84-652: Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (commonly known as the Mabo case or simply Mabo ) is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that recognised the existence of Native Title in Australia . It was brought by Eddie Mabo and others against the State of Queensland , and decided on 3 June 1992. The case is notable for being the first in Australia to recognise pre-colonial land interests of Indigenous Australians within
168-536: A separation of powers . The original formulation of Griffith, Barton and Kingston provided only that the parliament could establish a court. The draft was later amended at various conventions. In Adelaide the court's proposed name was changed to be the "High Court of Australia". Many people opposed the idea of the new court completely replacing the Privy Council. Commercial interests, particularly subsidiaries of British companies preferred to operate under
252-657: A certificate of appeal would be granted by the High Court. In 1986, with the passing of the Australia Act by both the UK Parliament and the Commonwealth Parliament (with the request and consent of the states), appeals to the Privy Council from state supreme courts were closed off, leaving the High Court as the only avenue of appeal. In 2002, Chief Justice Murray Gleeson said that
336-615: A dedicated courtroom was built in Little Bourke Street , next to the Supreme Court of Victoria . That space provided the court's Melbourne sitting place and housed the court's principal registry until 1980. The court also sat regularly in Sydney, sharing space in the criminal courts of Darlinghurst Courthouse , before a dedicated courtroom was constructed next door in 1923. The court travelled to other cities across
420-477: A fundamental truth, and lays the basis for justice". Richard Court , the premier of Western Australia , voiced opposition to the decision in comments echoed by various mining and pastoralist interest groups. The decision established the legal doctrine of native title , enabling further litigation for Indigenous land rights. Native title doctrine was eventually supplemented in statute by the Keating government in
504-549: A notable controversy when the Constitution was drafted. Section 74 of the Constitution as it was put to voters, stated that there would be no appeals to the privy council in any matter involving the interpretation of the Constitution or state constitutions. The section as enacted by the Imperial Parliament was different. It only prohibited appeals on constitutional disputes regarding the respective powers of
588-642: A pact Japan had entered with the Axis powers prior to his arrival in Tokyo . Owen Dixon was also absent for several years of his appointment, while serving as Australia's minister to the United States in Washington . Sir George Rich acted as chief justice during Latham's absence. From 1952, with the appointment of Sir Owen Dixon as chief justice, the court entered a period of stability. After World War II,
672-525: A person is Indigenous. Ten years following the Mabo decision, his wife Bonita Mabo claimed that issues remained within the community about land on Mer. On 1 February 2014, the traditional owners of land on Badu Island received freehold title to 9,836 hectares (24,310 acres) in an act of the Queensland Government . An Indigenous land use agreement was signed on 7 July 2014. Mabo Day
756-406: A primitive state of society". In such a territory, the laws of England (unless inconsistent with local laws) were imported when sovereignty was acquired. The doctrine of continuity did not relate to settled colonies, and therefore, "if there were no local laws then there were no rights of property to respect". A distinction between settled and conquered colonies was drawn. The decision also noted that
840-487: A question of law is raised which is of public importance, involves a conflict between courts or "is in the interests of the administration of justice". Special leave hearings are typically presided over by a panel of two or three justices of the High Court. Parties are typically limited to an oral submission of 20 minutes, in addition to any written submissions. Appeals to the United Kingdom's Privy Council were
924-553: A reaction in London which prevented any serious attempt to implement the bill through the British Imperial Parliament . Another draft bill was proposed in 1880 for the establishment of an Australasian court of appeal. The proposed court would consist of one judge from each of the colonial supreme courts, who would serve one-year terms. However, the proposed court allowed for appeals to the Privy Council, which
SECTION 10
#17327877044561008-470: A state through occupation. The court also discussed the analogous common law doctrine that "desert and uncultivated land" which includes land "without settled inhabitants or settled law" can be acquired by Britain by settlement, and that the laws of England are transmitted at settlement. A majority of the court rejected the notion that the doctrine of terra nullius precluded the common law recognition of traditional Indigenous rights and interests in land at
1092-604: A sticking point however; with objections made by Secretary of State for the Colonies , Joseph Chamberlain , the Chief Justice of South Australia, Sir Samuel Way , and Samuel Griffith , among others. In October 1899, Griffith made representations to Chamberlain soliciting suggestions from British ministers for alterations to the draft, and offered alterations of his own. Indeed, such was the effect of these and other representations that Chamberlain called for delegates from
1176-512: A strike instigated by Mer Islanders. This strike was the first organised Islander challenge to western authorities since colonisation. Prior to Mabo , the pre-colonial property interests of Indigenous Australians were not recognised by the Australian legal system. Litigation over this issue directly did not arise until the 1970s with the case of Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd . In that case, native title
1260-595: A unanimous judgment rejecting the authority of the House of Lords decision in DPP v Smith , writing, "I shall not depart from the law on this matter as we have long since laid it down in this Court and I think that Smith's case should not be used in Australia as authority at all." The Privy Council overturned this by enforcing the UK precedent upon the High Court the following year. Thirteen High Court judges have heard cases as part of
1344-600: Is an official holiday in the Torres Shire , celebrated on 3 June, and occurs during National Reconciliation Week in Australia. The case was referenced in the 1997 comedy The Castle , as an icon of legal rightness, embodied in the quote: "In summing up, it’s the Constitution, it’s Mabo, it’s justice, it’s law, it’s the vibe." In 2009, as part of the Q150 celebrations, the Mabo High Court of Australia decision
1428-435: Is beside the point" with the decision actually concerned with answering the question, "does the common law (as applied in the Australian colonies) exclude altogether the rights of the indigenous people so that forever the rights they formerly had are excluded?" The case attracted widespread controversy and public debate. Then prime minister Paul Keating , praised the decision in his Redfern Speech , saying that it "establishes
1512-501: Is determined by sections 75 and 76 of Australia's Constitution. Section 75 confers original jurisdiction in all matters: Section 76 provides that Parliament may confer original jurisdiction in relation to matters: Constitutional matters, referred to in section 76(i), were conferred on the High Court by section 30 of the Judiciary Act 1903 . Whilst it may seem that the inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76 means that
1596-428: Is divided in its exercise between constitutional and federal cases which loom so largely in the public eye, and the great body of litigation between man and man, or even man and government, which has nothing to do with the Constitution, and which is the principal preoccupation of the court The broad jurisdiction of the High Court means that it has an important role in Australia's legal system. Its original jurisdiction
1680-462: Is empowered by section 73 of the Constitution to hear appeals from the supreme courts of the states and territories; as well as any court exercising federal jurisdiction. It may also hear appeals of decisions made in an exercise of its own original jurisdiction. The High Court's appellate jurisdiction is limited by the Judiciary Act , which requires special leave to be granted before the hearing of an appeal. Special leave may only be granted where
1764-401: Is governed by Malo's Law, "a set of religiously sanctioned laws which Merriam people feel bound to observe". Under this law, the entirety of Mer is owned by different Meriam land owners and there is no concept of public ownership. Land is owned by the eldest son on behalf of a particular lineage or family so that land is jointly owned individually and communally. Unlike western law, title to land
SECTION 20
#17327877044561848-416: Is orally based, although there is also a written tradition introduced to comply with State and Commonwealth inheritance and welfare laws. However, ownership is not 'one way' under this system of law, and an individual both owns the land and is owned by it. As such, they have the responsibility to care for and share it with their clan or family and maintain it for future generations. In 1871, missionaries from
1932-609: The Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) 1977 , which upon its commencement on 29 July 1977 amended section 72 of the Constitution so as require that all justices appointed from then on must retire on attaining the age of 70 years. Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd , also known as the Gove land rights case because its subject was land known as the Gove Peninsula in
2016-569: The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) . The recognition of native title by the decision gave rise to many significant legal questions. These included questions as to the validity of titles issued which were subject to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) , the permissibility of future development of land affected by native title, and procedures for determining whether native title existed in land. In response to
2100-652: The Australian legal system . It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation. The High Court was established following the passage of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) . Its authority derives from chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests it (and other courts the Parliament creates) with
2184-616: The Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court have been set up to reduce the court's workload in specific areas. In 1968, appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation were barred. In 1986, with the passage of the Australia Acts direct appeals to the Privy Council from state Supreme Courts were also closed off. The life tenure of High Court justices ended in 1977. A national referendum in May 1977 approved
2268-660: The London Missionary Society arrived on the Torres Strait island of Darnley Island in an event known as "The coming of the Light" leading to the conversion to Christianity of much of the Torres Strait, including Mer Island. This however did not lead to a replacement of traditional native traditions, but a synthesis with traditional customs, including Malo's Law, being recognised within the framework of Christianity. Reverend David Passi, who gave evidence in
2352-525: The Northern Territory , was the first litigation on native title in Australia , and the first significant legal case for Aboriginal land rights in Australia , decided on 27 April 1971. The decision of Justice Richard Blackburn ruled against the Yolngu claimants on a number of issues of law and fact, rejecting the doctrine of Aboriginal title . Instead his ruling recognised that in the law of
2436-484: The Supreme Court of Nauru in both criminal and civil cases, but not constitutional matters. There were a total of five appeals to the High Court under this agreement in the first 40 years of its operation. In 2017, however, this jumped to 13 appeals, most relating to asylum seekers. At the time some legal commentators argued that this appellate jurisdiction sat awkwardly with the High Court's other responsibilities, and ought be renegotiated or repealed. Anomalies included
2520-788: The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory against the Nabalco Corporation, which had secured a 12-year bauxite mining lease from the Federal Government . The plaintiffs were Milirrpum Marika , elder of the Rirratjingu clan; Munffaraway, elder of the Gumatj clan, and Daymbalipu, an elder of the Djapu clan, who represented that clan as well as acting on behalf of 11 other peoples with interests in
2604-590: The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory , it was overruled by the High Court of Australia two decades later in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) , when native title was recognised under Australian Law. The Yolngu people , the traditional owners of Arnhem Land (which includes the Gove Peninsula), had petitioned the Australian House of Representatives in August 1963 with a bark petition after
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) - Misplaced Pages Continue
2688-513: The common law of Australia. Mabo is of great legal, historical, and political importance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. The decision rejected the notion that Australia was terra nullius (i.e. owned by no one) at the time of British settlement, and recognised that Indigenous rights to land existed by virtue of traditional customs and laws and these rights had not been wholly lost upon colonisation. The Prime Minister Paul Keating during his Redfern speech praised
2772-582: The judicial power of the Commonwealth. Its internal processes are governed by the High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth). The court consists of seven justices, including a chief justice , currently Stephen Gageler . Justices of the High Court are appointed by the governor-general on the formal advice of the attorney-general following the approval of the prime minister and Cabinet . They are appointed permanently until their mandatory retirement at age 70, unless they retire earlier. Typically,
2856-454: The "combined effect" of the legislation and the announcement in Kirmani "has been that s 74 has become a dead letter, and what remains of s 74 after the legislation limiting appeals to the Privy Council will have no further effect". Following an agreement between Nauru and Australia signed on 6 September 1976, the High Court became Nauru's apex court. It was empowered to hear appeals from
2940-471: The Crown had the power to extinguish native title, if it existed. Blackburn examined comparative Commonwealth, Canadian, New Zealand and US jurisprudence. He accepted that the applicants had established that under traditional law any given part of the land could be “attributed” to a particular clan , but held that this did not amount to a proprietary interest. He also found that the evidence did not establish
3024-563: The High Court's original jurisdiction regarding constitutional matters could be removed, in practice section 75(iii) (suing the Commonwealth) and section 75(iv) (conflicts between states) are broad enough that many constitutional matters would still be within its jurisdiction. The original constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is now well established; the Australian Law Reform Commission has described
3108-611: The High Court. Following a court-packing attempt by the Labor Prime Minister Andrew Fisher In February 1913, the bench was increased again to a total to seven. Charles Powers and Albert Bathurst Piddington were appointed. These appointments generated an outcry, however, and Piddington resigned on 5 April 1913 after serving only one month as High Court justice. The High Court continued its Banco location in Melbourne until 1928, until
3192-515: The Privy Council regularly heard appeals against High Court decisions. In some cases the Council acknowledged that the Australian common law had developed differently from English law and thus did not apply its own principles. Other times it followed English authority, and overruled decisions of the High Court. This arrangement led to tensions between the High Court and the Privy Council. In Parker v The Queen (1964), Chief Justice Owen Dixon led
3276-418: The Privy Council. Sir Isaac Isaacs is the only judge to have sat on an appeal from the High Court, in 1936 after his retirement as governor-general. Sir Garfield Barwick insisted on an amendment to Privy Council procedure to allow dissent; however, he exercised that capacity only once. The appeals mostly related to decisions from other Commonwealth countries, although they occasionally included appeals from
3360-520: The Yolngu people could not prevent mining on their lands. He held that native title was not part of the law of Australia , and even had it existed, any native title rights had been extinguished. Further, even if extinguishment had not occurred, the plaintiffs were not able to prove native title. Blackburn rejected the claim on the bases that: The terms "settled" and "desert and uncultivated" included territory in which resided "uncivilized inhabitants in
3444-414: The acquisition of radical title to land by the Crown at British settlement did not by itself extinguish native title interests. A majority of the High Court found that: Various members of the court discussed the international law doctrine of terra nullius ( ' no one's land ' ), meaning uninhabited or inhabited territory which is not under the jurisdiction of a state, and which can be acquired by
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) - Misplaced Pages Continue
3528-527: The act being inconsistent with the right to equality before the law, as established by the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) . The court held that rights arising under native title were recognised within Australia's common law. These rights were sourced from Indigenous laws and customs and not from a grant from the Crown. However, these rights were not absolute and may be extinguished by validly enacted State or Commonwealth legislation or grants of land rights inconsistent with native title rights. Additionally,
3612-545: The case to the Supreme Court "differently constituted, for hearing according to law". On Nauru's 50th anniversary of independence, Baron Waqa declared to parliament that "[s]everance of ties to Australia's highest court is a logical step towards full nationhood and an expression of confidence in Nauru's ability to determine its own destiny". Justice Minister David Adeang said that an additional reason for cutting ties
3696-487: The claimants' ritual and economic use of the land and that they had an established system of law "a subtle and highly elaborate" system of laws ( Madayin ). The judgement concludes: "I cannot help being specially conscious that for the plaintiffs it is a matter in which their personal feelings are involved". In a confidential memorandum to the Government and Opposition, he opined that a system of Aboriginal land rights
3780-480: The colonies to come to London to assist with the approval process, with a view to their approving any alterations that the British government might see fit to make; delegates were sent, including Deakin, Barton and Charles Kingston , although they were under instructions that they would never agree to changes. After intense lobbying both in Australia and in the United Kingdom, the Imperial Parliament finally approved
3864-662: The colonies, an 1849 report from the Privy Council suggested a national court be created. In 1856, the Governor of South Australia , Richard MacDonnell , suggested to the Government of South Australia that they consider establishing a court to hear appeals from the Supreme Courts in each colony. In 1860 the South Australian Parliament passed legislation encouraging MacDonnell to put the idea to
3948-684: The country, where it would use facilities of the respective supreme courts. Deakin had envisaged that the court would sit in many different locations, so as to truly be a federal court. Shortly after the court's creation, Chief Justice Griffith established a schedule for sittings in state capitals: Hobart in February, Brisbane in June, Perth in September, and Adelaide in October. It has been said that Griffith established this schedule because those were
4032-441: The court operates by receiving applications for appeal from parties in a process called special leave . If a party's application is accepted, the court will proceed to a full hearing, usually with oral and written submissions from both parties. After conclusion of the hearing, the result is decided by the court. The special leave process does not apply in situations where the court elects to exercise its original jurisdiction; however,
4116-766: The court typically delegates its original jurisdiction to Australia's inferior courts. The court has resided in Canberra since 1980, following the construction of a purpose-built High Court building , located in the Parliamentary Triangle and overlooking Lake Burley Griffin . Sittings of the court previously rotated between state capitals, particularly Melbourne and Sydney , and the court continues to regularly sit outside Canberra. The High Court exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction . Sir Owen Dixon said on his swearing in as Chief Justice of Australia in 1952: The High Court's jurisdiction
4200-488: The court's workload continued to grow, particularly from the 1960s onwards, putting pressures on the court. Sir Garfield Barwick , who was attorney-general from 1958 to 1964, and from then until 1981 chief justice, proposed that more federal courts be established, as permitted under the Constitution. In 1976 the Federal Court of Australia was established, with a general federal jurisdiction, and in more recent years
4284-551: The court. Opponents instead proposed that the court should be made up of state supreme court justices, taking turns to sit on the High Court on a rotation basis, as had been mooted at the Constitutional Conventions a decade before. Deakin eventually negotiated amendments with the opposition , reducing the number of judges from five to three, and eliminating financial benefits such as pensions. At one point, Deakin threatened to resign as Attorney-General due to
SECTION 50
#17327877044564368-444: The decision, saying it "establishes a fundamental truth, and lays the basis for justice". Conversely, the decision was criticised by the government of Western Australia and various mining and pastoralist groups. Soon after the decision, the Keating government passed the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) , which supplemented the rights recognised in Mabo and set out a new process for applicants to have their rights recognised through
4452-538: The design of the court as it was. Inglis Clark took the view that the possibility of divergence was a good thing, for the law could adapt appropriately to Australian circumstances. Despite this debate, the draft's judicial sections remained largely unchanged. After the draft had been approved by the electors of the colonies, it was taken to London in 1899 for the assent of the British Imperial Parliament. The issue of Privy Council appeals remained
4536-458: The difficulties he faced. In his three and a half hour second reading speech to the House of Representatives , Deakin said, The federation is constituted by distribution of powers, and it is this court which decides the orbit and boundary of every power... It is properly termed the keystone of the federal arch... The statute stands and will stand on the statute-book just as in the hour in which it
4620-403: The draft constitution. The draft as passed included an alteration to section 74, in a compromise between the two sides. It allowed for a general right of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council, but the Parliament of Australia could make laws restricting this avenue. In addition, appeals in inter se matters were not as of right, but had to be certified by the High Court. The High Court
4704-606: The government had sold part of the Arnhem Land reserve on 13 March of that year to a bauxite mining company, Nabalco without consultation with the traditional owners at the time. However, in 1968 the Commonwealth government granted a special mineral lease to the company over the land for a period of 42 years. In December 1968, the Yolngu people living in Yirrkala , represented by three plaintiffs , obtained writs in
4788-405: The inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76 rather than section 75 as "an odd fact of history". The 1998 Constitutional Convention recommended an amendment to the constitution to prevent the possibility of the jurisdiction being removed by Parliament. The word "matter" in sections 75 and 76 has been understood to mean that the High Court is unable to give advisory opinions. The court
4872-564: The indigenous people depends on biological descent from the indigenous people and on mutual recognition of a particular person's membership by that person and by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people. This definition was originally proposed and used by the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the 1980s. This test has been used in later cases and in other legal contexts (including Love v Commonwealth ) to establish whether or not
4956-640: The judgment the Keating government enacted the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) , which established the National Native Title Tribunal to hear native title claims at first instance. The act was subsequently amended by the Howard government in response to the Wik decision . Within his judgment, Justice Brennan endorsed a three-part legal test for to legally recognise a person as Indigenous in relation to native title. He wrote: Membership of
5040-689: The land. The plaintiffs' lawyers were Edward Woodward , Frank Purcell, John Little and John Fogarty. The plaintiffs claimed they enjoyed sovereignty over their land, and sought the freedom to occupy their lands. The applicants asserted before the Court that since time immemorial , they held a “communal native title” that had not been validly extinguished, or acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 (Cth), and should be recognised as an enforceable proprietary right. The lengthy legal battle culminated in 1971. Justice Blackburn found that
5124-430: The landholding model asserted. Blackburn acknowledged for the first time in an Australian higher court the existence of a system of Aboriginal law . He also recognised the validity of the use of oral evidence to establish property rights , normally inadmissible, but a vital precondition for a successful land rights case, and he also acknowledged the claimants' ritual and economic use of the land. Blackburn acknowledged
SECTION 60
#17327877044565208-694: The latest) the passage of the Land Act 1910 (Qld). Prior to judgment, the Queensland government passed the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985 (Qld), which purported to extinguish the native title on the Murray Islands that Mabo and the other plaintiffs were seeking to claim. This was successfully challenged in Mabo v Queensland (1988) 166 CLR 186 (Mabo No 1) and declared as ineffective due to
5292-416: The need to apply Nauruan law and customary practice, and that special leave hearings were not required. Nauruan politicians had said publicly that the Nauru government was unhappy about these arrangements. Of particular concern was a decision of the High Court in October 2017, which quashed an increase in sentence imposed upon political protestors by the Supreme Court of Nauru. The High Court had remitted
5376-423: The newly established Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia . The case centred on the Murray Islands Group, consisting of Murray Island (known traditionally as Mer Island), Waua Islet and Daua Island. The islands have been inhabited by the Meriam people (a group of Torres Strait Islanders ) for between 300 and 2,000 years. Prior to and after annexation by the British, rights to land on Mer
5460-404: The other colonies. However, only Victoria considered the proposal. At a Melbourne inter-colonial conference held in 1870, the idea of an inter-colonial court was again raised. A royal commission was established in Victoria to investigate options for establishing such a court, and a draft bill was put forward. This draft bill, however, completely excluded appeals to the Privy Council, causing
5544-431: The plaintiffs (and by extension to other Aboriginal Australian peoples), and thus the concept of land rights, was maintained as a possibility, at least until the membership of the High Court had changed. Milirrpum led to the establishment of the Woodward Royal Commission by the Whitlam government in 1973–4, and the eventual recognition of Aboriginal Land rights in the Northern Territory . In 1975, shortly before he
5628-479: The states and the Commonwealth (" inter se " matters), except where the High Court certified it appropriate for the appeal to be determined by Privy Council. This occurred only once, and the High Court has said it would never again grant a certificate of appeal. No certificate was required to appeal constitutional cases not involving inter se matters, such as in the interpretation of section 92 (the freedom of inter-state commerce section). On non- inter se matters,
5712-434: The supreme court of an Australian state. Section 74 allowed parliament to prevent appeals to the Privy Council. It did so in 1968 with the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 , which closed off all appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation. In 1975, the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 closed all routes of appeal from the High Court; excepting for those in which
5796-422: The time of British colonisation of Australia there was a distinction between settled colonies, where the land, being "desert and uncultivated", was claimed by right of occupancy, and conquered or ceded colonies. The decision also noted that the Crown had the power to extinguish native title, if it existed. The issue of terra nullius was not contemplated in the case. Although Milirrpum was not appealed beyond
5880-431: The time of British settlement of New South Wales. In 2005, historian Michael Connor argued in The Invention of Terra Nullius that Mabo was wrongly decided as the British actually annexed Australia, rather than treating it as terra nullius . Responding to these criticisms, Mason stated, "what the British thought about its international law grounds for establishing sovereignty over Australia, for annexing Australia,
5964-625: The times of year he found the weather most pleasant in each city. The tradition of special sittings remains to this day, although they are dependent on the court's caseload. There are annual sittings in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane for up to a week each year, and sittings in Hobart occur once every few years. Sittings outside of these special occurrences are conducted in Canberra. The court's operations were marked by various anomalies during World War II . The Chief Justice, Sir John Latham , served from 1940 to 1941 as Australia's first ambassador to Japan; however, his activities in that role were limited by
6048-554: The trial, explained that he believed that God had sent Malo to Mer Island and that "Jesus Christ was where Malo was pointing." In 1879, the islands were formally annexed by the State of Queensland. By the 1900s, the traditional economic life of the Torres Strait gave way to wage labouring on fishing boats mostly owned by others. In the aftermath of the Great Depression and a subsequent cut in wages, Islanders in 1936 joined
6132-525: The unified jurisdiction of the British courts, and petitioned the conventions to that effect. Others argued that Australian judges were of a poorer quality than those of the English, and than the inevitable divergence in law that would occur without the oversight of the Privy Council; would put the legal system at risk. Some politicians (e.g. George Dibbs ) supported a retention of Privy Council supervision; whereas others, including Alfred Deakin , supported
6216-447: Was "morally right and socially expedient". There was a deliberate decision to pursue a political course rather than legal challenge to the High Court of Australia , which at the time because of the membership of the Court was likely to reject Blackburn’s finding that there was a coherent system of Aboriginal law relating to land. By not having the appeal rejected by the High Court, the findings of Justice Blackburn that were favourable to
6300-510: Was announced as one of the Q150 Icons of Queensland for its role as a "Defining Moment". A straight-to-TV film titled Mabo was produced in 2012 by Blackfella Films in association with the ABC and SBS . It provided a dramatised account of the case, focusing on the effect it had on Mabo and his family. High Court of Australia The High Court of Australia is the apex court of
6384-475: Was assented to. But the nation lives, grows and expands. Its circumstances change, its needs alter, and its problems present themselves with new faces. [The High Court] enables the Constitution to grow and be adapted to the changeful necessities and circumstances of generation after generation that the High Court operates. Deakin's friend, painter Tom Roberts , who viewed the speech from the public gallery, declared it Deakin's " magnum opus ". The Judiciary Act 1903
6468-549: Was disliked by some of the colonies, and the bill was abandoned. The idea of a federal supreme court was raised during the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s. A proposal for a supreme court of Australia was included in an 1891 draft. It was proposed to enable the court to hear appeals from the state supreme courts, with appeals to the Privy Council only occurring on assent from the British monarch . It
6552-539: Was dismissed, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam drew up the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 which was later passed (in a slightly diluted form) by the conservative Fraser government on 9 December 1976. The court interpreter for the case was Galarrwuy Yunupingu , the son of a Gumatj clan leader, Munggurrawuy, who was one of the Yirrkala plaintiffs. Galarrwuy had earlier helped his father draft
6636-504: Was finally passed on 25 August 1903, and the first three justices, Chief Justice Sir Samuel Griffith and justices Sir Edmund Barton and Richard O'Connor , were appointed on 5 October of that year. On 6 October, the court held its first sitting in the Banco Court in the Supreme Court of Victoria . On 12 October 1906, the size of the High Court was increased to five justices, and Deakin appointed H. B. Higgins and Isaac Isaacs to
6720-582: Was held to not exist and to never have existed in Australia. Later, in 1982, the plaintiffs , headed by Eddie Mabo , requested a declaration from the High Court that the Meriam people were entitled to property rights on Murray Island according to their local customs, original native ownership and their actual use and possession of the land. The State of Queensland was the respondent to the proceeding and argued that native title rights had never existed in Australia and even if it did they had been removed due to (at
6804-487: Was not enough work for a federal court to make it viable. The then Attorney-General Alfred Deakin introduced the Judiciary Bill to the House of Representatives in 1902. Prior efforts had been continually delayed by opponents in the parliament, and the success of the bill is generally attributed to Deakin's passion and persistence. Deakin proposed that the court be composed of five judges, specially selected to
6888-427: Was not immediately established after Australia came into being. Some members of the first Parliament , including Sir John Quick , then one of the leading legal experts in Australia, opposed legislation to set up the court. Even H. B. Higgins , who was himself later appointed to the court, objected to setting it up, on the grounds that it would be impotent while Privy Council appeals remained, and that in any event there
6972-460: Was proposed that the Privy Council be prevented from hearing appeals on constitutional matters. This draft was largely the work of Sir Samuel Griffith , then the Premier of Queensland . The attorney-general of Tasmania Andrew Inglis Clark also contributed to the constitution's judicial clauses. Clark's most significant contribution was to give the court its own constitutional authority, ensuring
7056-478: Was the cost of appeals to the High Court. Nauru then exercised an option under its agreement with Australia to end its appellate arrangement with 90 days notice. The option was exercised on 12 December 2017 and the High Court's jurisdiction ended on 12 March 2018. The termination did not become publicly known until after the Supreme Court had reheard the case of the protesters and had again imposed increased sentences. Following Earl Grey 's 1846 proposal to federate
#455544