The Significance Of The 1992 Mabo High Court Case
The 1992 Mabo High Court case represents one of the most profound cases in Australian history leading to the turning point of Reconciliation for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. As a result of this decision, it changed the legislation of the indigenous Australians introducing land rights and impacted the indigenous Australians society rights and freedom as a more desirable outcome in the movement towards Reconciliation.
The 1992 Mabo court case was a pivotal turning point in the progressive Reconciliation in Australia. It paved the pathway for Indigenous land rights and confronted the state of Queensland and Australian commonwealth to regain their freedom and equality.
To grasp the historical context leading up to the Mabo decision
…show more content…
Indigenous Australians had experienced a long history of dispossession, colonization, and marginalisation. The doctrine of terra nullius was used by the British to justify the of Indigenous lands, without recognising their traditional ownership or sovereignty. It was not until 1965 Indigenous Australians were allowed to vote, two years later 1967 Indigenous Australians were finally granted citizenship and in 1985 they were treated equal with other voters, ending almost two centuries of political exclusion.
The Mabo decision is significant as it marked the first time the High Court explicitly rejected the doctrine of terra nullius and recognised the existence of Indigenous land rights. The case was named after Eddie Mabo, a Torres Strait Islander man who, alongside a group of Meriam people, challenged the Queensland state government with the Commonwealth and High Court to claim back their family land on Mer Island. The High Court ruled that Indigenous Australians had a right to claim native title to traditional lands that were not legally owned by the
Eddie Koiki Mabo In The 1971 Gove Land Rights Case
149 Words | 1 PagesIn the 1971 Gove land rights case, Justice Blackburn ruled that Australia was terra nullius prior European settlement. This judgement was challenged for a total of 3 years but all attempts failed. However, on the 20th May 1982, Eddie Koiki Mabo and 4 other Indigenous people began their legal claim for ownership of their traditional lands on the island of Mer in the Torres Strait. The case was later taken to supreme court and after ten years, the case was closed and the government granted the indigenous people of australia their rightful land. Before this, Eddie had been helping his community from a young age.
Mccloy V New South Lewis Case Study
1379 Words | 6 PagesI Introduction In McCloy v New South Wales, the High Court upheld the validity of provisions in the Electoral Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) that imposes caps on political donations, prohibits donations from property developers and restricts indirect campaign contributions in New South Wales. The majority did so on the grounds that whilst each of the provisions burdened the implied freedom of political communication, they had been enacted for legitimate purposes and hence, did not impermissibly infringe upon the implications within the Commonwealth Constitution.
Mabo Case Analysis
113 Words | 1 PagesOn 3 June 1992 the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Mabo vs The State of Queensland, ruling that the treatment of the Indigenous property rights based on the principle of terra nullius was wrong and racist towards the Aboriginals. The court ruled that indigenous ownership of land has survived where it has not been extinguished by a valid act of government and where Aboriginal people have maintained traditional law and links with the land. This legal recognition of Indigenous ownership called Native Title. The court ruled that in each case native title must be determined by reference to the traditions and customary law of Indigenous owners of the land.
Korematsu V. US Supreme Court Case Study
604 Words | 3 PagesKorematsu v. United States was a controversial landmark decision ruling by the United States Supreme court. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese-American living in California, he was ordered to refuse to leave his city after the Japanese internment camp. After the World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the Executive Order 9066 and Congressional decree gave the military power to exclude citizens of Japanese descent from areas deemed critical to national defense and may be vulnerable to espionage. On May 3, 1942, Fred Korematsu stayed in California and violated the US Army Civilian Executive Order No. 34. This supreme court case has an importance of interpreting the constitution and the different perspective of interpreting the constitution based on a person’s own political background and beliefs.
Korematsu V. United States: A Case Study
218 Words | 1 PagesWhen trying to support my argument about legal doctrines being shaped by race during this time period the case of Korematsu v. United States has to be talked about. At the beginning of WWII President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, giving the U.S. military the right to ban thousands of Japanese-American citizens from areas thought of as critical to homeland security. Thus, setting up ‘interment camps’ to hold the Japanese for the duration of the war. Mr. Korematsu did not follow suit and decided to stay home in the state of California. The upholding of Korematsu’s conviction by the Supreme Court showed not only how threatened the country felt about Japanese immigrants but also put into question how equal everyone truly was in America.
How Did Eddie Mabo Win The High Court Of Australia
767 Words | 4 PagesThroughout the case, they produced 4000 pages of evidence, which included proof that the eight clans of Murray Island have occupied defined territories for hundreds of years. Their poof and testimonies evidently were enough to persuade the high court which .. in their favour, something that wasn’t expected due to the long time period of the case. It seemed as if this would never happen but eventually, and slowly but surely they managed to win the case not just for themselves but for the population of Indigenous Australians around the country. This is a turning point for the indigenous population, they are edging their way closer to equality to live in a world with no racism or discrimination towards
The Mabo Case: Aboriginals And Torres Strait Islanderss
733 Words | 3 PagesOn 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).
Edward Koiki Mabo Essay
996 Words | 4 PagesIn the 1980’s, national campaigns for land rights laws began and Eddie spoke at a 1981 land rights conference on land rights in the Torres Straits. On hearing his speech, Lawyer, H. C. ‘Nugget’ Coombs, encouraged Eddie and other Meriam people to establish ownership of their lands through the High Court of Australia, and on 20 May 1982, Koiki and four other Meriam Men began their fight for ownership of their lands on Murray and Dauar Islands through the Australian High Court. Koiki was named the first plaintiff, so the case became known as the Mabo Case. Research grants from AIATSIS helped out with the case, but the Queensland Government introduced a sneaky new law in 1985 to crush their chances for native title. Koiki and his colleagues challenged this new law and won, as the High Court found in 1988, this new Queensland law breached Australian racial discrimination laws—Mabo v. Queensland [No. 1].
How Significant Was The Mabo Decision 1995
620 Words | 3 PagesThe Mabo decision of the high court in 1992 is vastly significant as it marks history as the victory of indigenous Australian land rights against the federal government, who had colonised their land and refused to acknowledge that Australia was originally owned by the ATSI people but became a terra nullius land due to the European colonists. The events that have occurred before 1992 such as the The Aboriginal Land Rights Act (NT) of 1976 and the bark petition is deemed less significant than the Mabo decision. I firmly believe that the Mabo case is an extraordinary achievement. it started in 1982 when Eddie Mabo brought up a case against the supreme court of Queensland that Indigenous Australians should have land rights. After almost a whole
Land Rights Movement: The Mabo Case And Wik Decision
888 Words | 4 PagesIf I don’t fight for it, then I will be moved out and I will be the loss of my identity.” Mabo stated that “terra nullius” had never legally existed and that it had been wrongfully applied to Australia. Although, the lost the case, the Mabo case was taken up to high court and as a result eighteenth months later, in response to the Mabo decision Federal Parliament passed the Native Title Act (1933). One of the High Court judges involved in the Mabo case, Justice Brennan, described native title as; “Indigenous inhabitants' interests and rights in land, whether communal groups or individuals, under their traditional laws and customs”. Thus, the Native title act was established as a result of the Mabo
Meriam People Case
320 Words | 2 Pages'If there existed any lingering doubt as to the applicability of the principles enunciated in Mabo to mainland Australia, that doubt is, as a matter of practicality, dispelled by the statement of Mason CJ in Coe v The Commonwealth (1993) 118 ALR 193. In the context of an application to strike out a statement of claim, his Honour said (at 200): 'Mabo [No.2] recognised that land in the Murray Islands was held by means of native title under the paramountcy of the Crown. The principles of law which led to that result apply to the Australian mainland as the judgments made clear. ' Mason v Tritton (1994) 34 NSWLR 572 at
Eddie Mabo Essay
974 Words | 4 PagesHis activism and leadership in the land rights movement helped to bring about important changes in Australian law and society, and his legacy continues to inspire Indigenous people around the world. One of Mabo's most significant contributions was his role in the landmark Mabo v Queensland case, which was decided by the High Court of Australia in 1992. This case overturned the legalism of terra nullius, which had been used to justify the dispossession of Indigenous peoples' lands by European colonizers. The court recognized that Indigenous peoples had a pre-existing system of land ownership and that this system had not been extinguished by British colonization. This decision paved the way for the recognition of Indigenous land rights in Australia and helped to establish a legal framework for the negotiation of land rights agreements between Indigenous peoples and the Australian government.
Success Of The 1967 Regretedum In Relation To Aboriginal People
1125 Words | 5 PagesThe referendum was held to amend the constitutional law to include Aboriginal people in the census and allow the Commonwealth to make laws for them, as under constitutional law Aboriginal People were considered under the Fauna and Flora Act. Having just passed the 50th anniversary of this event many are reflecting on the fact if the legal, political, social and economic impact the referendum had in 1967 still count as successful 50 years later. According to Gabrielle Appleby
Noel Pearson's Article 'Reconciliation'
707 Words | 3 PagesHe 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.
Denomination Switching Essay
441 Words | 2 PagesMabo: 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
More about The Significance Of The 1992 Mabo High Court Case
Eddie Koiki Mabo In The 1971 Gove Land Rights Case
149 Words | 1 PagesMccloy V New South Lewis Case Study
1379 Words | 6 PagesMabo Case Analysis
113 Words | 1 PagesKorematsu V. US Supreme Court Case Study
604 Words | 3 PagesKorematsu V. United States: A Case Study
218 Words | 1 PagesHow Did Eddie Mabo Win The High Court Of Australia
767 Words | 4 PagesThe Mabo Case: Aboriginals And Torres Strait Islanderss
733 Words | 3 PagesEdward Koiki Mabo Essay
996 Words | 4 PagesHow Significant Was The Mabo Decision 1995
620 Words | 3 PagesLand Rights Movement: The Mabo Case And Wik Decision
888 Words | 4 PagesMeriam People Case
320 Words | 2 PagesEddie Mabo Essay
974 Words | 4 PagesSuccess Of The 1967 Regretedum In Relation To Aboriginal People
1125 Words | 5 PagesNoel Pearson's Article 'Reconciliation'
707 Words | 3 PagesDenomination Switching Essay
441 Words | 2 Pages