Mabo v Queensland (No 2) was a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that recognised the existence of Native Title in Australia, with the people of Mer Island winning the land rights claim of ownership.

It was brought by Eddie Mabo 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 the common law of Australia and legally overturn the concept of terra nullius. 

Mabo is of great legal, historical, and political importance to First Nations Australians.

This video explains the Mabo case and The Native Title Act of 1993. 

Write four facts from this video while you are watching it.

Eddie Koiki Mabo was a Torres Strait Islander man from Mer Island and was born in 1936. 

When he was young, Eddie was adopted by his uncle Benny when his parents died. Eddie was to inherit Benny's land when he died. This part of Mer Island had always been Mabo land.

When Eddie was 16, he was exiled from Mer Island by the Murray Island Council because he was found drunk, he was also accused of having an inproper relationship with a girl from Mer Island. 

During exile, he began working on pearling boats and railways. He eventually moved to Townsville, married Bonita Neehow when he was 23 and began working as a gardener at James Cook University. It was there he began reading widely and started attending lectures. 

In 1981, there was a Land Rights Conference held at James Cook University. During the conference, Mabo made about speech about ownership of land on Mer Island. He was encouraged to test his claim in court and when he told the people of Mer Island about this, they were supportive. 

In 1982, Eddie Koiki Mabo, David Passi, Sam Passi, James Rice and Celuia Mapo Sale went to the High Court of QLD to claim native title of Mer Island and challenged the concept of terra nullius.

The Queensland Government passed the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act in 1985. The aim of this act was to prevent the Meriam people of claiming rights to the Mer Island. Mabo vs Queensland (No.1) was adjourned because of this act.

On 27 February 1986, the Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, took Mabo's claims to the Supreme Court. Eddie Mabo and the people of Mer Island challenged the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act of 1985. One of their lawyers was Brian Keon Cohen.

Justice Moynihan was the Supreme Court Judge who oversaw the case. He accepted Mabo's case after hearing the facts of the second claim. The Mabo team requested that the court visited Mer Island, which Moynihan accepted. During the visit, they heard the accounts of 16 witnesses and Mabo was able to specifically show them his claim.

These photos were taken in 1989 as part of the evidence for Mabo's case.

Eddie Koiki Mabo passed away on the 21st of January 1992 at age 56, 5 months before his historic victory.

This was nearly 10 years after the court proceedings began.

While he never saw the outcome of his case, Mabo's name is linked with the most important decision for First Nations people during the 20th century.

He was burried in Townsville and his grave was vandalised. 

He was reburied on Mer Island and was given a chief's ceremony, the first in 80 years.

On 3 June 1992, the High Court ruled that the lands of that the Meriam people were their own and Mer Island was not terra nullius at the time of colonisation.

The Court ruled that the Meriam people had native title of their land and native title was written into law.

The new doctrine of native title replaced a seventeenth century doctrine of terra nullius, the claim to which the British used to colonise and posses Australia.

The Native Title Act (1993) was introduced. This was a process whereby First Nations people could apply for native title of Crown Land (land not been sold or given away) if they could prove they had an unbroken connection to the land.

After the Mabo ruling, there was fear that people could lose the property they had paid for. The Native Title Act (1993) addressed these concerns.

You will need earphones to engage with this source. If you don't have earphones, the video has captions you can turn on and you can play the video on mute.

1 - What class did Mabo make speeches in?

2 - What did Mabo say was a shame when speaking to a class of university students? What does he ask them to prove his statement?

3 - What did Mabo spend his spare time doing when he worked at the university?

4 - What was Mabo learning about while engaging with university academics?

5 - Who was looking after Eddie Mabo's land while he was in Townsville?

6 - How did Mabo react when he found out he didn't legally own his land?

7 - Why couldn't Mabo legally return home even though his father was unwell?

8 - What do we learn about Eddie Koiki Mabo from this source? What type of person was he?

9 - What is this source useful for?

This source is a quote from Mabo from the documentary Mabo: Life of an Island Man.

Read the source answering these questions.

1 - What evidence did Mabo have that proved the QLD Government would not let him return to Mer Island?

2 - What did Mabo believe?

3 - What event encouraged Mabo to take this belief to the Court?

4 - What is this source useful for?

This source is an extract from Keon-Cohen's account of the Mabo case he wrote for the Melbourne University Law Review. In this account, Keon-Cohen describes a phonecall he made to Mer Island after winning the case.

Read the source before answering these questions.

1 - Who was Brian Keon-Cohen? The answer is in the content from this lesson.

2 - Who was with Keon-Cohen when he made the phonecall? How does this make this source more reliable?

3 - What did Keon-Cohen inform the Meriam people about? What exactly did he say to them? Use a quote from this source to answer this question and capture to significance of this ruling.

4 - How did the Meriam people react? Use evidence from the source to justify your answer?

5 - Why is this source important?

6 - What is this source useful for?

This source is a direct quote from the High Court's ruling on Mabo vs Queensland No.2. 

Read the source before answering these questions.

1 - What did the High Court say in this part of the ruling? What do they mean by this?

2 - Why is this sentence significant in a legal document?

3 - What is this source useful for?

Click on the image to access the article on Trove. Make sure you use the zoom function. Read the article before answering these questions.

1 - What is this article about? Why is the date of this article significant?

2 - What did the High Court rule? Why was this significant, what did it prove?

3 - How long did Mabo vs Queensland last?

Click on the arrow at the bottom of the article to access page 3

4 - What did the Mabo decision declare?

5 - Why did George Mye have to remain in Canberra for the following week after the Mabo decision?

Click on the image to access the article on Trove. Make sure you use the zoom function. Read the article before answering these questions.

1 - What did the minister of Aboriginal Affairs accuse some politicians of?

2 - What was the impact of misrepresenting the Mabo decision?

3 - Who was attached? How does this person link to other lessons from this unit?

4 - At the time this article was published, why was violence against Aboriginal people increasing? What were they scared and misinformed of?

5 - Who attached Foley's son? What were they shouting?

6 - What is this article useful for?