ipl-logo

How Significant Was The Mabo Decision 1995

620 Words3 Pages

The 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 …show more content…

this event has the support of the liberal and labour parties as well as the prime minister Whitlam who had helped approved the land rights act, this was also a step into having trust between both parties. After Prime Minister Whitlam was put into power, he promised to push for Aboriginal land rights, the Australian government bought privately owned land to give back to the Aboriginals since the act had been introduced, and almost 50% of the northern territory was returned to the ATSI people. The year 1975 marked a great historical year in Australia as it was the year the Prime minister poured soil into indigenous Australians' hands to symbolise their victory in claiming Australia as their …show more content…

the bark petition is the first petition addressing the authorities for trespassing on their land to open a bauxite mine, their petition was ignored and the mine was opened. The ATSI people had called to deal with the matter on legal terms but were unsuccessful many times. Even after they attempted to notify the government, a published report was aired but showed no signs of recommending a stop to mining, rather recommending to only protect the sacred sites. The rejections of the government led to the first land rights legislation in Australia, called the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, however, the petition gained popularity, being signed by multiple Australians, the judge decided to accept the evidence that the Yolgnu people have been living at yirrkala for thousands of years, this impacted society as aboriginal people were recognised as Australian citizens for the first time. despite their success, their attempts were not strong enough to have more significance than the Mabo

Show More
Related
149 Words | 1 Pages

In 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.

Read More
767 Words | 4 Pages

After 10 long years Torres Strait Islander Eddie ‘Koiki’ Mabo has lead indigenous Australians to a victory over the Queensland government. This win this case is a historical moment, as of yesterday, the indigenous Australians have been recognised as the owners of Murray Island. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are known to have resided in Australia, 40,000 to 60,000 years before the British arrived in 1788. When the British took over they decided to take all the land for themselves even though the indigenous Australians were here first. This court case recognises indigenous Australians unique connection to the land and acknowledges that they have the rights to the land.

Read More
113 Words | 1 Pages

On 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.

Read More
721 Words | 3 Pages

On 27 May 1967 a Federal referendum was held. The 1967 referendum did not give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the right to vote. That right had been legislated for Commonwealth elections in 1962, with the last State to provide Indigenous enfranchisement being Queensland in 1965. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have had multiple campaigns to try and uphold the same rights as white people. The 1967 referendum was a public vote to determine the public 's opinions of two aspects of the Australian constitution (a written statement which outlines the country 's rules and regulations) that related directly to Indigenous Australians.

Read More
962 Words | 4 Pages

Formed in 1957, the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders commenced their campaign with a series of petitions displayed in Source 4 that called for a referendum. This had the effect of not only mobilising support for a change to the constitution but also of informing the public of the issues facing Aborigines. Over the course of the campaign, more than 100,000 signatures were collected and presented to the Parliament in 94 separate petitions (NMA, n.d.). This was a key factor in changing politicians’ minds and the government’s stance (Koori Mail, 2007). A key factor of the support of the referendum by non-indigenous Australians was the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders ‘Yes’ campaign.

Read More
702 Words | 3 Pages

The High Court ruled that Indigenous Australians had a right to claim native title to traditional lands that were not legally owned by the

Read More
996 Words | 4 Pages

In 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].

Read More
720 Words | 3 Pages

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.)

Read More
1234 Words | 5 Pages

The Howard government’s policy of “practical reconciliation” has been a failure on two substantial levels which resulted in failing to benefit Indigenous Aboriginals. First the policy ignores the significance of “symbolic reconciliation” which provides justice to Indigenous people. Second, the policy, although set out to improve the socio economic disadvantage experienced by Indigenous Australians, did not actually succeed. The election of John Howard’s government in 1996 marked the beginning of a discursive shift away from the view of social justice which has been a target pursued by the Council of Aboriginal Reconciliation and supported by the previous Labor government. The new Howard government refused to accept the approach of previous

Read More
888 Words | 4 Pages

If 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

Read More
320 Words | 2 Pages

The decision affects the whole of Australia... Although the formal declaration of the Court is limited to the land specified in the plaintiff 's claims, the comments of the judges regarding the recognition of native title are applicable to Australia as a whole. As Justice Toohey states: 'While this case concerns the Meriam people, the legal issues fall to be determined according to fundamental principles of the common law and colonial administrative law applicable throughout Australia ... no basic distinction need be made, for the purposes of determining what interests exist in ancestral lands of indigenous peoples of Australia, between the Meriam people and those who occupied and occupy the Australian mainland. The relevant principles are the same. '

Read More
709 Words | 3 Pages

We are gathered here today, in loving memory of the greatest prime minister to ever grace Australian soil. Gough Whitlam broke a 23-year-old dry spell for the labour party and although his term in office was a mere three years, in that three years he did more than any other prime minister ever has and truly began to shape the Australia we live in today. From humble beginnings, to fighting for Australia, Whitlam was a man of great courage and will and for that his legacy will transpire long past his time. FIRST BODY PARA: ‘Terra Nullius’ the two words that initiated white superiority in Australia for over 100 years. Gough Whitlam was the first Australian prime minister to accept instead of oppress and put an end to a previously idealistic

Read More
949 Words | 4 Pages

Because of this, Aboriginal people found it difficult to claim ownership of land, as it did not adhere to British regulations. Eddie Mabo and two other members of the Merian people, commenced proceedings in the High Courts in refusing to be denied of their rights for native title and ownership (Crommelin,1993). They wanted declarations of the Murray Islands as, owners, possessors and as occupiers entitled to use and spend time on the islands (Commelin, 1993). Before mabo, earlier leaders of Milirrupum and Yolngu members unsuccessfully petitioned the parliament in Canberra to recognise their land ownership with a lease and project approval in 1965.

Read More
1234 Words | 5 Pages

The dissenting judgement of Kiefel CJ and the majority judgement of Bell J in the High Court of Australia decision in Love v Commonwealth (2020) 94 ALJR 198, 204–212 [1]– [47], 212–218 [49]–[82] prompts significant discussion of the principal legal issue in interpreting section 51(xix) of the term “aliens” in the Australian Constitution and its implications for Indigenous peoples. Bell J, as part of the majority, held that the Parliament did not have the power to treat an Aboriginal person as an “alien” and the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) could not apply to Aboriginal Australians under section 51(xix); this was an exception deemed appropriate regarding the common law recognition of the native law title. In contrast, Kiefel CJ dissented that Aboriginal

Read More
624 Words | 3 Pages

The Whitlam Government was made up of the members of the Australian Labor Party and ran in power from 1972 until its dismissal in 1975. The Whitlam Government was responsible for implementing Healthcare and Social Security and important changes to areas of Australia’s education, women, economy, defence, nationality, democracy and immigration. The Whitlam government only served for three years and was actually dismissed by Sir John Kerr; The Governor-General in 1974 appointed by Whitlam, this raises the questions what really where the successes and failures of the Whitlam Government?

Read More

More about How Significant Was The Mabo Decision 1995

Related Topics

Open Document