Eddie Mabo was a Torres Strait Islander born on Mer or Murray Island; he fought to change how British colonies believed that the land they had colonised was terra nullius (no man’s land) (Reconciliation Australia, 2014). The British colonies thought that because they could not see established aboriginal people, farms and houses which were all characteristics of the life back home in England, which they believed that the Aborigines had no connection to land (Korff, 2015). Because of this British colonies took the land and called it their own without any acknowledgment of the true owners of the land (Reconciliation Australia, 2014)
Mabo made a speech in 1981 at the James Cook University of Queensland where he spoke about his people’s beliefs about the ownership and inheritance of the land (Reconciliation Australia, 2014). A lawyer overheard Mabo’s speech and approached Mabo if he would like to challenge the Australian Government in the court system to settle the issue on who are the rightful owners of the Land on Murray Island, Mabo agreed (Reconciliation Australia,).
Mabo’s case went on for 10 years (Korff, 2015). On the 3rd of June 1992, The High Court ruled that the British Crown had gained a title to the land of Australia. The Aboriginal people were still entitled to a claim of their own but this claim could be terminated by events that have occurred since the British colonies and which break the relationship between land and Aboriginals. (Korff, 2015). But most important the court ruled that the land in which British colonised was not terra nullius (Korff, 2015). This allowed for some recognition that the indigenous people were the true owners of the land (Korff, 2015). It also created a space in order for the recognition of a native title (Jonas, 2012). The native title wasn’t all that it seemed it allowed some acknowledgment of indigenous customs and traditions but continued to allow the process of domestication within the Indigenous people (Jonas, 2012). This showed how the common law failed to recognise that indigenous people have a relationship with the land they call home (Jonas, 2012). In 1993 the Native Title Act was put into law by the High Court, which allowed for national native title tribunal to be formed (Korff, 2015). …show more content…
‘Furthermore it set out to process the determination of native title rights and dealings on native title land” (Korff, 2015). Interests and rights they had in the land and water of Australia were now recognised by the High court (Korff, 2015). “The benefits of the native title act allowed indigenous people with evidence of ownership proving that the land belongs to them and they belong to the land” (Korff, 2015). They are also allowed access to traditional land so they can hunt and have cultural ceremonies, which without a native title would be illegal (Korff, 2015). On 1st of January 1994 The Native Title Act came into effect (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1995). “From that time no action may validly be taken in relation to land that is subject to native title except in accordance with the act” (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1995). Land that had been subjected to certain types of tenure such as freehold the native title act would not be able to protect it and would be extinguished (Australian Bureau
Mabo made a speech in 1981 at the James Cook University of Queensland where he spoke about his people’s beliefs about the ownership and inheritance of the land (Reconciliation Australia, 2014). A lawyer overheard Mabo’s speech and approached Mabo if he would like to challenge the Australian Government in the court system to settle the issue on who are the rightful owners of the Land on Murray Island, Mabo agreed (Reconciliation Australia,).
Mabo’s case went on for 10 years (Korff, 2015). On the 3rd of June 1992, The High Court ruled that the British Crown had gained a title to the land of Australia. The Aboriginal people were still entitled to a claim of their own but this claim could be terminated by events that have occurred since the British colonies and which break the relationship between land and Aboriginals. (Korff, 2015). But most important the court ruled that the land in which British colonised was not terra nullius (Korff, 2015). This allowed for some recognition that the indigenous people were the true owners of the land (Korff, 2015). It also created a space in order for the recognition of a native title (Jonas, 2012). The native title wasn’t all that it seemed it allowed some acknowledgment of indigenous customs and traditions but continued to allow the process of domestication within the Indigenous people (Jonas, 2012). This showed how the common law failed to recognise that indigenous people have a relationship with the land they call home (Jonas, 2012). In 1993 the Native Title Act was put into law by the High Court, which allowed for national native title tribunal to be formed (Korff, 2015). …show more content…
‘Furthermore it set out to process the determination of native title rights and dealings on native title land” (Korff, 2015). Interests and rights they had in the land and water of Australia were now recognised by the High court (Korff, 2015). “The benefits of the native title act allowed indigenous people with evidence of ownership proving that the land belongs to them and they belong to the land” (Korff, 2015). They are also allowed access to traditional land so they can hunt and have cultural ceremonies, which without a native title would be illegal (Korff, 2015). On 1st of January 1994 The Native Title Act came into effect (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1995). “From that time no action may validly be taken in relation to land that is subject to native title except in accordance with the act” (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1995). Land that had been subjected to certain types of tenure such as freehold the native title act would not be able to protect it and would be extinguished (Australian Bureau