Mabo v Queensland (No 1) facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Mabo v Queensland (No 1) |
|
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Mabo and Another v The State of Queensland and Another |
| Decided | 8 December 1988 |
| Case opinions | |
| (4:3) the demurrer would be allowed (per Brennan, Deane, Toohey & Gaudron JJ) (4:1) the Coast Islands Act was inconsistent with s10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and was thus invalid (per Brennan, Deane, Toohey & Gaudron JJ; Mason CJ & Dawson J not deciding) | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Mason CJ, Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson Toohey & Gaudron JJ |
Mabo v Queensland (No 1) was an important court case in Australia. It happened on 8 December 1988 in the High Court of Australia. The case was about a law from Queensland called the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985. This law tried to take away native title rights that people had for a long time. The court decided that this Queensland law was not allowed. It went against another important law, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
Contents
Why This Case Happened
This case was connected to another big court case. That case was called Mabo v Queensland (No 2) and was decided in 1992. Both cases involved the Meriam people from the Mer Islands. These islands are in the Torres Strait.
The Meriam people, especially Eddie Mabo, said they had special native title rights. These rights were over their traditional lands on the Murray Islands. In 1985, the Queensland Government passed a law. It was called the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act. This law aimed to cancel any native title rights that might exist. It tried to do this for the past, present, and future.
The Meriam people asked the court to stop Queensland from using this law. They wanted to make sure the law could not be used against them. This legal request was called a demurrer.
What the Case Was About
The main argument from the Meriam people was that the Coast Islands Act was not valid. They said it went against the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. This second law was made by the Parliament of Australia.
Australia's Constitution of Australia has a rule in Section 109. It says that if a state law (like Queensland's) goes against a federal law (like Australia's Parliament's law), the state law is invalid. So, the Meriam people argued that Queensland could not use its law.
The Queensland Government argued that their law was valid. They said it successfully ended any native title rights. This would apply even if those rights had existed since 1879. That was when the islands became part of Queensland.
Both sides agreed to pretend that native title rights did exist. This was just for the purpose of this specific case. The court also agreed that the Coast Islands Act would remove native title rights if they existed. So, the main question was: Was the Coast Islands Act a valid law?
The Racial Discrimination Act has a rule in Section 10(1). It says that laws cannot take away rights from one racial group if other groups keep those rights. A key question was if this rule applied to rights that only one group had.
The Court's Decision
Most of the judges, including Justices Brennan, Toohey, and Gaudron, agreed. They said that native title rights, if they existed, were like a basic human right. This right was about owning and passing on property.
They decided that the Coast Islands Act unfairly took away the Meriam people's traditional property. It did this by denying their native title rights. This meant their right to own property was limited. Because of this, the court allowed the Meriam people's request. The Queensland Government was not allowed to use the Coast Islands Act.
What Happened Next
This court case was a very important step. It helped lead to the recognition of native title in Australia. This recognition happened in the main case, Mabo v Queensland (No 2).
See also
