Mabo v Queensland (No 1)

Mabo v Queensland (No 1), also known as Mabo (No 1), was a landmark legal case heard by the High Court of Australia in 1988. Formally cited as Mabo v Queensland (1988) 166 CLR 186, the case primarily concerned the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985 (Qld), which purported to extinguish any existing native title rights of the Meriam people of Murray Island in the Torres Strait.

The plaintiffs, Eddie Mabo, David Passi, and James Rice, argued that the Act was inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) because it discriminated against the Meriam people based on their race by extinguishing their rights in and over their land. The core issue before the court was whether the Queensland Act was valid, given the federal Racial Discrimination Act.

The High Court found in favour of the plaintiffs, ruling that the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985 was indeed inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and therefore invalid under section 109 of the Australian Constitution. Section 109 states that when a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Mabo v Queensland (No 1) was significant because it laid the groundwork for the more famous Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992), which ultimately overturned the legal doctrine of terra nullius ("land belonging to no one") and established the recognition of native title in Australian common law. Mabo (No 1) paved the way for the second Mabo decision by clarifying the legal landscape and the application of the Racial Discrimination Act in relation to land rights. It highlighted the importance of federal legislation in protecting the rights of Indigenous Australians against discriminatory state laws.