The 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.
Both parties agreed that the case should proceed on the assumption that the plaintiffs did actually hold native title rights, although the question had not been decided yet. The court agreed that the Coast Islands Act did operate to extinguish native title rights, if indeed they did exist. The main question was thus whether the Coast Islands Act was valid.
Section 10(1) of the Act provides that Commonwealth or State laws which deprive a person of one race or ethnic group of a right enjoyed by another group, then that law does not have effect. An important question was whether laws which have the effect of removing or limiting rights which are held only by a certain group falls under section 10(1).
Read more about this topic: Mabo V Queensland (No 1)
Famous quotes containing the word case:
“The circumstances with which every thing in this world is begirt, give every thing in this world its size and shape;—and by tightening it, or relaxing it, this way or that, make the thing to be, what it is—great—little—good—bad—indifferent or not indifferent, just as the case happens.”
—Laurence Sterne (1713–1768)
“In sane moments we regard only the facts, the case that is.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)