Legal Analysis: Mabo v Queensland and Native Title Act 1993

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) 1992 case and the Native Title Act 1993 in Australia, focusing on the legal protection of Aboriginal land rights. It explores the historical context, including the rejection of Terra Nullius, and the significance of the Mabo case in recognizing Indigenous rights. The report details the provisions of the Native Title Act and its role in mediating claims and registering land ownership. Furthermore, it examines related cases like Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, Yorta Yorta v Victoria, and Ward v Western Australia, which have shaped the legal landscape. The report also discusses the impact of business practices on First Peoples principles, and potential positive and negative impacts. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of these legal instruments in securing human rights and self-determination for Aboriginal communities, and their role in land acquisition, employment, culture and independence.

LAW

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

INTRODUCTION
To protect the rights of aboriginal people in the Australia there are various cases and
several legislations which helps in protecting their rights for the land. The study will highlight all
these legal laws and actions in accordance with protecting their interest in the land. The
influences of Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) 1992 case will be the main example and the efforts of
indigenous people for legally acquiring the land. Moreover, to ascertain and protect the
individual right the government has passed the bill in 1993 which was presented as Native Title
act 1993.
Mabo and others v Queensland (No.2) 1992
The case was proposed in the high court of Queensland on which the Eddie Mabo has led
the decision which in turn motive of presenting the adequate rights to the indigenous people. The
case has commenced the proceeding in the high court in the year 1982 which responses to the
Queensland Amendment Act. In relation with the existence of English law which are applicable
as uninhibited rules over existed people1. Therefore, the people who are indigenous and real
native to that habitat so they have their complete rights over the land. In relation with such
circumstances and to protect the interest of indigenous people Mabo has raised the voice against
such uninhabited law (Libby and McKenna, 2017). The main motive was to protect the rights of
Australian race as per aboriginal treaty committee. The action was made as to ascertain the legal
rights of Meriam people towards the ownership of the land. Thus, before such provision these
people used to stay over the island of Mer and relevant area which comes under the territory of
Queensland in 1879. Their main resource for living was they used to do cultivation and fishing
for their economic stability. Thereafter, the case was heard in the high court and the decision was
proposed such as:
 The occupation of the land was connected with the Native Title of common law on which
the source was traditional connection to such land.
 The nature of the Native law was derived as per ascertaining the occupation of the land
with 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 all
1 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23; 175 CLR 1; 66 ALJR 408; 107 ALR 1; (1992) EOC 92-443; 42 FLR 32
1

the rights. Thus, it was mandatory that the law in ned to be modified and have to add
several sovereignty amendments as to have better legislation of such act.
1. The acquisition of the land has fragmented the interests of proprietorship (David, 2017).
Native Title act 1993
This is the act which was proposed by the common law in Australia which referred to
protecting legal rights of Aboriginal on acquisition of land. It ascertains that the indigenous
people has their rights over such property with consideration of their traditional laws and
customs (McClelland and Little, 2017). Here the concept recognises that in certain cases there is
a continued beneficial legal interest in land which were hold by the local group of Indigenous
Australians. It has derived from the legal acquisition of the crown over the land as per
sovereignty. In relation with the case of Mabo v Queensland it has been recognises here that the
natives of Australia has their rights to hold land-lordship as they have to proposed and protect the
native rights. The federal court of country has mediate the claims by the aboriginal people in
favour with protecting their ownership over the acquired land (Morton, 2017). In which they
have to register the land with their name under the native title register which was being managed
by the NNTT. Thereafter, completion of the 26 years to this act and case it can be said that there
are 160 registered determination of Native title as per the records of July 2011. It has covered the
some of 1228374 km square land of Australia.
However, in relation with such case and the acts it can be said that the protection of
individual rights whether they are indigenous, aboriginals or belongs to any habitat has the
citizenship in Australia (Glaskin, 2017). Along with that, they have also acquired a land or
property in the country need to have registration as well as must have legal acquisition over the
property which will be helpful to them as to have better ownership of that property. Additionally,
there are various cases which has addressed the same issues such as:
Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd
In relation with this case it has been determined here that John batman was the owners of
the land and has sign the agreement called “Batman Treaty” with Aboriginal elders (Richardson,
2017). However, after the influence of the acquisition prosed by the crown the issues has rises
that there is no right against the crown2. Therefore, the rule has been derived that the vacant land
2 Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty. Ltd. and the Commonwealth of Australia
2

of crow without authorisation of registry which will be remain with the crown. Thus, it can be
said that the land without registry of authorisation will be treated as the land of crown there will
be no rights of any individual over such property (Law and et.al., 2017). Conversely, with the
influence such issues it has become the most controversial matter of land-lordship.
Yorta Yorta v Victoria:
In state Victoria the issues has been risen by the Yorta Yorta aboriginal community
which are claimed the land and waters that was covering the 2000 km square3. Therefore, here
also the jurisdiction was facilitated to the aboriginal people which was in relation with
acquisition of such property as per traditional belongings (Libby and McKenna, 2017). The huge
debates were made on which it has been ascertained that the court must continue the traditional
laws and costumes which were in motive of protecting the native rights over the land (Morris,
2018). Therefore, the motive of the people who are living such place need to have fair
judgements as well as securing the rights of indigenous group in consideration with their
acquisition toward such property (David, 2017).
Ward v Western Australian:
This case is consisted over the acquisition of land by the people in Western Australia as
well as in Northern Territory which determines that, the Federal court ruled in favour as in
recognition of native title (McClelland and Little, 2017). This case had various debates which in
turn considering the bundle of rights to be facilitated to the court. Therefore, in relation with such
case the success was of traditional laws and customs (Morton, 2017). Thus, the main motive of
such legislation is to improve the living standard and make economical condition sound for the
aboriginal community. To secure the rights of the indigenous group there are lot many cases and
operations held in the nation.
Impacts of business practices on first peoples principles:
To secure the rights of Aboriginal community in Australia which were denoted as the
first people of the continent. The rights to such people in terms of self determination which is a
right other than individuals. There has been preparation of various amendments and constitution
which is helpful in protecting the human rights. It says that people belongs to all ethnicity,
3 Yorta Yorta v Victoria
3

culture, religious and linguistic minorities will enjoy their own culture and profession and
practices (Law and et.al., 2017). Therefore, it protects their territorial rights in the country. The
impacts of such amendments is positivity valuable as it considers the rights of all people over
their culture, profession and in trade practices. Therefore, it brings the dependency and freedom
to all the people and secure their personal rights for jobs and business. Generally, it might have
negative impacts over this approach such as people will feel that the rate aboriginal criminals are
comparatively higher than the non-aboriginals. Moreover, the rights and remedies awarded to
them which will bring the negative legislative environment. Aboriginals will take advantages of
their special grants and rights which will influence other communities in nation.
CONCLUSION
To ascertain the cases and the Native Title act it can be said that, the laws and regulation
were imposed as to secure the rights of aboriginal community in land acquisition. Thus, it will be
helpful for the indigenous people who are living in the nation as they will have their proper
rights over the property. The natives have their rights over the property and with consideration of
such report it will be said that to protect the human rights and the ownership over the land and
waters various indigenous groups has claimed the cases in the court against the crow or English
laws. Therefore, it will be helpful to the government in terms of providing the adequate title to
the people by their traditional laws and customs. It helps them in registering the property in
Native Title act. Furthermore, The impacts of such acts and law in Australian environment will
be good for securing the human rights relevant with their survival and independence. Thus, it
will help in securing the rights of all the individual in terms of employment, culture and self
determination.
4

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
David, T., 2017. Narrative Traditions of Space, Time and Trust in Court: Terra
nullius,‘wandering’, the Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim, and the Hindmarsh Island Bridge
Controversy. In Expertise in Regulation and Law (pp. 166-183). Routledge.
Glaskin, K., 2017. Crosscurrents: Law and Society in a Native Title Claim to Land and Sea.
Apollo Books.
Law, W. B. and et.al., 2017. Digital Terrain Analysis Reveals New Insights into the
Topographic Context of Australian Aboriginal Stone Arrangements. Archaeological
Prospection. 24(2). pp.169-179.
Libby, C. and McKenna, M., 2017. Western Australia: Permits to enter: a requirement for
marking out land the subject of a native title determination. Australian Resources and
Energy Law Journal. 36(2). p.28.
McClelland, S. and Little, S., 2017. 1992-93 cabinet papers reveal internal government response
to mabo. Native Title Newsletter. (1). p.17.
Morris, B., 2018, March. ‘Against native title’: Conflict and creativity in outback Australia, by
Eve Vincent. In Anthropological Forum (pp. 1-3). Routledge.
Morton, J., 2017. ‘Mother's Blood, Father's Land’: Native Title and Comparative Land Tenure
Modelling for Claims in ‘Settled’Australia. Oceania. 87(1). pp.58-77.
Richardson, B., 2017. Paul G. McHugh, Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law: A History
of Sovereignty, Status and Self-Determination. Indigenous Law Journal. 4(1).
Online
Case summary: Yorta Yorta v Victoria. 2017. [Online]. Available through
:<https://aiatsis.gov.au/publications/products/case-summary-yorta-yorta-v-victoria>.
5