Wik Peoples v Queensland
| Wik Peoples v Queensland v Australia | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | The Wik Peoples v State of Queensland & Ors; The Thayorre People v State of Queensland & Ors |
| Decided | 23 December 1996 |
| Citation(s) | (1996) 187 CLR 1 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 134 ALR 637 - Federal Court of Australia decision |
| Subsequent action(s) | none |
| Case opinions | |
|
(4:3) the pastoral leases in question did not extinguish native title (per Toohey, Gaudron, Gummow & Kirby JJ) |
|
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow & Kirby JJ |
(4:3) the pastoral leases in question did not extinguish native title (per Toohey, Gaudron, Gummow & Kirby JJ)
Wik Peoples v The State of Queensland (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 co-exist 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.
The decision provoked a significant debate in Australian politics. 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” to bring certainty to land ownership in Australia. This plan led to the longest debate in the Australian Senate’s history.
In 1992 Mabo found that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had rights to their land before the arrival of British colonisation. Those rights depended on the local laws and customs. Native title was not defined by the Wik decision. However it is commonly accepted to include rights to perform ceremony, or to gather foods or medicines.
The Wik peoples are a grouping of Aboriginal Australians who reside in Northern Eastern Australia. They live in an area on western Cape York Peninsula between 11° 40' and 14° 50' south latitude. 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. Their traditional lands centre around the Archer River and the Edward River. The term Wik actually means “speech” or “language” in the Aboriginal languages of the region.
The Wik people have previously litigated native title type claims. In 1975 part of the Aurukun Aboriginal Reserve 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. (Corporation of the Director of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement v Peikinna &Ors, (1978) 52 ALJR 286).
...
Wikipedia