Contemporary Australia regards the 1992 Mabo decision as revolutionary. It was a legal case petitioned by Eddie Mabo against Queensland challenging the justice system of Australia and fighting for the recognition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the genuine owners of the land.

Though the Mabo case helped determine essential features of the native title, many questions concerning the judicial process were left unanswered. Prior to the Mabo case, the Aboriginal land rights ACT 1983 number 42 had founded the Aboriginal Land Council to help the islander’s repossess culturally significant and arable land. The committee also oversaw issues pertaining to socio-economic independence for the islanders by advocating reactiveness among members on matters affecting them (Small & Dickie, 2000. pp. 43). The aboriginal land council is a self-funding organization with statutory authority to enforce legislation on behalf of the people. The objectives of the council centered on protecting the cultural aspects and customary beliefs of the aboriginals. Local native councils represent the council at the community level. The most notable action undertaken by the council was the housing program that encouraged self-reliance on the part of the people.

The legislation presented a new chapter in the Australian perspective. It gave the Aboriginals and Toress strait Islanders their native property rights, cultural freedoms and exclusive ownership. Consequently, land developers, miners and tour guides gained access to land and had the certainty of title deeds. The state and the federal government got jurisdiction to manage land resources. However, the decision by the courts did not get a good reception from the commonwealth government. The native title act 1993 passed on 21 December 1993 was the response of the white Australia to the Mabo decision. The act stated that indigenous people could only claim vacant land that they had a consistent connection. At the same time, the ACT established the framework upon which land could be repossessed and by whom. The ACT was a witty move by the commonwealth government to bar the islanders from repossessing vast tracts of land that the white settlers had previously acquired.

The native ACT helped push forward the rights of the people of aboriginal who remained sidelined for long in matters relating to national development. In essence, initially regarded as squatters, the breakthrough came as a relief since it enabled them to recapture their lost cultures and traditions (Tsosie, 2012). The legislation of the 1993 ACT meant that the native title received a new definition. The ACT, a brainchild of the Mabo decision, was an attempt by the government strategically to pivot a broad spectrum of ideas, varying from mining rights of the natives to the cultural beliefs of the indigenous people while hedging itself on the spirit of Mabo (Russell, 2005). It respected the aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people right to hunt fish and perform other economic Activities without permits.

After election in 1996, John Howard embarked on a nationwide reconciliation drive that sought to improve service delivery to natives and indigenous Australians, his policy centered on indigenous affairs that had arisen after the WIK decision. Howard is noted for having coined the phrase, ‘the pendulum had swung too far in favour of the Aboriginal interests’ (Darwall, 2005, pp. 57-68). Under this statement, Howard claimed that the interests of the aboriginals needed a new dimension, a new perspective that was in line with those of the larger Australia.

The year 1963 saw the culmination of extreme economic implications of the Mabo case, on the table indigenous interest groups articulated a point that a native title would be a powerful vehicle for socio-economic stewardship (Wilson et al., 2000). The cases helped opened up more avenues for the reclamation of land that the islanders had once considered lost. The civil rights movement in modern day Australia is all the brainchild of the Mabo case. The aboriginal received a landmark ruling that opened up their eyes to stand up and fight socio-economic injustices that had always been part of their lives for ages.

Since the passing of the Mabo decision, the civil rights movement in Australia has helped in the awarding of several title to the natives. In September of 2006, for example, a native claim of approximately 19500 Km2 of land in Western parts of Australia received a landmark ruling. The court-upheld part of the claim by the Nyoonger group, in his decision Justice Murray Wilcox stated that the Nyoonger people had a right to exploit the land, maintain it and use it for their traditional activities. The case got enormous attention because it was the first of its kind, for the first time; the high court upheld a native claim of a metropolitan area. However, similar claims in Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern Territory were declined due to lack of evidence by the natives that they had a consistent connection to the land.