Mabo v Queensland (No 2)

Facts

Eddie Mabo and four other Meriam people of the Murray Islands (Mer, Dauar and Waier) in the Torres Strait brought an action against the State of Queensland, claiming native title over the Murray Islands. They argued that the Meriam people had occupied and used the islands long before European colonisation and that their traditional rights to the land had survived the Crown's assertion of sovereignty in 1879. Queensland attempted to extinguish native title by passing the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985, but the High Court declared this Act inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and therefore invalid.

Legal Issue

Whether the common law of Australia recognises a form of native title, and if so, what is its nature and extent? Does the doctrine of terra nullius apply to deny Indigenous land rights? Can native title survive the Crown's acquisition of sovereignty?

Court Reasoning

The High Court (by 6-1 majority) rejected the doctrine of terra nullius as legally incorrect and morally indefensible. Brennan J (as he then was) delivered the leading judgment, holding that the common law of Australia recognises native title where: (1) Indigenous people can establish a connection with the land through laws and customs existing at the time of sovereignty; and (2) native title has not been extinguished by valid government action. The court held that native title is not a common law interest but is recognised by the common law as pre-existing the Crown's acquisition of sovereignty.

Decision

The High Court recognised that the Meriam people were entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the Murray Islands. The court declared that native title exists in Australian common law and can be established where Indigenous people demonstrate a continuing connection to land through traditional laws and customs. Native title can be extinguished by valid Crown grants or legislation that is inconsistent with native title rights.

Legal Principles Established

• •Rejection of terra nullius — Australia was not 'land belonging to no one' at the time of colonisation
• •Native title is recognised by Australian common law as a pre-existing right
• •Native title depends on proof of a continuing connection to land through traditional laws and customs
• •Native title can be extinguished by inconsistent Crown grants or clear legislative intent
• •The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) protects native title from discriminatory state legislation

Why This Case Matters

Mabo fundamentally changed Australian property law and the legal relationship between Indigenous Australians and the Australian state. It overturned over 200 years of legal assumption about the basis of land ownership in Australia. The decision directly led to the Commonwealth Parliament enacting the Native Title Act 1993, which created a statutory framework for recognising and protecting native title rights.

Practical Implications

The Mabo decision affects all land dealings in Australia. Any grant of freehold title, pastoral lease, or mining lease must now consider whether native title exists and has been properly addressed. The National Native Title Tribunal was established to manage native title claims. Property developers, mining companies, governments, and Indigenous communities must navigate native title processes before significant land use decisions can proceed.