Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2)
The decision of the High Court of Australia in the Mabo and Others versus Queensland (No. 2) case (mostly cited as Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2) ) in 1992 is a key decision on the legal status of indigenous peoples within the Commonwealth of Australia . In 1988 the decision Mabo and Another v. The State of Queensland and Another ( Mabo v. Queensland (No. 1) ).
The decision makes it clear that even before the British colonization of Australia, the indigenous peoples there had a kind of territorial rule over their respective areas and that Terra Nullius was not exclusively present during the colonization . Although the original type of territorial rule could be modified or completely replaced after the occupation by the new sovereign, a targeted act by the state is necessary for this.
The Mabo case
In 1982, Eddie Mabo and other Indigenous activists filed a claim about the Murray Islands that involved both water and land.
In response, the Queensland government passed the Queensland Coastal Islands Declaratory Act in 1985 , according to which all traditional land rights of islanders were lost when the Torres Strait Islands became part of the Queensland colony.
Mabo fought the new law with success. It was not accepted in court because of its racist content.
The Mabo case - the Murray Islands claim - was reopened in 1991. Although Eddie Mabo himself was no longer involved (he died of cancer in 1992), the court case still bore his name. Since 2001 the manuscripts have been included in the World Document Heritage List .
The judgment
After ten years of trial, the High Court of Australia passed judgment on June 3, 1992 in the Mabo v. Queensland, No. 2.
According to the ruling, Aborigines may have rights to public land such as national parks or to land that has been mined. They still have no land rights to areas on which public structures, such as roads or post offices, have been erected.
This right is called Native Title . It contains collective or individual rights to land, which the Aborigines transfer their own legal system, including its traditional customs and traditions.
The Aborigines don't just get their native title . First, they have to prove that the government never took their land away from them or in any way invalidated their claims. Under British law, Aboriginal land rights expire once the government has traded, sold, or leased the land to people. The English crown always had the right to invalidate the traditional Aboriginal right to land and to acquire it without compensation. Second, the indigenous claimants had to prove that they were connected to the land under their traditional law.
The owners of the Native Title are determined by Aboriginal law. Rights holders can only be members of the land-owning unit ( clan / tribe ) or descendants identified by indigenous inheritance law.
The rights to Native Title were recorded in the Native Title Act of 1993 . They can include hunting, collecting or fishing rights.
The judgment can be summarized in the following points:
- The Murray Islands on Torres Strait are not Crown Land.
- The Meriam people are entitled to use the islands as owners.
- At the time of British colonization in 1788, Australia was not a Terra Nullius, and the continent was not practically uninhabited. Rather, the indigenous peoples lived and worked with their own culture in Australia for thousands of years before the European settlement.
- The rights of the indigenous peoples have not been extinguished by the mere acquisition of sovereignty by the English.
The law, on the other hand, rejected compensation for extinct land rights of the indigenous people.
In the case of leases to cattle farmers, two categories were distinguished in the Mabo judgment. In the first are leases that were issued before 1975, in the second, that after the enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. The former were still valid, the latter, however, no longer valid because it violates the Racial Discrimination Act violated .
Effects and reactions
The ruling had different effects on different states. A number of laws have been passed at the state level, but also at the federal level. On January 1, 1994, the Native Title Act of 1993 came into effect. Its purpose is to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are given the recognition and status they deserve based on their history, rights and culture.
In the Northern Territory land claims can now be asserted because traditional ownership. In Queensland and New South Wales , claims may be based on historical relationships or needs.
As was to be expected, the verdict triggered a wave of diverse reactions. They ranged from shocked rejection to relieved enthusiasm. The Meriam people consider the “Mabo judgment” to be a huge success. It even started dividing its story into sections before and after Mabo. Mining and mining companies, however, feared financial losses.
In December 1992 then Prime Minister Paul Keating apologized to the Aborigines, saying they had been wronged by the whites. In addition, on February 13, 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologized on behalf of the Australian Government in a speech to the Australian Parliament for the injustice done over two centuries.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Swissinfo: Australia apologizes for the first time to the natives ( page no longer available , search in web archives ) Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , February 13, 2008
