logo

Mabo and Others v Queensland (No.2) 1992 Incorporating the Native Title Act 1993 2 CONCLUSIONS 4 REFERENCES 5 INTRODUCTION

   

Added on  2020-06-04

7 Pages2092 Words33 Views
LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1Mabo and others v Queensland (No.2) 1992..........................................................................1Native Title act 1993..............................................................................................................2CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTIONTo protect the rights of aboriginal people in the Australia there are various cases andseveral legislations which helps in protecting their rights for the land. The study will highlight allthese legal laws and actions in accordance with protecting their interest in the land. Theinfluences of Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) 1992 case will be the main example and the efforts ofindigenous people for legally acquiring the land. Moreover, to ascertain and protect theindividual right the government has passed the bill in 1993 which was presented as Native Titleact 1993.Mabo and others v Queensland (No.2) 1992The case was proposed in the high court of Queensland on which the Eddie Mabo has ledthe decision which in turn motive of presenting the adequate rights to the indigenous people. Thecase has commenced the proceeding in the high court in the year 1982 which responses to theQueensland Amendment Act. In relation with the existence of English law which are applicableas uninhibited rules over existed people1. Therefore, the people who are indigenous and realnative to that habitat so they have their complete rights over the land. In relation with suchcircumstances and to protect the interest of indigenous people Mabo has raised the voice againstsuch uninhabited law (Libby and McKenna, 2017). The main motive was to protect the rights ofAustralian race as per aboriginal treaty committee. The action was made as to ascertain the legalrights of Meriam people towards the ownership of the land. Thus, before such provision thesepeople used to stay over the island of Mer and relevant area which comes under the territory ofQueensland in 1879. Their main resource for living was they used to do cultivation and fishingfor their economic stability. Thereafter, the case was heard in the high court and the decision wasproposed such as:The occupation of the land was connected with the Native Title of common law on whichthe source was traditional connection to such land.The nature of the Native law was derived as per ascertaining the occupation of the landwith consideration of traditional laws and customs (Morris, 2018).There has been rejection of Terra Nullius which was essentially required to be removed.It is because the indigenous people has a pre-existing system of law which consist of all1 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23; 175 CLR 1; 66 ALJR 408; 107 ALR 1; (1992) EOC 92-443; 42 FLR 321

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
The Mabo v Queensland (No 2) Case
|10
|2044
|246

The Native Title Act Research Paper 2022
|10
|2102
|32

The Native Title Act: A Discussion
|10
|3702
|1

Mabo Case [No.2] and its Impact on the Australian Legal System
|10
|2094
|294

Mabo and Others v Queensland: A Landmark Decision for Native Title Rights in Australia
|8
|1952
|193

Business Law- Mabo Case (Doc)
|8
|2139
|250