Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992]

(1992) 175 CLR 1 · High Court of Australia · Australia

Summary

Overturned 200 years of Australian land law based on terra nullius; established the Native Title Act framework; profoundly influenced indigenous land rights discourse globally, including in Africa.

Facts

Eddie Mabo and fellow Meriam people claimed native title to the Murray Islands in the Torres Strait. The State of Queensland argued that Australia was terra nullius at colonisation, extinguishing any prior indigenous rights.

Issue

Whether the common law doctrine of terra nullius applied in Australia and whether indigenous native title could survive the Crown's acquisition of sovereignty.

Held

The common law of Australia recognises a form of native title that reflects the entitlement of indigenous inhabitants to their traditional lands. The doctrine of terra nullius was wrongly applied.

Ratio Decidendi

Native title is recognised at common law when the claimants can demonstrate a continuous connection to the land under traditional laws and customs, and the title has not been extinguished by a valid legislative or executive act.

Reasoning

Brennan J (majority) held that the common law must evolve to reflect contemporary values; the fiction of terra nullius unjustly denied indigenous peoples their pre-existing rights. The Crown's radical title did not automatically extinguish native title; extinguishment required clear statutory or executive intent.

Significance

Overturned 200 years of Australian land law based on terra nullius; established the Native Title Act framework; profoundly influenced indigenous land rights discourse globally, including in Africa.

Related Cases

Exam Tips

Compare with African customary land tenure cases (e.g., Amodu Tijani v Secretary, Southern Nigeria). Note the tension between communal customary title and individual freehold systems.

Sources