Wik Peoples v Queensland

Last updated

Wik Peoples v Queensland
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameThe Wik Peoples v State of Queensland & Ors; The Thayorre People v State of Queensland & Ors
Decided23 December 1996
Citation(s) [1996] HCA 40, (1996) 187  CLR  1
Case history
Prior action(s)Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 63 FCR 450; 134  ALR  637
Appealed from Federal Court
Case opinions
(4:3) the pastoral leases in question did not extinguish native title (4:3) native title rights and pastoral lease rights can coexist, but where they are inconsistent, the pastoral rights prevail
Majority Toohey, Gaudron, Gummow & Kirby JJ
Dissent Brennan CJ, Dawson & McHugh JJ decision

Wik Peoples v The State of Queensland [1] (commonly known as the Wik decision) is a decision of the High Court of Australia delivered on 23 December 1996, on whether statutory leases extinguish native title rights. The court found that the statutory pastoral leases under consideration by the court did not bestow rights of exclusive possession on the leaseholder. As a result, native title rights could coexist depending on the terms and nature of the particular pastoral lease. Where there was a conflict of rights, the rights under the pastoral lease would extinguish the remaining native title rights.

Contents

The decision provoked a significant debate in Australian politics. [2] It led to intense discussions on the validity of land holdings in Australia. Some political leaders criticised the court for being out of touch and for introducing uncertainty into Australian life. The Howard government formulated a "10-point plan" [3] to bring certainty to land ownership in Australia. This plan led to the longest debate in the Australian Senate’s history. [4]

Background

In 1992, the High Court held in Mabo [5] that the common law of Australia recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had a form of "native title," which reflected the entitlement of indigenous inhabitants to their traditional lands in accordance with their laws or customs. [6] Native title was not defined by the Wik decision. However, it is commonly accepted to include rights to perform ceremonies or to gather foods or medicines. [4]

The Wik peoples

The Wik peoples are a grouping of Aboriginal Australians who reside in north-eastern Australia. They live in an area on the western Cape York Peninsula between 11° 40' and 14° 50' south latitude. [7] The group comprises the peoples of Wik-Ompom, Wik-Mungkana, Wik-Paacha, Wik-Thinta, Wik-Ngathara, Wik-Epa, Wik-Me'anha, Wik-Nganthara, Wik-Nganychara, and Wik-Liyanh. [8] Their traditional lands centre around the Archer River and the Edward River. [8] The term Wik actually means "speech" or "language" in the Aboriginal languages of the region. [7]

The Wik people have previously litigated native title-type claims. In 1975, part of the Aboriginal reserve at Aurukun created in 1957 had been excised by the Queensland Government for a bauxite mining lease. The lease was granted to the Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty Limited (Comalco) through a special Act of Parliament called the Aurukun Associates Act 1975 (Qld). There was an initial win in the Supreme Court of Queensland against the lease. However, an appeal to the Privy Council in London led to the decision being overturned. [7] [9]

In the 1970s, the then-Aboriginal Development Commission attempted to purchase part of a pastoral lease. This lease was over part of traditional lands used by the "Winchanam" clan. The Bjelke-Petersen government refused to allow the purchase of the lease. A challenge in the High Court ensued, and the action was won by the corporation. However, the Queensland Government frustrated the decision by declaring the land a national park. [7]

Basis of the Wik claim

The Wik people and the Thayorre people claimed to be the holders of native titles over two areas of land. The first is known as "Holroyd River Holding" and the other is known as "Michellton Pastoral Leases." Their claim before the court was on the basis that their native title was not extinguished by the granting of the various leases over the land. They asserted that their native title rights continued and co-existed with the pastoral lease. [1] : p 64–5  The Wik Peoples also claimed declarations, which challenged the validity of the Special Bauxite Mining Leases which had been granted by the Queensland Government pursuant to the Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty Limited Agreement Act 1957 (Qld) and the Aurukun Associates Agreement Act 1975 (Qld). [1] : p 67  These claims were brought before the commencement of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), [10] came into operation. That law came into being because of the High Court’s decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2). [1] : p 101 

The Holroyd River Holding

The Holroyd River Holding is 1,119 square miles (2,900 km2) in area. The first Holroyd lease was issued to Marie Stuart Perkins in 1945. It was granted under the Land Act of 1910 (Qld). This lease was surrendered in 1973. The first lease was granted for pastoral purposes. A second lease for thirty years was issued under the Land Act 1962 (Qld) in 1975 to John Herbert Broinowski, John Darling, James Maurice Gordon, and Ross Farm Pty Ltd. The second lease was not limited to pastoral purposes. [1] : p 104–5  The Holroyd land was subject solely to a claim by the Wik people. [1] : p 102 

The Mitchellton Lease

The Mitchellton Lease was 535 square miles (1,390 km2) in area. [1] : p 71  It is located north of Normanton, in far north Queensland. The claim extends from the Mitchell River to the Edward River in the north and west to the Gulf of Carpentaria. It is in the District of Cook which was opened up for occupation in 1866. [1] : p 136  The first Michellton lease was granted to Alfred Joseph Smith, Thomas Alexander Simpson and Marshall Hanley Woodhouse in 1915 under the Land Act 1910. The lessees did not take up actual possession of the land. The first lease was forfeited for non-payment of rent in 1918. A second lease was granted in 1919. The new lessee also did not take up possession. The lease was surrendered in 1921. Each lease was issued for pastoral purposes. Since 1922 the land had been reserved for the benefit of Aboriginals. [1] : p 106–7  Both the Wik people and the Thayorre People made claims over the area. [1] : p 102 

The mining leases

There were also what were called the Comalco and Aurukun matters. Comalco Aluminium Ltd held several bauxite mining leases issued by the Queensland State Government under the Comalco Act 1957 (Qld). In each of these claims, the Wik peoples alleged that the mining leases were invalid because the Queensland Government owed fiduciary duties as a trustee to the Wik people, and that those duties had been breached by the granting of the mining leases. The Aurukun claim also included an attack on an agreement called the Aurukun Associates Agreement entered into under the Aurukun Associates Agreement Act 1975 (Qld). [11]

The original decision

The Wik peoples lodged their claim on 30 June 1993 [7] in the Federal Court of Australia. [1] : p 167  The claim was lodged before the commencement of Native Title legislation, [10] introduced into Australia following the decision in the Mabo case. [5] : p 105  The State of Queensland was the first respondent to the claim. The Commonwealth of Australia was the second respondent. At a later stage, the Thayorre People were also joined as respondents. The Thayorre people also cross-claimed because their claim overlapped the claim of the Wik Peoples. [1] : p 167  The matter came on for hearing before Drummond. Five preliminary questions were posed for determination by the Court. Drummond heard the claim between 17 and 26 October and 14 and 15 December 1994. He delivered his decision 29 January 1996 in Brisbane. [12]

On 29 January 1996 Drummond gave judgment on the five preliminary questions that had been identified. He found that the granting of the leases over the two land claims extinguished any native title rights to those lands. In Drummond’s opinion, each lease gave exclusive possession to the lessees. [12] [13] Drummond did not have to decide whether the Wik people or the Thayorre people actually were the holders of native title rights in respect of the land. [1] : p 65–7 

On 22 March 1996 Justice Spender granted the appellants leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court against the judgment. Subsequent to that grant leave, the High Court made orders that the appeal be removed into the High Court for determination by that court. [1] : p 103 

The appeal

The appeal was heard by the High Court between 11 and 13 June 1996 with all 7 judges sitting, Gerard Brennan CJ, Daryl Dawson, John Toohey, Mary Gaudron, Michael McHugh, William Gummow and Michael Kirby JJ. The court reserved its decision until 23 December 1996. The Court decided in favour of the Wik people by a four/three majority. Each of the majority judges wrote separate judgments in support of their decision. [14] The majority focused on the meaning of a “lease” as used in Australia at the time. The court focused on the purpose for which the leases were granted at that time in light of the social and economic conditions of the times. [15] The minority judges wrote a single joint judgment. [14] They focused on the leases as well, but concluded that the leases conferred the right to exclusive occupation of the land thereby extinguishing native title. [15]

The majority decision became a proposition for:

Political response to the decision

The decision provoked significant political and public reactions in Australia. Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson said that “country people are concerned with the Wik Native Title problem" [16] Some State Premiers went further and publicly commented that suburban backyards were under threat from native title claims. Queensland Premier Rob Borbidge even commented that some of the High Court judges were "dills about history." [17] Prime Minister John Howard in a press conference held up a map of Australia purporting to show how much of Australia was at risk from native title claims. [18] The Bulletin led with a cover in December 1997 depicting "Land Rights: How Much is Too Much" with the clear implication that all land holdings in Australia were under threat from native title claims as a result of the decision. [17]

Others pointed out that the decision only affected leasehold land and not the overwhelming majority of Australia which is freehold land held under “fee simple”. The High Court had made clear that native title was extinguished in that situation. They emphasised the “shared use” of the land with a theme of "co-existence." [19]

The Wik 10 Point Plan

The Howard government promised a response to the decision and came up with the “Wik 10 Point Plan”. Howard argued the decision "pushed the pendulum back too far in the Aboriginal direction (and) the 10 Point Plan will return the pendulum to the centre". [20] [21] The Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 (Cth) was drawn up to implement the plan. It was introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament on 4 September 1997. It was passed by the House of Representatives, however, the Senate made 217 amendments to the bill and returned it to the lower house for reconsideration. The House of Representatives agreed to half of the changes but returned the bill to the Senate again. It was eventually passed one year later on 8 July 1998 by the Senate [19] after the longest debate in the history of the Senate. [4] One commentator described the amendments to native title law as using a "legal sledge hammer to crack a political nut". [22]

Maureen Tehan describes the Wik decision as the high point in law for native title in Australia. [19] The decision balanced the rights of the pastoralists and the rights of Aboriginal people, but placed the primacy of pastoral title over native title. Richard Bartlett argues that the decision placed great significance on the principle of equality at common law. [23] Philip Hunter notes that criticism of the High Court was "totally unjustified". [24] He states that the High Court recognised that native title was in no way destructive of the title of pastoralists. He points out that where native title clashed with pastoral interests, pastoral interests would always override native title.[ citation needed ]

Frank Brennan described the approach of the court as taking into account an "incomplete reading of the history". [25] Gim Del Villar goes further and argues that the Wik judgment is "flawed" from a historical perspective. [26] He argues that the court used questionable historical material to reach its conclusion that pastoral leases were not common law leases. [26] He notes that in 1870 the Supreme Court of Queensland held that pastoral leases did confer a right of exclusive possession [27] which reflected a common belief at that time that leases did extinguish native title. Del Villar points to despatches from Earl Grey in which there is the clear implication that native title was not to be respected when granting pastoral leases.[ citation needed ]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Wik Peoples v The State of Queensland [1996] HCA 40 , (1996) 187 CLR 1(23 December 1996), High Court.
  2. ↑ Brennan 1997, p. 10.
  3. ↑ Australia, Federal Government of (29 January 1997). "The Federal Government's 10 Point Response to Wik". Indigenous Law Bulletin. (1997) 4(2) Indigenous Law Bulletin 12. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  4. 1 2 3 "The Wik decision". The Law Handbook Online. Archived from the original on 22 July 2008.
  5. 1 2 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) [1992] HCA 23 , (1992) 175 CLR 1, High Court.
  6. ↑ Brennan 1997, p. 11.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Martin, David F (29 January 1997). "The 'Wik' Peoples of Western Cape York". Indigenous Law Bulletin. (1997) 4(1) Indigenous Law Bulletin 8. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  8. 1 2 Collings, Neva (29 January 1997). "The Wik: A History of Their 400 Year Struggle". Indigenous Law Bulletin. (1997) 4(1) Indigenous Law Bulletin 4. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  9. ↑ Corporation of the Director of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement v Peikinna (1978) 52 ALJR 286.
  10. 1 2 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
  11. ↑ Hulme, S E K. "Chapter Twelve: The Wik Judgment". Samuel Griffith Society . Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  12. 1 2 Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 63 FCR 450; 134 ALR 637 (29 January 1996) Federal Court.
  13. ↑ Gal, Daniel (29 January 1997). "An Overview Of The Wik Decision". University of New South Wales Law Journal. (1997) 20(2) University of New South Wales Law Journal 488. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  14. 1 2 Brennan 1997, p. 27.
  15. 1 2
  16. ↑ Brisbane Courier-Mail 27 June 1998 cited by Pritchard & McManus 2000 , p. 21.
  17. 1 2 Horrigan 2004, p. 208.
  18. ↑ Pritchard, B & McManus, P, eds. (2000). Land of Discontent: The Dynamics of Change in Rural and Regional Australia. UNSW Press. ISBN   978-0-86840-578-0.
  19. 1 2 3 Tehan, M (29 January 2024). "Hope Disillusioned, an Opportunity Lost? Reflections on Common Law Native Title and Ten Years of the Native Title Act". Melbourne University Law Review. (2003) 27(2) Melbourne University Law Review 523. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  20. ↑ Horrigan, Bryan (2004). Adventures in Law and Justice. UNSW Press. p. 376. ISBN   0-86840-572-8.
  21. ↑ "Issues 2001". Western Australia and Federation. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  22. ↑ Horrigan 2004, p. 199.
  23. ↑ Bartlett, Richard (29 January 1997). "Wik: Equality and the Fallacy of 'Extinguishment". Indigenous Law Bulletin. (1997) 4(1) Indigenous Law Bulletin 11. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  24. ↑ Hunter, Philip (29 January 1997). "Judicial Activism? The High Court and the Wik Decision". Indigenous Law Bulletin. (1997) 4(2) Indigenous Law Bulletin 6. Retrieved 6 September 2008.
  25. ↑ Del Villar 2004, p. 50.
  26. 1 2 Del Villar 2004, p. 44.
  27. ↑ Wildash v Brosnan (1870) QCLLR 17, MacDonald v Tully (1870) 2 QCSCR 99 cited by Del Villar 2004 , p. 51.

Related Research Articles

<i>Mabo v Queensland (No 2)</i> 1992 High Court of Australia decision which recognised native title

Mabo v Queensland is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that recognised the existence of Native Title in Australia. It was brought by Eddie Mabo against the State of Queensland and decided on 3 June 1992. The case is notable for being the first in Australia to recognise pre-colonial land interests of Indigenous Australians within the common law of Australia.

<i>Terra nullius</i> International law term for unclaimed land

Terra nullius is a Latin expression meaning "nobody's land". It was a principle sometimes used in international law to justify claims that territory may be acquired by a state's occupation of it. There are currently three territories sometimes claimed to be terra nullius: Bir Tawil, four pockets of land near the Danube due to the Croatia–Serbia border dispute, and parts of Antarctica, principally Marie Byrd Land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eddie Mabo</span> Land rights activist for Indigenous Australians (1936–1992)

Edward Koiki Mabo was an Indigenous Australian man from the Torres Strait Islands known for his role in campaigning for Indigenous land rights in Australia, in particular the landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that recognised that indigenous rights to land had continued after the British Crown acquired sovereignty and that the international law doctrine of terra nullius was not applicable to Australian domestic law. High court judges considering the case Mabo v Queensland found in favour of Mabo, which led to the Native Title Act 1993 and established native title in Australia, officially recognising the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia.

Native title refers to rights, recognised by Australian law, held by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups or individuals to land that derive from their maintenance of their traditional laws and customs. These Aboriginal title rights were first recognised as a part of Australian common law with the decision of Mabo v Queensland in 1992. The doctrine was subsequently implemented and modified via statute with the Native Title Act 1993.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)</span> 1967 constitutional referendum on the legal status of Indigenous Australians

The second question of the 1967 Australian referendum of 27 May 1967, called by the Holt government, related to Indigenous Australians. Voters were asked whether to give the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians in states, and whether Indigenous Australians should be included in official population counts for constitutional purposes. The term "the Aboriginal Race" was used in the question.

<i>Mabo v Queensland (No 1)</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Mabo v Queensland , was a significant court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 8 December 1988. It found that the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985, which attempted to retrospectively abolish native title rights, was not valid according to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

<i>Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, was a significant court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 11 May 1982. It concerned the constitutional validity of parts of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and the discriminatory acts of the Government of Queensland in blocking the purchase of land by Aboriginal people in northern Queensland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shire of Aurukun</span> Local government area in Queensland, Australia

The Shire of Aurukun is a local government area in Far North Queensland, Australia. The shire covers part of western Cape York Peninsula, the most northerly section of the Australian mainland.

<i>Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd</i> First Australian Aboriginal land rights case, heard in the NT Supreme Court in 1971

Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, also known as the Gove land rights case because its subject was land known as the Gove Peninsula in the Northern Territory, was the first litigation on native title in Australia, and the first significant legal case for Aboriginal land rights in Australia, decided on 27 April 1971.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aurukun, Queensland</span> Town in Queensland, Australia

Aurukun is a town and coastal locality in the Shire of Aurukun and the Shire of Cook in Far North Queensland, Australia. It is an Indigenous community. In the 2016 census, the locality of Aurukun had a population of 1,269 people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Native Title Act 1993</span> Act of the Parliament of Australia

The Native Title Act 1993(Cth) is a law passed by the Australian Parliament, the purpose of which is "to provide a national system for the recognition and protection of native title and for its co-existence with the national land management system". The Act was passed by the Keating government following the High Court's decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992). The Act commenced operation on 1 January 1994.

The Wik peoples are an Indigenous Australian group of people from an extensive zone on western Cape York Peninsula in northern Queensland, speaking several different languages. They are from the coastal flood plains bounding the Gulf of Carpentaria lying between Pormpuraaw and Weipa, and inland the forested country drained by the Archer, Kendall and Holroyd rivers. The first ethnographic study of the Wik people was undertaken by the Queensland born anthropologist Ursula McConnel. Her fieldwork focused on groups gathered into the Archer River Mission at what is now known as Aurukun.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title</span> Concept in common law of indigenous land rights persisting after colonization

Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty to that land by another colonising state. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert French</span> Former Chief Justice of Australia

Robert Shenton French is an Australian lawyer and judge who served as the twelfth Chief Justice of Australia, in office from 2008 to 2017. He has been the chancellor of the University of Western Australia since November 2017.

Commonwealth, State, and Territory Parliaments of Australia have passed Aboriginal land rights legislation.

Indigenous land rights in Australia, also known as Aboriginal land rights in Australia, are the rights and interests in land of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia; the term may also include the struggle for those rights. Connection to the land and waters is vital in Australian Aboriginal culture and to that of Torres Strait Islander people, and there has been a long battle to gain legal and moral recognition of ownership of the lands and waters occupied by the many peoples prior to colonisation of Australia starting in 1788, and the annexation of the Torres Strait Islands by the colony of Queensland in the 1870s.

The Nguburinji people, also written Ngoborindi, Oborindi and other variations, are an Aboriginal Australian people whose traditional lands lie in northwest Queensland.

The Waanyi people, also spelt Wanyi, Wanji, or Waanji, are an Aboriginal Australian people from south of the Gulf of Carpentaria in Queensland and the Northern Territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985</span>

The Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985 was an Act of the Parliament of Queensland, the intent of which was to retroactively abolish native title claims by Torres Strait Islanders to islands off the coast of Queensland, specifically Murray Island. It was passed in response to court proceedings started by the Torres Strait Meriam people led by Eddie Koiki Mabo, who were attempting to have their land claims recognised by the common law. The Act was condemned by supporters of the Indigenous Australian civil rights movement. The act was overturned in the 1988 Mabo v Queensland High Court case, which found it inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

<i>Northern Territory v Mr Griffiths and Lorraine Jones</i> Law case in the Northern Territory, Australia

Northern Territory v Mr A. Griffiths (deceased) and Lorraine Jones on behalf of the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples [2019] HCA 7 is an Australian native title court case that was heard in the High Court of Australia. This case was an appeal by the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth of Australia of the decision handed down by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths [2017] FCAFC 106. The High Court of Australia ruled to reduce the amount of compensation awarded to the Ngaliwurru People and the Nungali People by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. This compensation had been granted to the Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples as a remedy for deeds taken by the Northern Territory Government that were previously established by the judicial system to have extinguished native title. The total amount of compensation awarded was reduced from $2,899,446 to $2,530,350. This compensation had been awarded for the monetary and non-monetary loss, as well as interest, associated with the extinguishment of native title. The decision made by the High Court meant the appeals made by the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth were "allowed in part". The case of Northern Territory v Mr Griffiths and Lorraine Jones has been labelled one of the most significant native title court cases since Mabo v Queensland and Mabo v Queensland. The Ngaliwurru and Nungali Peoples reside in Timber Creek, Northern Territory. The High Court granted special leave for the appeal on 16 February 2018. The High Court, which is situated in Canberra, had not heard a case in the Northern Territory prior to this.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.