What is the significance of the mabo decision

In grazier and explorer John Batman used a treaty to buy land around Port Phillip Bay present-day Melbourne directly from its Aboriginal inhabitants.

This proclamation quashed the treaty and codified the concept of terra nullius. Aboriginal people therefore could not sell land, nor could individuals acquire it, except directly through the Crown.

Photo: Jim McEwan. Yarra Bank Films. Over a period of 10 years, 33 Meriam people, including the plaintiffs, generated pages of transcripts of evidence. The evidence presented included proof that the eight clans of Mer Murray Island have occupied clearly defined territories on the island for hundreds of years, and proved the continuity of custom on Mer. The High Court resolved that the Supreme Court of Queensland should determine the parameters of the case.

This enabled the High Court to begin hearing Mabo No. On 3 June , six of the seven judges agreed that the Meriam held traditional ownership of the lands of Mer. The decision led to the passing of the Native Title Act , providing the framework for all Australian Indigenous people to make claims of native title.

This decision altered the foundation of land law in Australia and rendered terra nullius a legal fiction. In recognising that Indigenous people in Australia had a prior title to land taken by the Crown since Cook's declaration of possession in , the court held that this title exists today in any portion of land where it has not legally been extinguished. The decision proved to be socially divisive. Many politicians and commentators claimed that non-Aboriginal Australians would be in danger of forfeiting the land they legally owned.

But the ruling clearly stated that native title claims only apply to land such as vacant Crown land, national parks and some leased land. Even then it is necessary for Aboriginal claimants to either go to court or a tribunal and prove that they have continually maintained their traditional association with the land in question.

The Mabo judgement also ensures that whenever there is conflict between titles granted by the Crown and the native title, the Crown prevails. Five things you should know about the Mabo decision. A few facts about the historic Mabo decision. Our commitment Discover more about our Indigenous strategy. What is cultural competence?

Find out more. Related news. Scholarship supports education and teaching of Indigenous language In life and death moments, clarity and purpose can be found. Kelli Owen's moment showed her that she wanted to help Aboriginal kids know their traditional language. A scholarship helped her do it. A new perspective on Australian native grasses To celebrate National Reconciliation Week, our scientists, architects, alumnus Richard Leplastrier AO, and an Indigenous architectural graduate, collaborate to present a vision for how we can respect land and community.

The hearing was adjourned when Eddie Mabo and the people of Mer brought a second case to the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act The aim of the legislation was to retrospectively extinguish the claimed rights of the Meriam people to the Murray Islands. As a result, the High Court had to consider whether the Queensland legislation was valid and effective.

This case became known as Mabo v. Queensland No. Justice Moynihan resumed the hearing of the facts in the case presented by Eddie Mabo and the people of Mer with sittings taking place on Murray Island as well as on the mainland. The visit, as Moynihan J noted in his opening statement, provided a better understanding of the evidence, and of island life. The case presented by Eddie Mabo and the people of Mer successfully proved that Meriam custom and laws are fundamental to their traditional system of ownership and underpin their traditional rights and obligations in relation to land.

In Mabo v. The High Court recognised the fact that Indigenous peoples had lived in Australia for thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs. They had been dispossessed of their lands piece by piece as the colony grew and that very dispossession underwrote the development of Australia as a nation.