DOCSLIB.ORG

NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL Ngan Aak-Kunch Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC V Glencore Bauxite Resources Pty Ltd and Another [201

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL Ngan Aak-Kunch Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC V Glencore Bauxite Resources Pty Ltd and Another [201 NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL Ngan Aak-Kunch Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Glencore Bauxite Resources Pty Ltd and Another [2016] NNTTA 22 (10 June 2016) Application No: QO2015/0078 IN THE MATTER of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) - and - IN THE MATTER of an inquiry into an expedited procedure objection application Ngan Aak-Kunch Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (native title party) - and – Glencore Bauxite Resources Pty Ltd (grantee party) - and – The State of Queensland (Government party) DETERMINATION THAT THE ACT IS AN ACT ATTRACTING THE EXPEDITED PROCEDURE Tribunal: Mr JR McNamara Place: Brisbane Date of hearings: Directions hearings 12 October 2015 and 11 March 2016 Date of determination: 10 June 2016 Catchwords: Native title – future act – proposed grant of mineral development licence – expedited procedure objection application – whether act likely to interfere directly with the carrying on of community or social activities – whether act likely to interfere with sites or areas of particular significance – whether act likely to cause major disturbance to land or waters – expedited procedure attracted – non-disclosure orders – confidential material– native title protection conditions – NTPC – Aurukun Project Representatives of the Mr David Yarrow, Counsel native title party: Mr Adam McLean, Cape York Land Council Aboriginal Corporation Mr Philippe Savidis, Cape York Land Council Aboriginal Corporation Representatives of the Ms Bernadette Wrafter, Crown Law Government party: Ms Rebecca Rowling, Crown Law Representatives of the Mr Dominic McGann, McCullough Robertson Lawyers grantee party: Mr Liam Davis, McCullough Robertson Lawyers Mr Julian Farrugia, Glencore Bauxite Resources Pty Ltd 2 Legislation: Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld), ss 181, 194, 194AAA, 194AC, 231A, 231G Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 29, 31, 32, 150, 151, 155, 237 Cases: Cheinmora v Striker Resources NL (1996) 142 ALR 21 (‘Cheinmora v Striker Resources’) Gilla v Western Australia [2002] NNTTA 35 (‘Gilla v WA’) Isaac Hale and Others on behalf of Bunuba #2 v Mings Mining Resources Pty Ltd and Another [2015] NNTTA 49 (‘Hale v Mings Mining Resources’) Little and Others on behalf of the Badimia People v Oriole Resources Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 243 (‘Little v Oriole Resources’) Tjurabalan Native Title Lands Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v Rich Resources Investments Pty Ltd and Another [2016] NNTTA 16 (‘Tjurabalan v Rich Resources’) Walley v Western Australia (2002) 169 FLR 437 (‘Walley v Western Australia’) Wik Peoples v Queensland [2004] FCA 1306 Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd and Another [2014] NNTTA 8 (‘Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation v FMG’) Ward v Northern Territory (2002) 169 FLR 303 (‘Ward v NT’) 3 REASONS FOR DETERMINATION Introduction [1] This is not a decision to grant mineral development licence MDL2001 to Glencore Bauxite Resources Pty Ltd (Glencore) or anyone else. This is because the Tribunal does not have the power to grant MDL2001, or any other tenement. [2] The matter the Tribunal must decide, by reference to specified criteria in the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act), is whether the State of Queensland can grant MDL2001 to Glencore using a fast-tracked process known as the ‘expedited procedure’, or whether parties must follow the right to negotiate process set out in the Act, to ensure the validity of its grant. [3] The State’s website says that a mineral development licence allows the holder to carry out further studies of a resource and to assess the development potential of a site, once the holder has discovered that minerals or coal exist. In addition to activities allowed under exploration permits, the permitted activities include the conduct of feasibility studies, geoscientific programs (for example drilling, seismic surveys), engineering design studies and other studies to evaluate the development potential of the resource. [4] Glencore wishes to further study the bauxite resource and assess its development potential in an area of land which is approximately 30 kilometres north east of Aurukun and approximately 573.6 square kilometres in size. The proposed licence falls within the Aurukun Project area, which is subject to special provisions of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (see Chapter 5 Part 2). The native title party, Ngan Aak-Kunch Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (‘Ngan Aak-Kunch’), highlights that these provisions were enacted to ‘facilitate the commercial development of the Aurukun bauxite resource’1. [5] Ngan Aak-Kunch holds exclusive native title rights and interests over an area of land which includes the area of the proposed licence. It holds these rights and interests on behalf of the native title holders, the Wik and Wik Way People (see 1 Explanatory notes to Mineral Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 4 Federal Court determination Wik Peoples v Queensland). Approximately 99.67 per cent of the licence application area is subject to the native title determination. [6] If the expedited procedure applies, the State can grant the licence without the State, Glencore, and Ngan Aak-Kunch and any other native title parties needing to negotiate about the grant of the licence. Both Glencore and the State assert the expedited procedure applies. Ngan Aak-Kunch has asserted that the expedited procedure does not apply and it lodged an objection application with the National Native Title Tribunal on 8 September 2015. No other objection applications were received. Although there are other native title parties for the licence area, Ngan Aak-Kunch is the only party who lodged an objection. [7] The licence cannot be validly granted while there is an objection on foot. The objection can be finalised if, for instance, the native title party withdraws the objection (this often occurs where parties have reached agreement). If the objection has not been withdrawn or otherwise finalised, the Tribunal is to make a decision through an arbitral inquiry process as to whether or not the expedited procedure applies (see s 32 of the Act). Shortly after the objection application was received, Glencore requested that directions be set for the arbitral inquiry. Correspondence received from parties details various interactions and confirms that the parties did not reach agreement. I was appointed by the Tribunal’s President, Ms Raelene Webb QC, to make this arbitral decision. [8] Parties submitted written material to the Tribunal in accordance with directions I issued. Ngan Aak-Kunch made a request under s 155 of the Act to restrict parties’ use of certain documents. After seeking comments from the other parties, I directed that parties’ use of those materials provided by Ngan Aak-Kunch (Annexures 15-17 to NTP Contentions 13 January 2016) be restricted. [9] In conducting an inquiry, I am to decide whether or not I can make my determination in the absence of the parties using the written material provided, rather than holding a hearing (see s 151(2)). Ngan Aak-Kunch initially requested that a hearing be held and provided submissions which characterised the issue as whether or not a set of Queensland conditions, known as the native title protection 5 conditions (NTPCs), apply to the licence (NTP Submissions 23 February 2016). Paragraphs [4] to [5] of that request read as follows (most footnotes omitted): 4. The ultimate issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether the proposed future act, being the grant of mineral development licence MDL 2001 to the Grantee Party (GP) is an act attracting the expedited procedure. 5. An intermediate issue for the Tribunal’s determination is whether the proposed future act to be assessed against the criteria of NTA s.237 is a mineral development licence which is subject to the “Native Title Protection Conditions” or one which is not. This matter is contentious between the NTP and the Government Party (GVP), and not addressed by the GP in its contentions. [Footnote reads: ‘Grantee Party merely asserts that the Native Title Protection Conditions will apply if the proposed mineral development licence is granted...’] [10] On 24 February 2016, taking account of the matters raised at [9] above, I issued new directions requiring all parties to provide their view on the holding of a hearing. Glencore’s view was that a hearing was not necessary, whereas the State thought it was. After considering all parties’ viewpoints and the written material before me, I convened a directions hearing on 11 March 2016 to discuss the management of the inquiry. On the morning of the directions hearing, party representatives discussed their views amongst themselves and then informed me that they agreed that the decision could be made ‘on the papers’. Having considered the circumstances, I am satisfied that I can make the decision on the papers. Further detail about the directions hearing is provided at [20]-[22] below. [11] In making my decision, I have also considered a map of the licence and surrounding area prepared by the Tribunal’s Geospatial Services, to which no party objected. [12] I must consider whether the grant of the licence is likely to: interfere directly with the carrying on of the Ngan Aak-Kunch’s community or social activities; interfere with any areas or sites of particular significance to Ngan Aak- Kunch, in accordance with their traditions; and involve major disturbance to, or create rights which, if exercised, would involve major disturbance to, relevant land or waters (see s 237 of the Act). [13] If all three of those factors are answered in the negative, then the expedited procedure applies. If any one or more of them is answered in the affirmative, then the expedited procedure does not apply and the negotiation parties will need to enter 6 into good faith negotiations about the grant of the licence (see ss 31 and 32(5) of the Act). [14] A table of key events relevant to this inquiry is attached to this determination at Appendix A. A list of the documents and material received from the parties in relation to the inquiry appears at Appendix B.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Many Voices Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages Action Plan
    Yetimarala Yidinji Yi rawarka lba Yima Yawa n Yir bina ach Wik-Keyangan Wik- Yiron Yam Wik Pa Me'nh W t ga pom inda rnn k Om rungu Wik Adinda Wik Elk Win ala r Wi ay Wa en Wik da ji Y har rrgam Epa Wir an at Wa angkumara Wapabura Wik i W al Ng arra W Iya ulg Y ik nam nh ar nu W a Wa haayorre Thaynakwit Wi uk ke arr thiggi T h Tjung k M ab ay luw eppa und un a h Wa g T N ji To g W ak a lan tta dornd rre ka ul Y kk ibe ta Pi orin s S n i W u a Tar Pit anh Mu Nga tra W u g W riya n Mpalitj lgu Moon dja it ik li in ka Pir ondja djan n N Cre N W al ak nd Mo Mpa un ol ga u g W ga iyan andandanji Margany M litja uk e T th th Ya u an M lgu M ayi-K nh ul ur a a ig yk ka nda ulan M N ru n th dj O ha Ma Kunjen Kutha M ul ya b i a gi it rra haypan nt Kuu ayi gu w u W y i M ba ku-T k Tha -Ku M ay l U a wa d an Ku ayo tu ul g m j a oo M angan rre na ur i O p ad y k u a-Dy K M id y i l N ita m Kuk uu a ji k la W u M a nh Kaantju K ku yi M an U yi k i M i a abi K Y -Th u g r n u in al Y abi a u a n a a a n g w gu Kal K k g n d a u in a Ku owair Jirandali aw u u ka d h N M ai a a Jar K u rt n P i W n r r ngg aw n i M i a i M ca i Ja aw gk M rr j M g h da a a u iy d ia n n Ya r yi n a a m u ga Ja K i L -Y u g a b N ra l Girramay G al a a n P N ri a u ga iaba ithab a m l j it e g Ja iri G al w i a t in M i ay Giy L a M li a r M u j G a a la a P o K d ar Go g m M h n ng e a y it d m n ka m np w a i- u t n u i u u u Y ra a r r r l Y L a o iw m I a a G a a p l u i G ull u r a d e a a tch b K d i g b M g w u b a M N n rr y B thim Ayabadhu i l il M M u i a a
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Australian Indigenous Histories
    Transgressions critical Australian Indigenous histories Transgressions critical Australian Indigenous histories Ingereth Macfarlane and Mark Hannah (editors) Published by ANU E Press and Aboriginal History Incorporated Aboriginal History Monograph 16 National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Transgressions [electronic resource] : critical Australian Indigenous histories / editors, Ingereth Macfarlane ; Mark Hannah. Publisher: Acton, A.C.T. : ANU E Press, 2007. ISBN: 9781921313448 (pbk.) 9781921313431 (online) Series: Aboriginal history monograph Notes: Bibliography. Subjects: Indigenous peoples–Australia–History. Aboriginal Australians, Treatment of–History. Colonies in literature. Australia–Colonization–History. Australia–Historiography. Other Authors: Macfarlane, Ingereth. Hannah, Mark. Dewey Number: 994 Aboriginal History is administered by an Editorial Board which is responsible for all unsigned material. Views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily shared by Board members. The Committee of Management and the Editorial Board Peter Read (Chair), Rob Paton (Treasurer/Public Officer), Ingereth Macfarlane (Secretary/ Managing Editor), Richard Baker, Gordon Briscoe, Ann Curthoys, Brian Egloff, Geoff Gray, Niel Gunson, Christine Hansen, Luise Hercus, David Johnston, Steven Kinnane, Harold Koch, Isabel McBryde, Ann McGrath, Frances Peters- Little, Kaye Price, Deborah Bird Rose, Peter Radoll, Tiffany Shellam Editors Ingereth Macfarlane and Mark Hannah Copy Editors Geoff Hunt and Bernadette Hince Contacting Aboriginal History All correspondence should be addressed to Aboriginal History, Box 2837 GPO Canberra, 2601, Australia. Sales and orders for journals and monographs, and journal subscriptions: T Boekel, email: [email protected], tel or fax: +61 2 6230 7054 www.aboriginalhistory.org ANU E Press All correspondence should be addressed to: ANU E Press, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia Email: [email protected], http://epress.anu.edu.au Aboriginal History Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Dialogue and Indigenous Policy in Australia
    Dialogue and Indigenous Policy in Australia Darryl Cronin A thesis in fulfilment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Social Policy Research Centre Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences September 2015 ABSTRACT My thesis examines whether dialogue is useful for negotiating Indigenous rights and solving intercultural conflict over Indigenous claims for recognition within Australia. As a social and political practice, dialogue has been put forward as a method for identifying and solving difficult problems and for promoting processes of understanding and accommodation. Dialogue in a genuine form has never been attempted with Indigenous people in Australia. Australian constitutionalism is unable to resolve Indigenous claims for recognition because there is no practice of dialogue in Indigenous policy. A key barrier in that regard is the underlying colonial assumptions about Indigenous people and their cultures which have accumulated in various ways over the course of history. I examine where these assumptions about Indigenous people originate and demonstrate how they have become barriers to dialogue between Indigenous people and governments. I investigate historical and contemporary episodes where Indigenous people have challenged those assumptions through their claims for recognition. Indigenous people have attempted to engage in dialogue with governments over their claims for recognition but these attempts have largely been rejected on the basis of those assumptions. There is potential for dialogue in Australia however genuine dialogue between Indigenous people and the Australian state is impossible under a colonial relationship. A genuine dialogue must first repudiate colonial and contemporary assumptions and attitudes about Indigenous people. It must also deconstruct the existing colonial relationship between Indigenous people and government.
    [Show full text]
  • Wik Peoples V. State of Queensland: a Restrained Expansion of Aboriginal Land Rights Gilda C
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of North Carolina School of Law NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND COMMERCIAL REGULATION Volume 23 | Number 3 Article 6 Summer 1998 Wik Peoples v. State of Queensland: A Restrained Expansion of Aboriginal Land Rights Gilda C. Rodriguez Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj Recommended Citation Gilda C. Rodriguez, Wik Peoples v. State of Queensland: A Restrained Expansion of Aboriginal Land Rights, 23 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 711 (1997). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol23/iss3/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wik Peoples v. State of Queensland: A Restrained Expansion of Aboriginal Land Rights Cover Page Footnote International Law; Commercial Law; Law This note is available in North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ ncilj/vol23/iss3/6 Wik Peoples v. State of Queensland:' A Restrained Expansion of Aboriginal Land Rights I. Introduction In the past decade, Aborigines in Australia have gone from owning title to fourteen percent of the land in Australia to potentially being able to claim seventy-nine percent of it.' These figures become even more staggering and meaningful given that the Aboriginal population constitutes only about two percent of Australia's population.' Prior to 1992, Australia recognized virtually no Aboriginal land rights.4 The Australian common law accepted the notion that no one owned the land prior to European colonization.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2007–2008
    07 08 NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL CONTACT DETAILS Annual Report 2007–2008 Tribunal National Native Title PRINCIPAL REGISTRY (PERTH) NEW SOUTH WALES AND AUSTRALIAN Level 4, Commonwealth Law Courts Building CAPITAL TERRITORY 1 Victoria Avenue Level 25 Perth WA 6000 25 Bligh Street Sydney NSW 2000 GPO Box 9973, Perth WA 6848 GPO Box 9973, Sydney NSW 2001 Telephone: (08) 9268 7272 Facsimile: (08) 9268 7299 Telephone: (02) 9235 6300 Facsimile: (02) 9233 5613 VICTORIA AND TASMANIA Level 8 SOUTH AUSTRALIA 310 King Street Level 10, Chesser House Annual Report Melbourne Vic. 3000 91 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000 GPO Box 9973, Melbourne Vic. 3001 GPO Box 9973, Adelaide SA 5001 Telephone: (03) 9920 3000 2007–2008 Facsimile: (03) 9606 0680 Telephone: (08) 8306 1230 Facsimile: (08) 8224 0939 NORTHERN TERRITORY Level 5, NT House WESTERN AUSTRALIA 22 Mitchell Street Level 11, East Point Plaza Darwin NT 0800 233 Adelaide Terrace Perth WA 6000 GPO Box 9973, Darwin NT 0801 GPO Box 9973, Perth WA 6848 Telephone: (08) 8936 1600 Facsimile: (08) 8981 7982 Telephone: (08) 9268 9700 Facsimile: (08) 9221 7158 QUEENSLAND Level 30, 239 George Street NATIONAL FREECALL NUMBER: 1800 640 501 Brisbane Qld 4000 WEBSITE: www.nntt.gov.au GPO Box 9973, Brisbane Qld 4001 National Native Title Tribunal office hours: Telephone: (07) 3226 8200 8.30am – 5.00pm Facsimile: (07) 3226 8235 8.00am – 4.30pm (Northern Territory) CAIRNS (REGIONAL OFFICE) Level 14, Cairns Corporate Tower 15 Lake Street Cairns Qld 4870 PO Box 9973, Cairns Qld 4870 Telephone: (07) 4048 1500 Facsimile: (07) 4051 3660 Resolution of native title issues over land and waters.
    [Show full text]
  • The Australian Experience-Mabo'and Its Aftermath
    G.P.J. MCGINLEY* Natural Resource Companies and Aboriginal Title to Land: The Australian Experience-Mabo'and Its Aftermath I. Introduction The assertion of Aboriginal rights to land can be a major obstacle to investment by natural resource companies. The primary reason is the uncertainty that such claims generate in an already uncertain, volatile industry. 2 Certainty in the re- source company's prospective legal title to the locus of the operation is fundamen- tal to sound investment of capital in exploration and exploitation of natural re- sources. Operations that are likely to be hindered by competing claims of an uncertain nature, particularly smaller operations with cash flow problems, will be difficult to finance.3 Natural resource companies will also be hesitant in making warranties or representations in debt instruments as to soundness of title in areas subject to indigenous peoples' land claims.4 The existence of Aboriginal land claims can affect existing operations as well as future development. 5 Unless the existence and contours of native title are already clearly established or an efficient Note: The American Bar Association grants permission to reproduce this article, or a part thereof, in any not-for-profit publication or handout provided such material acknowledges original publication in this issue of The International Lawyer and includes the title of the article and the name of the author. *LL.B. (Hons.), Melbourne University; LL.M., Cambridge University. The author is a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, and a senior lecturer at Adelaide University Law School in Australia. He was a visiting professor of law at SMU School of Law during the Fall 1993 Semester.
    [Show full text]
  • Pormpuraaw Land & Sea Country CNRM Plan 2010
    PORMPURAAW LAND & SEA MANAGEMENT Ngamp inth Wantharr Yumpnham - Pormpuraaw Land & Sea Country CNRM Plan 2010 - 2015 Ngamp inth Wantharr Yumpnham this is what we are going to do PORMPURAAW LAND & SEA COUNTRY CULTURAL & NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2010 - 2015 August 2010 Pormpuraaw Land & Sea Management in collaboration with Pormpuraaw Aboriginal Shire Council Pormpuraaw Land & Sea Management • phone: (07) 4060 4155 • fax: (07) 4060 4653 PORMPURAAW LAND & SEA MANAGEMENT Ngamp inth Wantharr Yumpnham - Pormpuraaw Land & Sea Country CNRM Plan 2010 - 2015 Disclaimer This document has been prepared by Pormpuraaw Land & Sea Management in collaboration with Pormpuraaw Aboriginal Shire Council on behalf of Kuuk Thaayorre and Wik Mungkan Traditional Owners of Pormpuraaw land, seas and waters, with the assistance of Ellie Bock (Regional Advisory & Innovation Network (RAIN) Pty Ltd). Ngamp inth Wantharr Yumpnham - Pormpuraaw Land and Sea Country Cultural / Natural Resource Management Plan 2010 - 2015 reflects the general land and sea management, cultural and natural resource management intentions of Kuuk Thaayorre and Wik Mungkan Traditional Owners as these apply to that area of land and sea country extending from the Holroyd River in the north and the Coleman River in the south, now variously described as the Pormpuraaw Deed of Grant in Trust (Lot 5 on CP LK2) or the Pormpuraaw Aboriginal Shire. WARNING: This publication may contain images of and references to deceased persons. Readers are reminded that explicit cultural protocols govern use and release of images and names of the deceased. Copyright © Pormpuraaw Land & Sea Management and Pormpuraaw Aboriginal Shire Council on behalf of Kuuk Thaayorre and Wik Mungkan Traditional Owners of Pormpuraaw land, seas and waters, 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Path to Treaty
    Report from the Treaty Working Group on Queensland’s PATH TO TREATY February 2020 Copyright Copyright © State of Queensland, February 2020. Copyright protects this publication. Excerpts may be reproduced with acknowledgment of the State of Queensland. This document is licensed by the State of Queensland under a Creative Attribution (CC BY) 3.0 Australian license. CC BY License Summary Statement: In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt the Report from the Treaty Working Group on Queensland’s Path to Treaty as long as you attribute the work to the State of Queensland. To view a copy of this license, visit: www. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. While every care has been taken in preparing this publication, the State of Queensland accepts no responsibility for decisions or actions taken as a result of any data, information, statement or advice, expressed or implied, contained within. To the best of our knowledge, the content was correct at the time of publishing. The information in this publication is general and does not take into account individual circumstances or situations. Disclaimer Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples are warned the photographs in this publication may contain images of deceased persons which may cause sadness or distress. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................4 Introduction and history 4 Treaties and agreement making 4 Community engagement process and findings 4 Conclusions 5 Recommendations 5 MESSAGE FROM THE TREATY WORKING GROUP ..................................................8 MEET THE TREATY WORKING GROUP AND EMINENT PANEL ..................................8 GLOSSARY AND TERMINOLOGY ........................................................................ 13 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 14 1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF QUEENSLAND ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transgressions: Critical Australian Indigenous Histories
    Transgressions critical Australian Indigenous histories Transgressions critical Australian Indigenous histories Ingereth Macfarlane and Mark Hannah (editors) Published by ANU E Press and Aboriginal History Incorporated Aboriginal History Monograph 16 National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Transgressions [electronic resource] : critical Australian Indigenous histories / editors, Ingereth Macfarlane ; Mark Hannah. Publisher: Acton, A.C.T. : ANU E Press, 2007. ISBN: 9781921313448 (pbk.) 9781921313431 (online) Series: Aboriginal history monograph Notes: Bibliography. Subjects: Indigenous peoples–Australia–History. Aboriginal Australians, Treatment of–History. Colonies in literature. Australia–Colonization–History. Australia–Historiography. Other Authors: Macfarlane, Ingereth. Hannah, Mark. Dewey Number: 994 Aboriginal History is administered by an Editorial Board which is responsible for all unsigned material. Views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily shared by Board members. The Committee of Management and the Editorial Board Peter Read (Chair), Rob Paton (Treasurer/Public Officer), Ingereth Macfarlane (Secretary/ Managing Editor), Richard Baker, Gordon Briscoe, Ann Curthoys, Brian Egloff, Geoff Gray, Niel Gunson, Christine Hansen, Luise Hercus, David Johnston, Steven Kinnane, Harold Koch, Isabel McBryde, Ann McGrath, Frances Peters- Little, Kaye Price, Deborah Bird Rose, Peter Radoll, Tiffany Shellam Editors Ingereth Macfarlane and Mark Hannah Copy Editors Geoff Hunt and Bernadette Hince Contacting Aboriginal History All correspondence should be addressed to Aboriginal History, Box 2837 GPO Canberra, 2601, Australia. Sales and orders for journals and monographs, and journal subscriptions: T Boekel, email: [email protected], tel or fax: +61 2 6230 7054 www.aboriginalhistory.org ANU E Press All correspondence should be addressed to: ANU E Press, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia Email: [email protected], http://epress.anu.edu.au Aboriginal History Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • National Native Title Tribunal
    NATIONAL NATIVE TITLE TRIBUNAL ANNUAL REPORT 1996/97 ANNUAL REPORT 1996/97 CONTENTS Letter to Attorney-General 1 Table of contents 3 Introduction – President’s Report 5 Tribunal values, mission, vision 9 Corporate overview – Registrar’s Report 10 Corporate goals Goal One: Increase community and stakeholder knowledge of the Tribunal and its processes. 19 Goal Two: Promote effective participation by parties involved in native title applications. 25 Goal Three: Promote practical and innovative resolution of native title applications. 30 Goal Four: Achieve recognition as an organisation that is committed to addressing the cultural and customary concerns of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. 44 Goal Five: Manage the Tribunal’s human, financial, physical and information resources efficiently and effectively. 47 Goal Six: Manage the process for authorising future acts effectively. 53 Regional Overviews 59 Appendices Appendix I: Corporate Directory 82 Appendix II: Other Relevant Legislation 84 Appendix III: Publications and Papers 85 Appendix IV: Staffing 89 Appendix V: Consultants 91 Appendix VI: Freedom of Information 92 Appendix VII: Internal and External Scrutiny, Social Justice and Equity 94 Appendix VIII: Audit Report & Notes to the Financial Statements 97 Appendix IX: Glossary 119 Appendix X: Compliance index 123 Index 124 National Native Title Tribunal 3 ANNUAL REPORT 1996/97 © Commonwealth of Australia 1997 ISSN 1324-9991 This work is copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes if an acknowledgment of the source is included. Such use must not be for the purposes of sale or commercial exploitation. Subject to the Copyright Act, reproduction, storage in a retrieval system or transmission in any form by any means of any part of the work other than for the purposes above is not permitted without written permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Authorisation and Decision-Making in Native Title
    Authorisation and decision-making in native title Nick Duff Goldfields Land and Sea Council Authorisation and decision-making in native title Authorisation and decision-making in native title Nick Duff Goldfields Land and Sea Council First published in 2017 by AIATSIS Research Publications © Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 2017. All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act), no part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. The Act also allows a maximum of one chapter or 10 per cent of this publication, whichever is the greater, to be photocopied or distributed digitally by any educational institution for its educational purposes, provided that the educational institution (or body that administers it) has given a remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) GPO Box 553, Canberra ACT 2601 Phone: (61 2) 6246 1111 Fax: (61 2) 6261 4285 Email: [email protected] Web: www.aiatsis.gov.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Creator: Duff, Nick, author. Title: Authorisation and decision-making in native title / Nick Duff.
    [Show full text]
  • Wik Peoples V Queensland ("Pastoral Leases Case") [1996] HCA 40; (1996) 187 CLR 1; (1996) 141 ALR 129; (1996) 71 ALJR 173 (23 December 1996)
    Wik Peoples v Queensland ("Pastoral Leases case") [1996] HCA 40; (1996) 187 CLR 1; (1996) 141 ALR 129; (1996) 71 ALJR 173 (23 December 1996) HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA BRENNAN CJ, DAWSON, TOOHEY, GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW AND KIRBY JJ ______________________ Matter No B8 of 1996 THE WIK PEOPLES APPELLANTS AND THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ORS RESPONDENTS Matter No B9 of 1996 THE THAYORRE PEOPLE APPELLANTS AND THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND & ORS RESPONDENTS ORDER 1. Each appeal allowed in part. 2. Set aside the answers given by Drummond J to Question 1B(b), (c) and (d) and Question 1C(b), (c) and (d). Affirm the answers given by Drummond J to Question 1C(a), Question 4 and Question 5. 3. Answer Questions 1B, 1C, 4 and 5 as follows: Question 1B " If at any material time Aboriginal title or possessory title existed in respect of the land demised under the pastoral lease in respect of the Holroyd River Holding a copy of which is attached hereto (pastoral lease): (a) [not pressed] (b) does the pastoral lease confer rights to exclusive possession on the grantee? If the answer to (a) is 'no' and the answer to (b) is 'yes': (c) does the creation of the pastoral lease that has these two characteristics confer on the grantee rights wholly inconsistent with the concurrent and continuing exercise of any rights or interests which might comprise such Aboriginal title or possessory title of the Wik Peoples and their predecessors in title which existed before the New South Wales Constitution Act 1855 (Imp) took effect in the Colony of New South Wales? (d) did the grant of the pastoral lease necessarily extinguish all incidents of Aboriginal title or possessory title of the Wik Peoples in respect of the land demised under the pastoral lease?" Answer (b) No.
    [Show full text]