other rights on land under pastoral lease but, if there is a conflict between Native Title and lease, the rights of the leaseholder will
Native title ’Native title’ refers to the recognition that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (ATSI) have rights to their traditional lands. For many years, native title has been an on-going topic across Australia, with many people disliking the concept. However, due to Australia’s changing social values and new concepts of justice, it has now been recently addressed. It is through the legal mechanisms such as the ALRC, the NSWLRC, the parliament and the courts and the non legal mechanism, the media that has been a catalyst for law reform for native title. Such mechanisms, have helped cases like the Mabo v Queensland 
The issue of not changing Australia day can be very sensitive to indigenous people The date suggestion of moving Australia day to another date is 1st of January, 25th of April (Anzac day) or the 1st of September (wattle day). The solution that Smith proposed was January 26th is a date that’s orientated towards when we gained our independence from British rule or perhaps a date bases on when Mathew Flinders when he first used the word ‘Australia’. The intended audience of this article is everyday Australian multi-cultural Australians. Smith focuses most of his attention trying to persuade people to change 26th of January (Australia day) to change it to First Fleet Day instead.
This was all through the persistency of the protesting and riots. It as was stated by the Australian government “The Aboriginal Land Rights Act. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 was the first attempt by an Australian government to legally recognize the Aboriginal system of land ownership and put into law the concept of inalienable freehold title. The Land Rights Act is a fundamental piece of social reform.” (History Of Land Rights Acts , n.d.)
The Mabo decision changed the legal, political and social relationships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. In recognising the traditional rights of Murray Islanders it changed Australia forever. The Mabo decision opened the doors for other indigenous people and groups to be able to claim ownership of land. They were required to prove that they had continuous connection to the land and maintained their traditional associating with it. The 'native title ' is the recognition by law that some aboriginal and torres strait islander people have rights to certain land due to their traditional laws and customs.
The attempts of the Australian government to construct a sole, standardised white Australian culture was hunted through the discrimination of Aboriginal children by placing them on apprenticeship schemes and also through assimilation procedures, which consequently had shocking impacts. Within each state of Australia in the beginning of the 1900 's- young Aboriginal boys and girls were forced into labour as a result of Aboriginal Protection Boards managing apprenticeship schemes. Broome (2010) states that young Aboriginal girls for the duration of domestic duties commonly experienced the double hazard of being female and Aboriginal (p.176). All Indigenous kids were supervised by white people under cruel apprenticeships and strict rules as they were working which resulted in low wages and trust accounts.
Britain was the biggest colony power in the world. Even the fall of the First Empire did not discourage the British from further colonization of ‘’unknown lands’’. In 1770, Captain James Cook claimed a portion of the Australian continent in the name of King George III. On his journey from Botany Bay to Cape York, Cook recorded several interactions with the indigenous population of Australia. Despite knowing about the continent being inhabited by one of the Earth’s oldest civilizations, Great Britain considered Australia terra nullius - land belonging to no one.