The lands on the island were considered as the group or individual property. It was mostly of general or public ownership. During the year 1895, it was seen that the Government of Queensland tried to terminate the entire proceedings through the enactment of Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act, 1985, No. 27 (Little, 2018). The main intention of the present Act was to abolish the native title that was claimed by the Islanders of the Torres Strait to the islands that is off-coast of the Queensland. The Meriam people were claiming for land by the use of common law within Australia. The Mabo case was overturned due to its inconsistency with another Act known as Act for Racial Discrimination, 1975, section 12 (Wensing and Porter, 2016). Other cases also used the mentioned Act for gaining human right by the Australians. Example of a case in Australia that used the mentioned Act is Bryant v Queensland Newspaper Pty Ltd, 1997 HREOCA 23, in which Pommy and Pom were dismissed from using in the newspaper, which used to discriminate people based on races (Bryant v Queensland Newspaper Pty Ltd, 1997 HREOCA 23). Referring to the case of Rugema v Gadsden Pty & Dierkes, 1997 HREOCA 34, it is seen that by the use of present Act $55,000 was awarded to the African refugee as he faced racial abuse in his workplace (Rugema v Gadsden Pty & Dierkes, 1997 HREOCA 34).
McNeil (2017) noted that the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975 stands against the speech freedom. It is still a topic of debate within the courts of Australia. In the present case of Mabo, it is noticed that plaintiff sought a declaration that inter alia Meriam people have the right to possess Mer Islanders and enjoy freely the entire lands as an occupier. It is found that neither colonies establishment nor the annexation of Queensland 1879 of Murray Islands has extinguished the native title of Meriam peoples. It is extinguished due to government's action which is inconsistent with respect to the native title. Furthermore, prior 1975, there was no right for people to apply for the case in the High Court. The issue mainly lies here that after proceedings by Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act, 1985, No. 27, the interests and rights of the Meriam people were extinguished under the traditional law. Moreover, the mentioned Act was found to be invalid later on due to its consistency with RDA. The Act mainly discriminated against Meriam people which purports to extinguish their land rights.
As per the case example of Jacobs v Fardig, 1999 HREOCA 9, it is found that the councilor made comments regarding the shootings of Aborigines (Jacobs v Fardig, 1999 HREOCA 9). Therefore, without reason shooting of aboriginal people was stopped in Australia under the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975, section 18 C (Berg and Davidson, 2016). This shows that aborigines have the full right to live safely on the land. Furthermore, the Mabo decision includes the permissibility for the Australian land's future development that is affected by the native title. Procedures for determination of native title issues. In order to respond to these judgments, it is noticed that Australia's Parliament, which is controlled by Labor Party has enacted Native Title Act, 1993, No. 110 (Brigg, 2018). The mentioned Act made the determination of the native title possible. It was applicable to Australia's Federal Court and then the High Court of Australia. It best suits the case example of Wik Peoples v Queensland, 1996, 187 CLR 1 (Wik Peoples v Queensland, 1996, 187 CLR 1). In this case, the parliament has amended the present Act, which is Native Title Act to Native Title Amendment Act, 1998 (Cth) (Burke, 2017).
Little (2018) noted that native title can be easily extinguished by a valid or proper exercise of the Governmental powers by providing plain and clear intention. The terra nullius rejection is seen in Mabo case, which gave freedom to the early Australian settlers to fight for their land right. As per the case example of Nabalco Pty Ltd v Milirrpum & others, 1971 17 FLR 141, the Mabo case took the example of the Yolnga people who brought the action in the court against Nabalco Corporation (Nabalco Pty Ltd v Milirrpum & others, 1971 17 FLR 141). It has secured about twelve years of the mining lease from Australia's Federal Government. The main argument in the present case example was that federal government did not have any right to offer land lease Australian aborigines. The decision of High Court reworked the origins story of Australia which acknowledges the Aboriginal law existence and the custom before British colonization. The main focus of Mabo case was to bring Islanders of Torres Straits and the aboriginal people together for using water and land under the Act of Native Title, 1993, No. 110 (McNeil, 2017). The main shortfalls remain in the education, health and even in the incarnation rates of the Torres Islanders and Aborigines. The Mabo case does not cover these areas for improvement for both groups of people.
Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now
We have some amazing discount offers running for the studentsPlace Your Order
Berg, C. and Davidson, S., 2016. Section 18C, Human Rights, and Media Reform: An Institutional Analysis of the 2011–13 Australian Free Speech Debate. Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 23(1), pp.5-30.
Brigg, M., 2018. Native Title Colonialism, Racism and Mining For Manufactured Consent. New Matilda, 45(3), pp.1-8.
Burke, P., 2017, April. Native Title from Mabo to Akiba: A Vehicle for Change and Empowerment? edited by Sean Brennan, Megan Davis, Brendan Edgeworth and Leon Terrill. In Anthropological Forum Vol. 27(2), pp. 155-157
Collins, J. and Thompson, W.K., 2018. Reconciliation in Australia? Dreaming Beyond the Cult of Forgetfulness. In Reconciliation in Conflict-Affected Communities, 36(5), pp. 185-206 Day, J., 2016. Participatory Democracy in EU and Australian International Investment Law Policy Processes. U. Notre Dame Austl. L. Rev., 18, p.20.
Little, A., 2018. Reconciliation after recognition? Indigenous-settler relations in Australia. Competition and Cooperation in Social and Political Sciences. 45(4), pp. 12-24
Wensing, E. and Porter, L., 2016. Unsettling planning's paradigms: towards a just accommodation of Indigenous rights and interests in Australian urban planning?. Australian Planner, 53(2), pp.91-102.
McNeil, K., 2017. 19. Indigenous territorial rights in the common law. Comparative Property Law: Global Perspectives, p.412.[online] (http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1172&context=olsrps)
Williams, G. and Reynolds, D., 2015. The racial discrimination act and inconsistency under the Australian constitution. Adel. L. Rev., 36, p.241.[online] (https://www.adelaide.edu.au/press/journals/law-review/issues/36-1/alr-36-1-ch12-williams-reynolds.pdf)
Cooper v Stuart, 1889 14 App Cas 286
Jacobs v Fardig, 1999 HREOCA 9
Nabalco Pty Ltd v Milirrpum & others, 1971 17 FLR 141
Rugema v Gadsden Pty & Dierkes, 1997 HREOCA 34 workplace
Wik Peoples v Queensland, 1996, 187 CLR 1