The ruling on June 3, 1992 overturned the British concept of "terra nullius" which claimed Australia didn't belong to anyone and was uninhabited when the Europeans arrived in 1788 and dispossessed Indigenous people of their lands.

Five months later, the Queensland cabinet was briefed about an Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council meeting in August which raised concerns about Indigenous people pushing for treaties before a planned national reconciliation convention on June 3, 1994.

"It is likely that the Mabo case may stimulate Aboriginal people to assert their common law property rights via a series of 'forcing' litigation as occurred in Canada," said cabinet minutes from 1992, released for the first time on Sunday.

"The aim of this strategy would be to pressure both Commonwealth and state governments to negotiate a range of agreements at a much earlier date than anticipated when the reconciliation process was initiated."

The case had been launched a decade before by Meriam man Eddie Mabo and four others from the Torres Strait Islands against the state of Queensland seeking recognition of their land rights over Murray Island, also known as Mer Island.

Despite the Queensland government losing the case, it wasn't until November that then-premier Wayne Goss raised the ruling in cabinet and the existence of a secretive Interdepartmental working group that was considering its possible impacts.

"The confidentiality of the deliberations of the IWG must be observed," the cabinet minutes said.

"Any department concerned about the possible effect of the Mabo decision on its functions, should in the first instance consult with the IWG."

University of Queensland historian Chris Salisbury said that was surprising, after there had been so many cabinet discussions about the Mabo case in previous years.

He said perhaps that shows the Goss government was in favour of a coordinated, national response to Mabo, which was in line with the premier's cautious approach to reform overall.

However, Mr Goss had a "progressive-conservative mixed approach" policy for indigenous affairs, women, domestic violence, youth justice and the environment.

On one hand, his cabinet was focused on developing policy to address women's health issues "in a holistic manner for the first time" and strengthening domestic violence laws in 1992, but it was stridently opposed to legalising prostitution.

Ruling it out neutralised it as an issue at the September state election, which Labor won, with a slight swing against it.

The former premier believed prostitution was "an affront to women" and "degrading to their rights and interests", which would be a conservative view in modern Queensland, where sex work was legalised in 1999.

"He considered that - the whole sex business, sex trade - as a kind of an affront to women's standing status," Dr Salisbury said.

"So he really was leading the resistance to legalising prostitution because he saw that as degrading to women's rights and interests."

Mr Goss planned a "whole of government" response to youth justice, rather than treating it as a solely policing matter, despite it being "a mounting public concern" as it is today.

His cabinet endorsed a number of preventative strategies aimed at diverting youths in high-crime areas into training, work and recreation activities.

Dr Salisbury said the late premier's past work as an Aboriginal Legal Service lawyer gave him a unique understanding of the issue and he was wary about actions that were "overly punitive or just making the matter worse".

The historian noted a contrast with a youth crime crackdown announced by current Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who was mentored by Mr Goss, on Thursday.

"The Goss government was trying to take a bit more of a considered and informed, informed-by-evidence, approach than what might have been evident in what the premier said yesterday," he said.

The 1992 cabinet minutes paint a picture of a government trying to reform but not "spook the horses" - in the late premier's own words - and get the electorate offside.

Yet many of the social issues it tried to address are still being grappled with in Queensland three decades later.

"On one hand, it paints an almost bleak picture of a kind of lack of progress," Dr Salisbury said.

"And that's not necessarily something to lay at the feet of government, it feels like as a society, as people, we seem unable to progress and implement, or at least take on board, what needs to change to improve."

Australian Associated Press