Colonization In Australia

In contemporary Australia, the history of colonisation has had its own adverse dramatic effect on the indigenous societies. Colonisation has mostly affected the cultural and economic life of the indigenous people, particularly their central relationship with land and waters. Tribal enterprise began to increase considerably during the 1990s across Australia. It was not until 1992 that the High Court in Australia made a popular decision in Mabo v Queensland (No2) [1992] 175 CLR1, which held that the common law of Australia could recognise and effectively give the aboriginals rights and interests in land and waters under their traditional indigenous laws and customs, herein referred to as Native Title. So Native Title in Australia is defined as
the recognition by Australian Common law, that indigenous or the Aboriginal peoples have some rights and interests to their lands and waters. These come from their traditional laws and customs. The native title rights and interests held particularly by the indigenous people will practically depend upon traditional laws and customs and the interests other people have in the land or the area of dispute.
The facts of Mabo case involved litigation of members of the Merriam people of Murray Island s in the Torres Strait Islands part of the Queensland States of Australia. The plaintiffs Eddie Mabo and others claimed variety of declarations about their rights to Murray Islands which was based on local customs and traditional native title. Their legal action actually began in 1982, lasting for a decade. In 1985, Queensland attempted to prevent the court action by enacting the Queensland Coast Islands Declarations Act 1985. This Act declared that upon the ‘Island of Torres Strait becoming part of Queensland, had been invested in the Crown, in right of that state, freed from all other rights, interests and claims of any kind whatsoever.’ Having passed this statue, the state of Queensland then pleaded this statute against Eddie Mabo and other Plaintiffs’ claim asserting that its effect was to extinguish their rights and to deny them any rights of compensation in respect of that extinction. In sharp response to that, the validity of the Queensland statute was challenged, and the High Court in December 1988, held by majority of its judges that the Act was inconsistent with s.10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The relevant section of the