Mabo v. Queensland (No2) (1992)
Summarise the fact situation
The Mabo case started at the hands of a group of people from the Murray islands including Eddie Mabo and was brought to high court. The group claimed that the Merriam people should have the right to claim ownership of the Mer Island as such right hasn’t been covered in the Queensland government. Eddie Mabo asked the high court to introduce and hence recognise their rights of ownership and use the land as they prefer- according to their traditions and customs.
Describe the role of individuals in bringing about changes in the law through launching test cases
In august 1981, a conference was held at James Cook University whose topic was based on the indigenous land rights, gathering …show more content…
Hence, the Native Title Act created the national native title tribunal to distinguish land rights claims. Furthermore, in December 1996 there was another claim in high court regarding the land rights of indigenous people. With the appeal of Wik and Thayore peoples of cape work, the high court decided the native title can co-exist with pastoral leases. Henceforth, indigenous people have the right to practise their own traditions on hunting, fishing and camping on pastoral leases. However, these rights the indigenous people were given clashed with the rights of those leasing the land. As a result, the court had to negotiate with both parties and resolve the dispute in a way that acknowledges the rights of both indigenous people and leaseholders. This issue was resolved by the federal court where in 1998 the native title act was rewritten in the hope of avoiding any conflicts and inequality between the two …show more content…
Terra nullius is a term that means ‘no man’s land’. It was given to the Australian land as the British didn’t recognise the traditional ways indigenous people used the land by. Fortunately, by the removal of terra nullius and so this allowed indigenous people to own lands and hence practice their own traditions and customs on that land. However, to claim ownership of a land native title had to exist. Native title exists when there is a continuous link with the land between the current people living in it and the people that lived in it before. Indeed, the outcome of the Mabo case empowers indigenous people to claim native title. However, native title became a controversial political issue in Australia in 1992 especially that the high court left many aspects of indigenous land rights unsolved. People supporting indigenous land rights insisted on having more land owners, however, supporters of mining wanted to have limitation on the native title. Such issue was then addressed by western Australia with the land titles and traditional usages act 1993 that aimed to get rid of the common law right of native title in the state and substitute it with a statutory right of ‘traditional usage’ which can also be removed by the government any time they
Summarise the fact situation
The Mabo case started at the hands of a group of people from the Murray islands including Eddie Mabo and was brought to high court. The group claimed that the Merriam people should have the right to claim ownership of the Mer Island as such right hasn’t been covered in the Queensland government. Eddie Mabo asked the high court to introduce and hence recognise their rights of ownership and use the land as they prefer- according to their traditions and customs.
Describe the role of individuals in bringing about changes in the law through launching test cases
In august 1981, a conference was held at James Cook University whose topic was based on the indigenous land rights, gathering …show more content…
Hence, the Native Title Act created the national native title tribunal to distinguish land rights claims. Furthermore, in December 1996 there was another claim in high court regarding the land rights of indigenous people. With the appeal of Wik and Thayore peoples of cape work, the high court decided the native title can co-exist with pastoral leases. Henceforth, indigenous people have the right to practise their own traditions on hunting, fishing and camping on pastoral leases. However, these rights the indigenous people were given clashed with the rights of those leasing the land. As a result, the court had to negotiate with both parties and resolve the dispute in a way that acknowledges the rights of both indigenous people and leaseholders. This issue was resolved by the federal court where in 1998 the native title act was rewritten in the hope of avoiding any conflicts and inequality between the two …show more content…
Terra nullius is a term that means ‘no man’s land’. It was given to the Australian land as the British didn’t recognise the traditional ways indigenous people used the land by. Fortunately, by the removal of terra nullius and so this allowed indigenous people to own lands and hence practice their own traditions and customs on that land. However, to claim ownership of a land native title had to exist. Native title exists when there is a continuous link with the land between the current people living in it and the people that lived in it before. Indeed, the outcome of the Mabo case empowers indigenous people to claim native title. However, native title became a controversial political issue in Australia in 1992 especially that the high court left many aspects of indigenous land rights unsolved. People supporting indigenous land rights insisted on having more land owners, however, supporters of mining wanted to have limitation on the native title. Such issue was then addressed by western Australia with the land titles and traditional usages act 1993 that aimed to get rid of the common law right of native title in the state and substitute it with a statutory right of ‘traditional usage’ which can also be removed by the government any time they