The Mabo Case Was Initially Sees as a Revolution in Australian Law, but Its Legal Effects Have Turned out to Be Largely Illusory. Discuss This Statement
The Mabo case was initially sees as a revolution in Australian law, but its legal effects have turned out to be largely illusory. Discuss this statement
2000 wordsIntroduction:Social Injustice arises from the distinguished treatment and unfair acts against a society in its divisions of rewards and burdens. The concept is distinct from those of justice in law, which may or may not be considered moral in practice. Social Injustice can be traced back to the beginning of civilization and has always existed as an atrocious issue in our society by others distinct of one another due to living differences. Many attempts and reforms have occurred in hopes of eliminating social injustice and much progress has been achieved since the past years. People have always split people in different groups; this split is usually done on the basis of things that can easily be seen, like on accessories owned by individuals. Throughout Australian history, there have been men and women who fought for the entitlements of the indigenous people. The most respected and recognised of these is Eddie Mabo, a Torres Strait Islander fighting for the right to own land that. Throughout this essay, many questions relating to the Mabo case will be answered due to the investigation and research effort used all over to answer the main key statement; “How was Australia’s Law affected by the Mabo case, and what consequences have arisen from this?”, various of secondary questions that have been mentioned in the research task will also be included be analysed and debated throughout this essay to converse the rights of all people of the public who are being positioned in the same situation.
Paragraph 1Overview of the Mabo CaseBefore beginning it is necessary to trace the history of the Eddie Mabo Case.The first argument that will be discussed is how the Eddie Mabo Case has affected Australian Law.In order for the Eddie Mabo Case to be discussed it is important to understand what the judgement of the case was and How was Australia’s Law affected by the Mabo case, and what consequences have arisen from it. A brief overview of the Mabo vs Queensland Case will be presented before the topic statement can be taken further. In 1982 a group of Torres Strait Islanders led by a community leader named Eddie Mabo sued the state of Queensland for social injustice in land rights. The islanders made it clear to everyone that; since they have lived in the Murray Islands before the Europeans came to Australia they were entitled in owning the three small islands off the coast of north eastern Australia in the Torres Strait.
The Eddie Mabo Case was decided by the Australia-New South Wales Court of Law in March 1993 on a single issue: Aboriginal rights. It was decided by a unanimous case, The Federal Court of Appeal in New South Wales, at Sydney in 1996. The majority of the Australian government involved in the decision gave a unanimous opinion but only to the United Kingdom in 1998. The majority majority of Parliament and of virtually all NSW judges in the Federal Court made one of the three votes: the most recent is 7–2(3); this is due to the high court’s ruling on which there was a third vote held by a third party, the Australian National Party. A key point to remember is that it was a federal court decision, but the majority of the Australian Court of Criminal Appeal could not make a judgement on the basis of a single federal court decision that did not occur in New South Wales. As a result, one of the last seats to be filled by a New South Wales MP was decided to the Queensland High Court in late 1993.
1
2
3
While almost a century is considered one’s life time in relation to the Mabo case, most of this time is not long enough to reflect upon it, but that does not negate the fact that at least half in the past decade have seen the issue of rights come up again in relation to the Eddie Mabo case as a matter of politics, as such matters are important issues for NSW politics; they will be dealt with in greater detail in our next section on Aboriginal rights and in our future articles on Queensland rights and entitlements.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
References:
1. “The Eddie Mabo Case” Australian Law
2. Australian Government. 2010. Canberra: Commonwealth Affairs and International Affairs Department of the Government of Australia.
3. John A. White. (2012). Australian and New Zealand Aboriginal Rights. London: John A. Whitaker.
4. S.H. Johnson. (2002). The Age of Origin Debate: How the Australian Act and the Australian Racial Discrimination Act was changed in 1987 and 1991. Sydney: Australian Institute of Human Rights.
5. White (2012). Racial Discrimination in Australia: A Constitutional Explanation of the Racial Discrimination Laws of England and Wales. London: National Review International.
6. White and G.B. Whitehouse. “Biology, Health and Law on Indigenous and New South Wales Aboriginal Rights.” Proceedings of the Commonwealth of Australia in relation to the Eddie Mabo Case, Proceedings of the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of Australia, Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and WA, May 2010.
7. White (2012). Racial Discrimination in Australia: A Constitutional Explanation of the Racial Discrimination Laws of England and Wales. London: National Review International.
8. Australia Human Rights Watch. 2007. International Convention No 15 (1996) on the Status and Welfare of Indigenous Peoples: Evidence of Rights and Protection of Persons to the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Melbourne: Australian Human Rights Commission.
9. Ibid.
10. White (2012). “A New Law,” The Australian Law Review (April 12, 2010), 4.
11. White and G.B. Whitehouse. “Biology, Health and Law on Indigenous and New South Wales Aboriginal Rights.” Proceedings
After numerous rulings and appeals in lower courts, the High Court ruled in favour of Mabo on June 3, 1992. During the ruling, the court