Mabo v Queensland (1988)
| Mabo v Queensland (No 1) | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Mabo and Another v The State of Queensland and Another |
| Decided | 8 December 1988 |
| Citation(s) | (1988) 166 CLR 186, [1988] HCA 69 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | none |
| Subsequent action(s) | Mabo v Queensland (No 2) |
| Case opinions | |
|
(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) |
|
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Mason CJ, Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson Toohey & Gaudron JJ |
(4:3) the demurrer would be allowed (per Brennan, Deane, Toohey & Gaudron JJ)
Mabo v Queensland (No 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, which attempted to retrospectively abolish native title rights, was not valid according to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
The case was closely related to another proceeding in the High Court (Mabo v Queensland (No 2), 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, 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.
The main argument of the plaintiffs was that the Coast Islands Act was invalid, because it was contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, 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. As such, the plaintiffs argued that the Queensland Government was not able to rely on the Coast Islands Act as part of their defence in the main case. 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.
...
Wikipedia