(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)
The case was closely related to another proceeding in the High Court (Mabo v Queensland (No 2),[4] decided in 1992) which was a dispute between the Meriam people (of the Mer Islands in the Torres Strait) and the Government of Queensland, in which several Meriam people, principally Eddie Mabo, contested that they had certain native title rights over the Murray Islands. In 1985, the Queensland Government passed the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act,[2] which was intended to retrospectively abolish any such native title rights, if they existed.
The Meriam people sought a demurrer to prevent the Queensland Government from relying on the Coast Islands Declaratory Act in their defence to the main case.[2]
The caseedit
The main argument of the plaintiffs was that the Coast Islands Act was invalid, because it was contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975,[3] a law passed by the Parliament of Australia. Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia provides that where an Act of a state parliament is inconsistent with an Act of the Parliament of Australia, the state act is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.[5] As such, the plaintiffs argued that the Queensland Government were not able to rely on the Coast Islands Act as part of their defence in the main case.[2] The Queensland Government argued that the Act was valid, and had the effect of extinguishing any rights which the plaintiffs may have had, which may have survived annexation of the islands in 1879.[citation needed]
Both parties agreed that the case should proceed on the assumption that the plaintiffs did actually hold native title rights, although the question had not been decided yet. The court agreed that the Coast Islands Act did operate to extinguish native title rights, if indeed they did exist. The main question was thus whether the Coast Islands Act was valid.[2]
Section 10(1) of the Act provides that Commonwealth or State laws which deprive a person of one race or ethnic group of a right enjoyed by another group, then that law does not have effect. An important question was whether laws which have the effect of removing or limiting rights which are held only by a certain group falls under section 10(1).[6]
The decisionedit
The majority judgment of Justices Brennan, Toohey and Gaudron found that native title rights, if they did exist, should be treated as part of a broader human right to own and inherit property. They said that the effect of the Coast Islands Act was to arbitrarily deprive the Meriam people of their traditional property, by denying their native title rights.[2] As such, their right to own and inherit property was limited. By this reasoning, the demurrer was allowed and the Queensland Government was not allowed to rely on the Coast Islands Act.[2]
Consequencesedit
This case was a significant step towards the recognition in the main case, Mabo v Queensland (No 2), that native title existed.[4]
by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioners of the day
Native Title Reports, 1994–2009 by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioners of the day
Hi, I'm Eddie - Podcast by the State Library of Queensland. Winner 2021 Best Indigenous podcast, Australian Podcast Awards.
April 10, 2024
mabo, queensland, more, famous, case, mabo, queensland, significant, court, case, decided, high, court, australia, december, 1988, found, that, queensland, coast, islands, declaratory, 1985, which, attempted, retrospectively, abolish, native, title, rights, va. For the more famous case see Mabo v Queensland No 2 Mabo v Queensland No 1 1 was a significant court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 8 December 1988 It found that the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985 2 which attempted to retrospectively abolish native title rights was not valid according to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 3 Mabo v Queensland No 1 CourtHigh Court of AustraliaFull case nameMabo and Another v The State of Queensland and AnotherDecided8 December 1988Citation s 1988 HCA 69 1988 166 CLR 186Case historySubsequent action s Mabo v Queensland No 2 1992 HCA 23 1992 175 CLR 1Court membershipJudge s sittingMason CJ Wilson Brennan Deane Dawson Toohey amp Gaudron JJCase opinions 4 3 the demurrer would be allowed per Brennan Deane Toohey amp 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 amp Gaudron JJ Mason CJ amp Dawson J not deciding Contents 1 Background to the case 2 The case 3 The decision 4 Consequences 5 See also 6 References 7 External linksBackground to the case editThe case was closely related to another proceeding in the High Court Mabo v Queensland No 2 4 decided in 1992 which was a dispute between the Meriam people of the Mer Islands in the Torres Strait and the Government of Queensland in which several Meriam people principally Eddie Mabo contested that they had certain native title rights over the Murray Islands In 1985 the Queensland Government passed the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 2 which was intended to retrospectively abolish any such native title rights if they existed The Meriam people sought a demurrer to prevent the Queensland Government from relying on the Coast IslandsDeclaratoryAct in their defence to the main case 2 The case editThe main argument of the plaintiffs was that the Coast Islands Act was invalid because it was contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 3 a law passed by the Parliament of Australia Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia provides that where an Act of a state parliament is inconsistent with an Act of the Parliament of Australia the state act is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency 5 As such the plaintiffs argued that the Queensland Government were not able to rely on the Coast Islands Act as part of their defence in the main case 2 The Queensland Government argued that the Act was valid and had the effect of extinguishing any rights which the plaintiffs may have had which may have survived annexation of the islands in 1879 citation needed Both parties agreed that the case should proceed on the assumption that the plaintiffs did actually hold native title rights although the question had not been decided yet The court agreed that the Coast Islands Act did operate to extinguish native title rights if indeed they did exist The main question was thus whether the Coast Islands Act was valid 2 Section 10 1 of the Act provides that Commonwealth or State laws which deprive a person of one race or ethnic group of a right enjoyed by another group then that law does not have effect An important question was whether laws which have the effect of removing or limiting rights which are held only by a certain group falls under section 10 1 6 The decision editThe majority judgment of Justices Brennan Toohey and Gaudron found that native title rights if they did exist should be treated as part of a broader human right to own and inherit property They said that the effect of the Coast Islands Act was to arbitrarily deprive the Meriam people of their traditional property by denying their native title rights 2 As such their right to own and inherit property was limited By this reasoning the demurrer was allowed and the Queensland Government was not allowed to rely on the Coast Islands Act 2 Consequences editThis case was a significant step towards the recognition in the main case Mabo v Queensland No 2 that native title existed 4 See also editList of Australian Native Title court casesReferences edit Mabo v Queensland No 1 1988 HCA 69 1988 166 CLR 186 8 December 1988 High Court a b c d e f g Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act a b Racial Discrimination Act 1975 a b Mabo v Queensland No 2 1992 HCA 23 1992 175 CLR 1 3 June 1992 High Court Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act Cth s 109 Inconsistency of laws Racial Discrimination Act 1975 Cth s 10 External links editSocial Justice Reports 1994 2009 by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioners of the day Native Title Reports 1994 2009 by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioners of the day Hi I m Eddie Podcast by the State Library of Queensland Winner 2021 Best Indigenous podcast Australian Podcast Awards Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Mabo v Queensland No 1 amp oldid 1143817251, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
