Reconciliation and Social Justice Library

[RSJ Home] [Global AustLII Search] [RSJ Database Search]
[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next] [Download]

HIGH COURT DECISION ON MABO - CONCLUSION

While this action raises questions of great importance, the answers which it is possible to give to those questions necessarily speak in general terms rather than deal with particular aspects of the traditional title of the Meriam people. This is not a criticism of the way in which the plaintiffs' claim was formulated; it is simply a recognition that the claim for declaratory relief does speak in general terms. Consistent with the general nature of the claim made and the reasons underlying this judgment, I would make a declaration in the following terms:

l. Upon the annexation of the Murray Islands to Queensland, the radical title to all the land in those islands vested in the Crown in right of Queensland.

2. The traditional title of the Meriam people to the Murray Islands, being their rights to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the Islands, survived annexation of the Islands to Queensland and is preserved under the law of Queensland.

3. The traditional title of the Meriam people to the lands in the Islands has not been extinguished by subsequent legislation or executive act and may not be extinguished without the payment of compensation or damages to the traditional titleholders of the Islands.

4. The land in the Murray Islands is not Crown land within the meaning of that term in s.5 of the Land Act 1962 (Q.)

For the reasons that appear in this judgment, I would not make any declaration as to the consequences of the lease to the London Missionary Society in 1882 and the consequences of the lease granted over Dauer and Waier in 1931. It may be appropriate to grant liberty to apply in respect of each of those matters if any of the parties seeks an order to this effect.