Significant change in Australian land ownership. The Mabo Case (#2) In 1770, British Captain James Cook arrived and imported all the laws from England to Australia. He then justified the denial of the indigenous people's connection to the land. The land was taken and occupied by the King of Great Britain. Under international law, it was no longer the right of the indigenous people to use the land as their home and the land belonged to the British. For many years, the land debate remained. Land ownership has sparked numerous protests and struggles over land rights between indigenous and non-indigenous people across the country. The fundamental change in the struggle for land rights occurred with the case of Eddie Mabo. Eddie Mabo, who was an indigenous Australian from the island of Mer in the Torres Strait Islands, realized the lack of rights that, being originally from Australia, he had his land on Murray Island and began to fight for indigenous land rights. Murray Island was considered part of the Crown lands of the state of Queensland. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original Mabo essay and the more people who had a connection to the land thousands of years before and who actually had no right to build on the farm or use the land freely. He argued that indigenous people had a real connection to this land and that "terra nullius" denied them this. Terra nullius, which is a Latin term, means that the land belongs to no one and was used to justify land ownership in the European era of previous imperialism. The High Court of Australia first decided on Mabo's lawyer in 1988, in one of the well-known cases called Mabo v. Queensland (No. 1). Mabo had fought for ten years to gain the right to his land; however, he found that the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985, which attempted to revoke native title rights, was invalid under the Racial Discriminations Act 1975. After losing his case against the state of Queensland, he continued to fight for their right to the land, he sought the help of lawyers and others who believed he had a good case he went to the High Court of Australia and also fought to nullify the principle of 'terra nullius' by arguing together that Aboriginal people had a native title to their land. In 1992, after Mabo's death, the High Court of Justices upheld the claim and ruled that this continent was not indeed terra nullius. Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2) was one of the notable cases arising from the 1992 decision of the High Court of Australia. The High Court held that the doctrine of "Terra nullius", did not apply in circumstances where there were inhabitants already present. The decision recognized that Australia had not been terra nullius. That common law recognizes a form of native title to land. The Mabo case decision related specifically to Aboriginal land rights. For the judge's decision, most of them agreed that there was a concept of native title in common law, the source of native title was the traditional connection or occupation of land, the nature and content of native title was determined by the character of the connection or occupation according to traditional laws or the client and the refusal of terra nullius etc. The impacts of the case on the Australian legal system The high decision in Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2) changed the basis of land law in Australia and following year after the recognition of the legal concept of native title in Mabo, the recognition wasformalized by legislation with the enactment by the Government of the Australian Parliament of the Native Title Act 1993. To provide a national system for the recognition and protection of native title with a national land management system. Rights will depend on the traditional laws and customs of native title holders and the ability of Australian law to recognize the rights and interests they hold. This paved the way for claims by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples over their traditional rights to land and compensation. At the end of 1993 the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) was passed. The NTA sought to achieve four main objectives: 1. Provide recognition and protection of native title. 2. 2. Establish how future transactions affecting native title may proceed and establish standards for such transactions 3. Establish a mechanism for determining native title claims 4. Provide, or permit, validation of past deeds, and intermediate period deeds, invalidated due to the existence of native title. After the Mabo case, the High Court repudiated the case Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971), which is a national decision of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and the legal doctrine of terra nullius. Furthermore, the Mabo case has implications other than native title, in which Walker v. New South Wales (1994), the High Court discussed the validity of Aboriginal customary law relating to criminal cases and decided that customary law had been overridden by criminal legislation that was passed by the states and territories. The shortcomings of the current legal system regarding native title However, native title legislation still involves different types of issues. There are several issues challenging native incumbent parties. The Native Title Act was originally enacted so that Aboriginal people could negotiate and mediate to resolve recognition of Aboriginal people's continuing connection to their land. But as an increasing number of native title cases take a relatively long period, sometimes decades, to resolve the case in court rather than through negotiation. It is difficult for native title groups to demonstrate a continuous connection because there are often numerous parties involved. Critics of the law are calling on the Australian government to review and amend it. One of the Acts' most stringent requirements is that claimants must be able to demonstrate continuity of traditional laws and customs on the land claimed since European settlement. Since processing applications would take many years, this would lead some politicians to find a strange “solution.” Native title is sometimes difficult to prove in the current Australian legal system, because it implies recognition that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had rights and interests in the use of land and waters, held under Aboriginal laws and customs and the Torres Strait Islands, which pre-existed and survived the annexation. The time between the assertion of sovereignty and the Australian legal system's recognition of native title in 1992 means there are great challenges in proving the survival of such rights 200 years from now. The future of Native Title The Australian Government has promised to reform the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), which is a key piece of legislation recognizing the rights and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their land by traditional laws and customs, to ensure the creation of a better economic and social environment for Indigenous Australians within,.