Mabo: Has change occurred?
Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1992) was a momentous court case that witnessed the legal doctrine of ‘terra nullius’ being classified as inutile in the High Court of Australia; a major step to reconciliation between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous, but how much impact does this case still have today from being brought into court 33 years ago? Nicholas Recchi reports.
This year marks the 33rd year from May 1982, from when Eddie Koiki Mabo and four Meriam persons from the Murray Islands (Mer) brought legal action to the High Court of Australia looking to confirm whether they had traditional land rights over the Murray Islands. The plaintiff’s presented that they continuously inhabited the land and waters and claimed …show more content…
I first present the question, “at the time of the arrival of the British, did Indigenous Australians have sovereign power over their lands? If so, was the doctrine of ‘terra nullius’ which had been used to settle the continent incorrectly applied?
Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1992) came out with an outstanding conclusion, held at a judgement by a majority of six to one, where the initial claim of terra nullius was invalid at the time of European settlement. The courts’ held that the doctrine was inutile and the native title rights of the Meriam people survived the European settlement. Subsequently, this entitled the Meriam people to ‘possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of (most of) the lands on the Murray Islands.’
Effectively, the obiter dictum held that common law is unjust and does not give adequate respects to identifying all Australians as equal before the law. The High court recognised the Aboriginal people that had lived within this continent for thousands of years, by a government’s response of the Native Title Act …show more content…
We give the indigenous people of Australia, at last, the standing they are owed as the original occupants of this continent, the standing they are owed as seminal contributors to our national life and culture: as workers, soldiers, explorers, artists, sportsmen and women - as a defining element in the character of this nation - and the standing they are owed as victims of grave injustices, as people who have survived the loss of their land and the shattering of their
Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1992) was a momentous court case that witnessed the legal doctrine of ‘terra nullius’ being classified as inutile in the High Court of Australia; a major step to reconciliation between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous, but how much impact does this case still have today from being brought into court 33 years ago? Nicholas Recchi reports.
This year marks the 33rd year from May 1982, from when Eddie Koiki Mabo and four Meriam persons from the Murray Islands (Mer) brought legal action to the High Court of Australia looking to confirm whether they had traditional land rights over the Murray Islands. The plaintiff’s presented that they continuously inhabited the land and waters and claimed …show more content…
I first present the question, “at the time of the arrival of the British, did Indigenous Australians have sovereign power over their lands? If so, was the doctrine of ‘terra nullius’ which had been used to settle the continent incorrectly applied?
Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1992) came out with an outstanding conclusion, held at a judgement by a majority of six to one, where the initial claim of terra nullius was invalid at the time of European settlement. The courts’ held that the doctrine was inutile and the native title rights of the Meriam people survived the European settlement. Subsequently, this entitled the Meriam people to ‘possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of (most of) the lands on the Murray Islands.’
Effectively, the obiter dictum held that common law is unjust and does not give adequate respects to identifying all Australians as equal before the law. The High court recognised the Aboriginal people that had lived within this continent for thousands of years, by a government’s response of the Native Title Act …show more content…
We give the indigenous people of Australia, at last, the standing they are owed as the original occupants of this continent, the standing they are owed as seminal contributors to our national life and culture: as workers, soldiers, explorers, artists, sportsmen and women - as a defining element in the character of this nation - and the standing they are owed as victims of grave injustices, as people who have survived the loss of their land and the shattering of their