-
Along with two other Merium people, Eddie Mabo lodged a statement of claim in the High Court in Australia. The claim was to get native title over the Murray Island in the Torres Strait.
-
The QLD government passes the QLD Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985 to extinguish the native title rights of the Meriam people to the Islands.
-
In 1985, Mabo and other members of the Torres Strait Islanders challenge the constitutional validity of the QLD Coast Island Declaratory Act in the High Court
-
'The hearing of evidence in the Mabo Case by the Supreme Court continues, partly in Brisbane and partly on Mer Island and Thursday Island in the Torres Strait'- SBS: Native Title
-
The High Court decides that the Queensland Coast Island Declaratory Act 1985 is inconsistent with the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act. This resulted with the ruling became known as Mabo vs Queensland (No.1).
-
'The hearing of evidence in the Mabo Case by the Supreme Court continues, partly in Brisbane and partly on Mer Island and Thursday Island in the Torres Strait.'- SBS: Native Title
-
"The High Court Mabo (No 2) recognises that native title is part of Australian land law. The historic decision overturns the doctrine that Australia was terra nullius - a land belonging to no-one. The High Court recognises that the Meriam people were "entitled as against the whole world, to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the lands of the Murray Islands."'- SBS Native title
-
Parliament enacts the Native title act 1993. This act adresses the consequences of recognising native title for past actions by givernemnts and sets rules for future dealings.
-
Native title bill is passed by the Senate
-
-
-
The High Court rejects Western Australia's constitutional challenge to the Native Title Act and invalidates Western Australian government's attempt to enact legislation that offered less protection of Indigenous rights (Western Australia v. Commonwealth (1995).
-
-
For the first time, native title is determined on the Australian mainland under the Native Title Act, in "The Dunghutti People Consent Determination".
-
-
This decision was appealed and the appeal was rejected.
-
High Court confirms that any native title which had been conferred to the Larrakia people had been extinguished forever by the grant of freehold title.
-
the introduction of a registration test for native title claimant applications, changes to the future act scheme, a new scheme for indigenous land use agreements, and a requirement for new native title applications to be filed in the Federal Court and every current application to become a proceeding in the Court.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The High Court grants claimants in the Yorta Yorta case rights to appeal against the Federal Court decision that the 'tide of history' had washed away their traditional connection and native title rights.
-
-
In the Miriuwung and Gajerrong peoples' native title case (WA v Ward), the High Court confirms the decisions in Wik - that native title continues to exist on pastoral leases and that the rights of pastoralists prevail over native title rights and interests.
-
In the Yorta Yorta case, the High Court upholds the Federal Court's decision that native title had ceased to exist because of a break in the observance of traditional laws and customs.
-
-
-
-
-
-