NOTES

1. Chief Justice Robert French, ‘Lifting the Burden of Native Title: Some modest proposals for improvement’, (2009) 93 Reform 10.

2. Noel Pearson, ‘Defining the Problem’, presentation to the ‘s223 workshop’, Agreements Treaties and Negotiated Settlements Project, Melbourne University, May 2009.

3. Justice Tony North, ‘Disconnection — The gulf between law and justice’, paper presented at the National Native Title Conference 2009: Spirit of Country — Land, Water, Life, 3–5 June 2009.

1. Reverend David Passi quoted in Nonie Sharp, ‘Contrasting Cultural Perspectives in the Murray Island Case’ (1990) 8 Law in Context 1, 28.

2. (1992) 175 CLR 1.

3. See David Ritter, ‘The “Rejection of Terra Nullius” in Mabo: A critical analysis’ (1996) 18 Sydney Law Review 1, 5, 63. The treatment of ‘terra nullius’ by the High Court has been the subject of much critical debate, even a decade from the judgment: see, for example, Asa Wahlquist, ‘Judge under Fire over Mabo Ruling’, The Australian (Sydney) 27 February 2006, 5.

4. The contrast in views is perhaps best summarised in the title of Garth Nettheim’s article, ‘Mabo: Judicial revolution or cautious correction? Mabo v Queensland’ (1993) 16 University of New South Wales Law Journal 1. See, for example, P. H. Lane, ‘The Changing Role of the High Court’ (1996) 70 Australian Law Journal 246; S. E. K. Hulme, ‘Aspects of the High Court’s Handling of Mabo’ (1993) 87 Victorian Bar News 29; and P. Connolly, ‘Should the Courts Determine Social Policy’, The High Court of Australia in Mabo, Association of Mining and Exploration Companies Inc (1993) 5. Contrast Hal Wooten, ‘Mabo — Issues and challenges’ (1994) 1 Judicial Review 303; and Noel Pearson, ‘Wik: Whither the separation of powers’, The Australian (Sydney), 2 January 1997, 11.

5. See, for example, Richard Gluyas, ‘Big Miners Fight Mabo Claims’, The Australian (Sydney), 8 March 1993, 25; Richard Owen, ‘Mabo a Threat to Recovery: MIM chief ’, The Australian (Sydney), 30 March 1993, 41; see also Liz Tickner, ‘Cattlemen in Rage as Land Claims Loom’, The West Australian (Perth), 19 April 1993, 13.

6. The West Australian Liberal–National parties government reported in Jane Hammond, ‘Diamond Drilling Sparks First Mabo Case’, The Australian (Sydney), 30–31 January 1993, 8. See also Jane Hammond, ‘West Plots to Stop Mabo Claims’, The Australian (Sydney), 27 May 1993; and Sally Fisher and Jennifer Sexton, ‘Backyards for Grabs: Kennett’, The Australian (Sydney), 10–11 July 1993, 3.

7. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 179 (Toohey J); 77 (Deane and Gaudron JJ); 26, 69 (Brennan J).

8. Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286, 291.

9. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 36 (footnotes omitted).

10. ibid.; Justice Toohey notes the irony of the concept of ‘peaceful annexation’ of the colonies of New South Wales and later annexations ‘in light of what we now know’, implying the violent nature of colonial acquisition, at 181. See also Gordon Brysland, ‘Rewriting History 2: The wider significance of Mabo v Queensland’, (1992) 17 Alternative Law Journal 162.

11. Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141.

12. ibid. 267.

13. ibid. 244–5.

14. ibid. 244. Later Canadian and other North American cases cast doubt on the correctness of Justice Blackburn’s conclusion. See, for example, Calder v Attorney General of British Columbia (1973) 34 DLR (3rd) 145.

15. Western Australia is the notable exception. See also Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 (SA) and Maralinga Land Rights Act 1984 (SA); Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Act 1987 (Cth) (re lands in Victoria); Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW); Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld) and Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991 (Qld); and Aboriginal Lands Act 1995 (Tas).

16. Coe v Commonwealth (1979) 118 ALR 193.

17. Gerhardy v Brown (1985) 159 CLR 70, 149, referring to the decision of Marshall CJ in Johnson v M’Intosh (1823) 8 Wheat 543, 574.

18. Northern Land Council v Commonwealth (1987) 61 ALJR 616, 620.

19. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992), 175 CLR 1, 39–41.

20. Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act 1985 (Qld), s 3.

21. Mabo v Queensland [No. 1] (1988) 166 CLR 186. A majority of four judges determined that the Queensland Act denied the Meriam people rights in their lands while other Australians were unaffected by the legislation. Therefore the legislation was contrary to the principle of equality before the law enshrined in s 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act: 218 (Brennan, Toohey, Gaudron JJ). The primary difference in the reasoning of the majority and the minority was not whether the legislation was discriminatory, but whether the claim could be entertained prior to a determination of rights to land being made: 196 (Mason CJ); 243 (Dawson J); contra 206 (Wilson J).

22. For a detailed discussion of the political context of the development of the legislation, see Richard Bartlett, Native Title in Australia (2nd edn, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, Sydney, 2005), 33–42.

23. NTA s 3. These objects now contain the term ‘intermediate period acts’ within the validation clause (s 3(d)).

24. Western Australia v Commonwealth (1995) 183 CLR 373, 459 [96]. With the exception of (then) s 12, which purported to give the common law of native title the force of a law of the Commonwealth. This would have effectively given judges ‘legislative’ power in future decisions and was thus a breach of the separation of powers between parliament and the courts. See 485–6 [148–9].

25. Mabo v Queensland [No. 1] (1988) 166 CLR 186. See note 21 above. notes (pages 2–5)

26. Western Australia v Commonwealth (1995) 183 CLR 373, 438 [42].

27. ibid. 453 [79].

28. ibid. 459 [93].

29. ibid. 453 [80].

30. NTA s 7(2).

31. For more, see Bartlett above n 22, 40.

32. NTA s 3(c).

33. Potential native title holders may make an application under NTA s 61 for a determination of native title under s 225.

34. As at 31 December 2008, of the 82 determinations that native title exists, 71 determinations have been reached by consent. See <www.nnttt.gov.au>.

35. An ‘act’, whether a past or future (or, under the amended NTA, intermediate period) act, includes the making, amending or repealing of any legislation; the exercise of any executive power; and the grant, creation, variation or extinguishment of any interest in land or other rights: NTA s 226.

36. NTA s 31.

37. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1.

38. See Bartlett above n 22.

39. See Office of Indigenous Affairs, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ‘Towards a More Workable Native Title Act’, discussion paper, May 1996.

40. An initial Native Title Amendment Bill was introduced in June 1996, with further amendments added in June 1997.

41. This infamous quote was from Tim Fischer, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, quoted in J. Brough, ‘Wik Draft Threat to Native Title’, The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney), 28 June 1997, 3. See also Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Native Title Report – July 1996–June 1997 (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney, 1997), 59–100.

42. NTA ss 21–22H.

43. NTA ss 24IA–24ID.

44. NTA s 237A.

45. NTA ss23A–23JA; schedule 1.

46. NTA s 24HA.

47. NTA ss 24GA–24GE.

48. NTA s 190B.

49. NTA ss 24 HA, 24KA–26D, 36A, 42A, 43A.

50. For a detailed summary of the 1998 Amendments see Bartlett above n 22, 52–64.

51. See Lisa Strelein, Michael Dodson and Jessica Weir, ‘Understanding Nondiscrimination: International criticisms of Australia’s compliance with human rights standards’ (2001) 3 Balayi: Culture, Law and Colonialism 113.

1. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1.

2. The decision was supported by a majority of six of the seven judges. Justice Brennan wrote what is considered the lead judgment in the case, to which Chief Justice notes (pages 5–9) Mason and Justice McHugh wrote a brief concurring judgment, which itself was said to have the authority of the majority. Justices Deane and Gaudron wrote a joint judgment, Justice Toohey gave separate reasons and Justice Dawson was the sole dissenting judge.

3. (1971) 17 FLR 141.

4. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 41–2 (Brennan J).

5. ibid. 29. Justices Deane and Gaudron were also persuaded by the fact that the circumstances of this present case made it unique; had it been merely an ordinary case, they would not have felt justified in ‘reopening the validity of fundamental propositions which have been endorsed by long established authority’, 109.

6. The decisions of the majority of the High Court consider the effect of colonisation for the Crown’s proprietary sovereignty. The assumption that colonisation gave the imperial power sovereignty was not challenged by the plaintiffs in the case, but the effect of that acquisition was a justiciable question.

7. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 34–8 (Brennan J, Mason CJ and McHugh J agreeing), 79–80 (Deane and Gaudron JJ), 122 ( Dawson J), 206 (Toohey J).

8. ibid. 79 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

9. ibid. 45.

10. ibid.

11. ibid. 69 (Brennan J).

12. ibid. 87–8 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

13. ibid. 59 (Brennan J).

14. ibid. 58 (Brennan J).

15. ibid. 87 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

16. ibid. 59–60. See Richard Bartlett, ‘Aboriginal Land Claims at Common Law’ (1982) 12 University of Western Australia Law Review 293.

17. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 85–6.

18. Cases that imposed such world views were expressly rejected by the majority in Mabo. Most notable of these was Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286 and Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141.

19. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 58 (Brennan J).

20. ibid. 88–9 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

21. ibid. 187 (Toohey J); also Justices Deane and Gaudron, at 87–8.

22. ibid. 188 (Toohey J).

23. ibid.

24. ibid. 187.

25. ibid. 59–60 (Brennan J).

26. This formulation has a commonality with Canadian and United States law, e.g. Hamlet of Baker Lake v Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (1979) 107 DLR (3d) 513.

27. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 189–90 (Toohey J); for discussion see Deane and Gaudron JJ, at 85–6.

28. A form of aboriginal title was recognised in the United States in 1823, in New Zealand in 1847 and in Canada in 1973; Johnson v M’Intosh (1823) 8 Wheat 543; R v Symonds [1847] NZPCC 387; Calder v Attorney General of British Columbia (1973) 34 DLR (3d) 145). The first treaty in North America between the Iroquois and the British Crown was signed in 1664: the Treaty of Albany.

29. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 85–6 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

30. ibid. 61 (Brennan J).

31. Calder v Attorney General of British Columbia (1973) 34 DLR (3d) 145, 190 (Hall J).

32. ibid. 156 (Judson J).

33. Hamlet of Baker Lake v Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (1979) 107 DLR (3d) 513, 542.

34. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 189 (Toohey J).

35. ibid. 26, 38 (Brennan J).

36. ibid. 59–60 (Brennan J); 110 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

37. ibid, 60 (Brennan J).

38. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 60, 70 (Brennan J); 88, 110 (Deane and Gaudron JJ). For an account of the anthropology of succession in Australian Indigenous societies, see Peter Sutton, Native Title and the Descent of Rights (National Native Title Tribunal, Perth, 1998). For a recent application of the principle see Rubibi Community v Western Australia [No. 6] (unreported decision, FCA, Merkel J, 13 February 2006).

39. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 51 (Brennan J).

40. ibid. 59, 60.

41. ibid. 88 (Deane and Gaudron JJ); cf 194 (Toohey J). This reasoning is consistent with Johnson v M’Intosh (1823) 8 Wheat 543, 574 and R v Symonds [1847] NZPCC 387.

42. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 60 (Brennan J).

43. ibid. 90–1, (Deane and Gaudron JJ); 60 (Brennan J).

44. ibid. 51 (Brennan J).

45. ibid. 88–9, 101 (Deane and Gaudron JJ). This view relied in part on earlier Canadian decisions: Attorney General (Quebec) v Attorney General (Canada) [1921] 1 AC 408, 411, St Catherine’s Milling Case (1888) 14 App Cas 54.

46. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 89 (Deane and Gaudron JJ); Amodu Tijani [1921] 2 AC 404–5; Guerin v R (1984) 13 DLR (4th) 321.

47. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 91 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

48. ibid. 51 (Brennan J).

49. ibid.

50. ibid. 110 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

51. ibid. 58 (Brennan J, with whom Mason CJ and McHugh J agreed); 110 (Deane and Gaudron J); 187 (Toohey J).

52. ibid. 70 (Brennan J); 110 (Deane and Gaudron JJ); 187 (Toohey J).

53. ibid. 61 (Brennan J); 110 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

54. The Supreme Court of Canada in Guerin v R (1984) 13 DLR (4d) 321, 339 (Dickson J); approved the reasoning of Amodu Tijani [1921] 2 AC 404–5, which was similarly relied upon by the High Court of Australia.

55. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 75 (Brennan J); 117–18 (Deane and Gaudron JJ); Justice Toohey agreed with Justice Brennan, at 197.

56. For example, Mining Act 1978 (WA) s 9; 24 Petroleum Act 1967 (WA).

57. Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1. See Chapter 6.

58. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 111 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

59. ibid. 195 (Toohey J).

60. ibid. 69 (Brennan J, Mason CJ and McHugh J agreeing). See also 80–3 (Deane and Gaudron JJ), 180–4 (Toohey J).

61. ibid. 69 (Brennan J).

62. ibid. 71–3 (Brennan J); 118 (Deane and Gaudron JJ); 196–7 (Toohey J).

63. ibid. 60 (Brennan J).

64. Surrender is arguably a domesticated version of ‘cession’ or ceding of territories by one sovereign to another, usually by treaty. The tradition of treaty making in North America continues in present-day ‘comprehensive agreement processes’ in Canada. See, generally, Sean Brennan, Larissa Behrendt, Lisa Strelein and George Williams, Treaty (Federation Press, Sydney, 2005).

65. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 59 (Brennan J); 88 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

66. ibid. 61 (Brennan J).

67. ibid. 110 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

68. ibid. 111.

69. ibid. 68 (Brennan J).

70. ibid. 64.

71. ibid. 64 (Brennan J); 111 (Deane and Gaudron JJ); 193 (Toohey J); Justice Brennan did not decide the matter.

72. ibid. 68 (Brennan J).

73. ibid. This was seen to be the case with respect to the lease of two acres (just under one hectare) on Murray Island to the London Missionary Society in 1882.

74. ibid. 64, 68.

75. Sparrow v R (1990) 3 Canadian Native Law Reporter 160; Guerin v R (1984) 13 DLR (4th) 321.

76. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 64–8 (Brennan J).

77. ibid. 69, also Justices Deane and Gaudron, at 110.

78. For example, Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 9; Petroleum Act 1967 (WA), s 9; Land Act 1933 (WA).

79. Though called ‘leases’, the rights under the Land Act 1933 (WA) are more akin to a licence. See also Henry Reynolds, ‘Mabo and Pastoral Leases’ (1992) 12(59) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 8.

80. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 15–16 (Mason CJ and McHugh J).

81. ibid. 193 (Toohey J); 111 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

82. ibid. 111, 112, 119 (Deane and Gaudron JJ). They assumed, however, that limitation periods would apply to bar the claim after a certain period, which in many instances has long passed.

83. Clunies Ross v The Commonwealth (1984) 155 CLR 193, 202.

84. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 111 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

85. The statement by Chief Justice Mason and Justice McHugh must be given careful consideration in applying the decision. Although it could be considered as merely one judgment of the majority, it is carefully worded to carry the full authority of the Court. This goes one step further than the similar statement by the High Court in Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams case) (1983) 158 CLR 1, 58–9, where it was said that the summary was published only for convenience and was not an authoritative statement.

86. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 61–2 (Brennan J): ‘where an indigenous people (including a clan or group), as a community, are in possession of land under a proprietary native title, their possession may be enforced by a representative action brought on behalf of the people by a subgroup or individual who sues to protect or enforce rights or interests which are dependent on the communal native title’.

87. Adeyinka Oyekan v Musendiku Adele [1957] 1 WLR 876, 880 (Lord Denning); referred to in Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 56 (Brennan J). Neither is the issue contained in Justice Brennan’s summary of his conclusions, at 68–70.

88. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 200–3.

89. ibid. 200–1.

90. 166 CLR 186.

91. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 111–12 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

1. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1. The Wik peoples brought the initial claim. The Thayorre people were joined as a party when they claimed native title over part of the land subject to the Wik claim.

2. 175 CLR 1.

3. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 167–8: Justice Gummow noted that while the litigation ‘stands outside the system for determination of native title claims established by the Native Title Act[,] … it raises issues which may have importance for the operation of that statute’. In particular, his Honour noted that if acts done before the commencement of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) were effective to extinguish or impair native title, then the NTA did not undo that result, referring to the majority joint judgment in Western Australia v Commonwealth (Native Title Act case) 183 CLR 373, 454.

4. The Wik and Thayorre peoples also originally included a claim to possessory title, but this was not pressed: see procedural history outlined by Kirby J, Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 209, 210–13. The Wik peoples also sought to challenge the effectiveness of two mining agreements that had been enshrined by statute, and given the force of law. This matter was dealt with by Kirby J, 251–61, with whom Toohey, Gaudron and Gummow JJ agreed.

5. The majority on the substantive issue of the pastoral leases was constituted by Toohey, Gaudron, Gummow and Kirby JJ, who all gave separate reasons. Brennan J dissented, with Mason CJ and McHugh J agreeing.

6. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 134 (Gaudron J).

7. ibid. See also 102 (Toohey J).

8. ibid. 70. On this point, Brennan J considered that no freestanding fiduciary duty arose out of the relationship between the Crown and native title holders, by virtue of the power of the Crown to adversely affect native title. That required a particular action or function to be exercised that gave rise to a fiduciary duty, or a discretionary power, whether statutory or otherwise, that required the executive or legislature to act on behalf of, or in the interests of, another, 9–10.

9. ibid. 213 (Kirby J).

10. ibid. 103 (Toohey J).

11. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 134 ALR 637, 666 (Federal Court).

12. ibid, citing North Ganalanja Aboriginal Corporation v Queensland (1995) 61 FCR 1 (Full Court, Federal Court).

13. North Ganalanja Aboriginal Corporation v Queensland (1996) 135 ALR 225 (High Court).

14. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 134 ALR 637, 666 (Federal Court).

15. The full Federal Court may remove a matter to the High Court under s 40(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

16. The questions were outlined, in full, in the judgment of Brennan J, Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 65–7.

17. ibid. 108 (Toohey J); 170 (Gummow J); 209 (Kirby J). For the treatment of remaining questions see above n 4.

18. ibid. 108 (Toohey J).

19. ibid. 168 (Gummow J).

20. 183 CLR 373.

21. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 168 (Gummow J).

22. ibid. 137 (Gaudron J).

23. ibid. 232 (Kirby J).

24. See discussion by Toohey J, ibid. 108–15; 137–44 (Gaudron J); 136–44 (Gummow J); 226–33 (Kirby J).

25. ibid. 109 (Toohey J); 226 (Kirby J). Queensland became a separate colony in June 1859. The laws of New South Wales applied and remained in force until repealed or varied by the Queensland legislature.

26. The Crown Lands Unauthorized Occupation Act 1839 (NSW), s 25. For details of occupation licences granted of the Mitchellton lands, see Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 136 (Gaudron J).

27. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 174 referring to Stewart v Williams (1914) 18 CLR 381, 406 (Isaacs J).

28. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 111.

29. ibid. 148 (Gaudron J); 174 (Gummow J), referring to O’Keefe v Malone [1903] AC 365, 377. See also Wade v New South Wales Rutile Mining Co Pty Ltd (1969) 121 CLR 177, 192, re ‘mining leases’ under the Mining Act 1906 (NSW).

30. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 111–12, 115 (Toohey J); 226 (Kirby J).

31. ibid. 243–4 (Kirby J).

32. ibid. 115–16 (Toohey J); 140–1 (Gaudron J); 215–16 (Kirby J).

33. Gummow J discussed the lack of a judicial ‘taxonomy’ or way of dealing with the unique situation presented by native title in the ‘interpretation’ of history: see ibid. 182.

34. ibid. 116 (Toohey J).

35. ibid. 75 (Brennan J), referring to Radaich v Smith (1959) 101 CLR 209, 22. Compare Gaudron J on this point, Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 153.

36. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 96–8 (Brennan J). The effect of Justice Brennan’s conclusion with regard to exclusive possession, he admits, would constitute a ‘significant moral shortcoming’ in the law that could only be rectified by legislation or the acquisition of an estate that would allow the Wik and Thayorre people to continue to exercise their traditional rights on their country.

37. ibid. 149–51 (Gaudron J).

38. ibid. 249 (Kirby J).

39. ibid. 51 (Gaudron J), citing American Dairy Queen (Qld) Pty Ltd v Blue Rio Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 677, 682–3.

40. North Ganalanja Aboriginal Corporation v Queensland (1995) 61 FCR 1, 55–6.

41. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 68 (Brennan J).

42. ibid. 110 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

43. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 223 (Kirby J).

44. ibid. 244 (Kirby J).

45. This was the basis of the applicants’ argument regarding the suspension and revival of native title temporarily impacted by inconsistent grant. As a result of the conclusion that no necessary extinguishment had occurred, except perhaps by the conditions under the Holroyd lease, and the construction of the reversion by Gaudron and Gummow JJ, the issue of revival was not considered, ibid. 204.

46. ibid. 155.

47. ibid. 128 (Toohey J).

48. ibid. 156 (Gaudron J); 190 (Gummow J); 240 (Kirby J).

49. ibid. 151 (Gaudron J).

50. ibid. 195 (Gummow J), for example in relation to s 204 of the 1910 Act, and s 373(1) of the 1962 Act, concerning unlawful occupation.

51. ibid.

52. ibid. 71 (Brennan J).

53. ibid. referring to Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 69 (Brennan J).

54. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 146–7 (Gaudron J); 191 (Gummow J).

55. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 66 (Brennan J).

56. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) HCA 40 (23 December 1996), 147.

57. ibid. 247 (Kirby J).

58. ibid. 147–55 (Gaudron J).

59. ibid. 154.

60. ibid. see also 229 (Kirby J).

61. The Petroleum Act (Qld) was passed in 1915.

62. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 105 (Toohey J).

63. ibid. 176–7 (Gummow J).

64. ibid. 73-4 (Brennan J). His Honour relied on comments from Mason J in Goldsworthy Mining Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1973) 128 CLR 199.

65. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 201 (Gummow J).

66. ibid. 117, 118 (Toohey J).

67. ibid. 154–5, citing Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 111 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

68. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 247 (Kirby J).

69. ibid. 201 (Gummow J).

70. ibid. 122 (Toohey J).

71. ibid.

72. ibid. 71 (Brennan J).

73. ibid. 122 (Toohey J).

74. ibid. 177 (Gummow J); see also 219 (Kirby J).

75. ibid. 185, referring to Corporation of Yarmouth v Simmons (1878) 10 Ch D 518, 423 (Fry J).

76. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 242–3 (Kirby J).

77. ibid. 166–7. The final determination in relation to the pastoral leases was reached by consent: Wik Peoples v Queensland [2004] FCA 1306.

78. ibid. 133 (Toohey J, for the majority (Gaudron, Gummow and Kirby JJ)).

79. ibid. 84 (Brennan J).

80. ibid. 236–7 (Kirby J).

81. ibid. 237.

82. ibid. 215.

83. ibid. 87 (Brennan J).

84. ibid.

85. ibid.

86. ibid. 73.

87. ibid. 243 (Kirby J).

88. ibid. 126 (Toohey J for the majority (Gaudron, Gummow and Kirby JJ)).

1. Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96.

2. This single ground of appeal was removed directly to the High Court without a full Federal Court decision, under s 18 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

3. Fejo v Northern Terrirtory (1998) 195 CLR 96, 117.

4. Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96, 126 [43] (joint judgment).

5. Commonwealth v New South Wales (1923) 33 CLR 1, 42 (Isaacs J).

6. 175 CLR 1, 69 (Brennan J).

7. ibid. 89 (Deane and Gaudron JJ), see also 110 (Deane and Gaudron JJ); Western Australia v Commonwealth (1995) (Native Title Act case) 183 CLR 373, 422 [11]; Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, 176 (Gummow J), 250 (Kirby J).

8. Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96, 148 [100] (Kirby J).

9. 183 CLR 373, 439, per (Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

10. Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1.

11. Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96, 128 [47].

12. ibid. 151 [106].

13. ibid. 128 [47].

14. ibid.

15. Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1997] 3 SCR 1010, [81–2]; R v Van der Peet [1996] 2 SCR 507, [42, 49–50].

16. Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96,130 [54] (joint judgment).

17. ibid. 150 [103], 154 [111].

18. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 63 (Brennan J).

19. ibid. 89 (Deane and Gaudron JJ).

20. Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96,151 [105] (Kirby J).

21. Mabo v Queensland [No. 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, 43 (Brennan J).

22. Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96, 127 [45] (joint judgment).

23. ibid. 128 [46].

24. ibid. 153 [110].

25. ibid. 151 [106] (Kirby J) (emphasis added).

26. ibid. 151–2 [107].

1. Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351. In a joint majority judgment, Gleeson CJ and Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ allowed the appeal, with Gummow J also in the majority allowing the appeal though offering separate reasons.

2. ibid. 361 [4].

3. ibid. 366 [17] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby, and Hayne JJ).

4. ibid.

5. Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351, 367.

6. ibid. 369 [28], citing Toomer v Witsell (1948) 334 US 385, 402.

7. Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351, 375 [47–9] (McHugh J); 405–6 [143] (Callinan J).

8. ibid. 370 [30].

9. 187 CLR 1.

10. Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351, 372, [37] (original emphasis).

11. ibid. 373 [39].

12. ibid. 396 [109] (Gummow J).

13. ibid. 395 [107] (Gummow J).

14. ibid. 397 [115].

15. ibid. 373 [37] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby, and Hayne JJ).

16. ibid. 373 [38].

17. ibid. 383–4 [73–4] (Gummow J).

18. 175 CLR 1, 51 (Brennan J).

19. 201 CLR 351, 382–3 [72] (Gummow J).

20. ibid. 373 [38] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ).