Does Mabo v the State of Queensland (1992) 175 CLR 1 state that “The Aboriginal people we the traditional owners of the land”?

Question

I'm reading a essay making claims about the case Australian Mabo case from 1992.

The essay states:

...the High Court (notwithstanding finding that the Aboriginal people of Australia were the traditional owners of the land), ...

My understanding is that the case provides for Aboriginal people who have 'a continuing connection with the land' to make a claim in Native title. I don't believe that's the same as saying "the Aboriginal People were the traditional owners of the land."

My question is: Does Mabo v the State of Queensland (1992) 175 CLR 1 state that "The Aboriginal people we the traditional owners of the land"?

Answer 1

Yes

In paragraph 2:

In the result, six members of the Court (Dawson J. dissenting) are in agreement that the common law of this country recognizes a form of native title which, in the cases where it has not been extinguished, reflects the entitlement of the indigenous inhabitants, in accordance with their laws or customs, to their traditional lands and that, subject to the effect of some particular Crown leases, the land entitlement of the Murray Islanders in accordance with their laws or customs is preserved, as native title, under the law of Queensland.

Mabo specifically overturned the founding idea that Australia was terra nullius - literally "nobody's land" - and recognized that the land was subject to "native title ... where it has not been extinguished". Presumably, before 26 January 1788 "native title" had been extinguished nowhere and the indigenous Australians "owned" the land on that basis. Native title is not the same as Torrens title or Old title ownership and has different rights and privileges but they are all forms of "ownership".