Are you an EPFL student looking for a semester project?
Work with us on data science and visualisation projects, and deploy your project as an app on top of Graph Search.
Concept
Mabo v Queensland (No 2)
Summary
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (commonly known as the Mabo case or simply Mabo) is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that recognised the existence of Native Title in Australia. It was brought by Eddie Mabo against the State of Queensland and decided on 3 June 1992. The case is notable for being the first in Australia to recognise pre-colonial land interests of Indigenous Australians within the common law of Australia.
Mabo is of great legal, historical, and political importance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The decision rejected the notion that Australia was terra nullius (i.e. owned by no one) at the time of British settlement, and recognised that Indigenous rights to land existed by virtue of traditional customs and laws and these rights had not been wholly lost upon colonisation.
The Prime Minister Paul Keating during his Redfern speech praised the decision, saying it "establishes a fundamental truth, and lays the basis for justice". Conversely, the decision was criticised by the government of Western Australia and various mining and pastoralist groups.
Soon after the decision, the Keating government passed the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), which codified the rights recognised in Mabo and set out a new process for applicants to have their rights recognised through the newly established Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia.
Indigenous land rights in Australia#History
The case centred on the Murray Islands Group, consisting of Murray Island (known traditionally as Mer Island), Waua Islet and Daua Island. The islands have been inhabited by the Meriam people (a group of Torres Strait Islanders) for between 300 and 2000 years.
Prior to and after annexation by the British, rights to land on Mer is governed by Malo's Law, "a set of religiously sanctioned laws which Merriam people feel bound to observe". Under this law, the entirety of Mer is owned by different Meriam land owners and there is no concept of public ownership.
Official source
About this result
This page is automatically generated and may contain information that is not correct, complete, up-to-date, or relevant to your search query. The same applies to every other page on this website. Please make sure to verify the information with EPFL's official sources.