Mabo Case

Words: 1331
Pages: 6

The struggle for civil rights in Australia has been marked by significant milestones in advancing the rights and recognition of Indigenous peoples. Three such pivotal moments are the 1967 referendum, the landmark Mabo decision in 1992, and the apology to the Stolen Generations made by Kevin Rudd in 2008. The 1967 referendum amended the Australian Constitution, empowering the federal government to legislate for Indigenous Australians and including them in the census. This vote marked a turning point in the recognition of Indigenous rights and laid the groundwork for subsequent legislative reforms. Similarly, the Mabo decision overturned the doctrine of Terra Nullius, recognizing Indigenous land rights and the establishment of native titles. …show more content…
Murray Island was one of the thousands of locations in Australia that were claimed under the colonial doctrine “Terra Nullius,” in which ”no one lived in or claimed” Australia, free land to be colonized. Mabo in 1992 contested the Queensland state government's ownership of the island. Mabo’s aims are centered primarily on the recognition of land rights for indigenous peoples in Australia. The Terra Nullius doctrine in particular as a legal principle was deemed unfair, and he sought to overturn this doctrine and have the high court recognize native title, which they did in 1992, acknowledging the rights of Indigenous peoples to their traditional lands. Mabo and his legal team, led by Ron Castan, used various methods to challenge Terra Nullius. Moreover, in Mabo’s case, a test case of the feasibility of Terra nullius, Mabo was assigned as the plaintiff in order to argue the point of traditional land ownership as the original custodians of the island. The Mabos team used evidence such as anthropological information to disprove colonizers were the first ones on the island, such as oral histories, cultural practices, and traditional land management systems. Ron Castan employed the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Rights in addition to anthropology, as well as legal advocacy on the legality of a basis on Terra Nullius, arguing how unjustly disregarded Indigenous peoples were treated due to this doctrine. Shortly after the ruling of the high court, the decision was made to overturn Terra Nullius as the legal justification for colonization. Aboriginal Australians who were able to demonstrate continuous connection to the land, according to traditions and customs, have legal rights to said land, according to the establishment of