DOCSLIB.ORG

LAW of the SEA and NATIVE TITLE ISSUES in the TORRES STRAIT Law of the Sea and Native Title Issues in the Torres Strait STUART B KAYE*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LAW of the SEA and NATIVE TITLE ISSUES in the TORRES STRAIT Law of the Sea and Native Title Issues in the Torres Strait STUART B KAYE* JURISDICTIONAL PATCHWORK: LAW OF THE SEA AND NATIVE TITLE ISSUES IN THE TORRES STRAIT Law of the Sea and Native Title Issues in the Torres Strait STUART B KAYE* [The Torres Strait is the region where mainland Australia most closely approaches another state; where the northernmost Australian islands are a few kilometres off the Papua New Guinean coast. By virtue of its location, configuration and people, the Strait is also the focus of a surprising range of international and domestic legal issues. This article examines the law of the sea and native title issues presently impacting upon the Strait. It identifies the pressing legal concerns of the region, including one of the world’s most complex maritime boundary arrangements which has been in operation for over 15 years; the impact of the operation of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Strait, most particularly the navigational regime; and the operation of the domestic offshore legal regime, including recent developments in the application of native title to offshore areas.] CONTENTS I Introduction II Evolution of Jurisdiction III Boundaries under the Torres Strait Treaty IV The Protected Zone and the Exercise of Fisheries Jurisdiction V Domestic Jurisdiction VI Jurisdiction over Transiting Vessels VII Native Title Issues A Establishing the Claim B Evidentiary Matters C Nature of the Rights in Issue D Customary Marine Tenure and International Law E Recent Developments VIII Conclusion I INTRODUCTION In terms of sovereignty and jurisdictional issues, the Torres Strait region presents a number of challenges that are unique within Australia. Firstly, it is the point where mainland Australian territory most closely approaches that of another state, and the only place where the territorial sea of Australia touches another state’s territorial waters. The Torres Strait region raises issues of the exercise of jurisdiction over individuals moving from one state to another and of * BA, LLM (Hons) (Sydney), JSD (Dalhousie); Professor of Law, School of Law, James Cook University. THE TORRES STRAIT Map taken from Stuart Kaye, ‘Regulation of Navigation in the Torres Strait: Law of the Sea Issues’ in Donald Rothwell and Sam Bateman (eds), Navigational Rights and Freedoms and the New Law of the Sea (2000) 119, 135. Reproduced with the kind permission of Kluwer Law International. Melbourne JournalofInternationalLaw [Vol 2 [Vol 2001] Law of the Sea and Native Title Issues in the Torres Strait national control over territorial waters. Secondly, the Torres Strait Treaty1 is applicable to the region. It is one of the most complex maritime boundary delimitation treaties in operation, where jurisdiction over seabed and fisheries are separated, and a Protected Zone, designed to further both the interests of the indigenous communities of the region and environmental protection, exists. Thirdly, across the Strait are a scattering of numerous reefs, islands and cays. In the context of Australia’s offshore arrangements, these present one of the more complicated geographical contexts for the operation of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement2 dividing jurisdiction between the Commonwealth and the States. Fourthly, the Torres Strait is an international strait for the purposes of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’).3 Consequently, significant issues are raised in the application of Australian law to vessels passing through the Strait. Finally, the issue of native title in offshore areas is particularly relevant in the Torres Strait because Australia’s first successful native title claim originated there, albeit that the maritime part of the claim was withdrawn.4 This article will briefly explore the jurisdictional and sovereignty issues applicable to the Torres Strait, including native title, and place them in perspective. II EVOLUTION OF JURISDICTION The complexity of the present arrangements in the Torres Strait can best be appreciated in light of the manner in which those arrangements came about. Historical events have played a substantial role in determining the present structure of both the sovereignty and the exercise of jurisdiction in the region. It is useful to examine these events briefly. 1 Treaty between Australia and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea Concerning the Maritime Boundaries in the Area between the Two Countries, Including the Area Known as Torres Strait, and Related Matters, opened for signature 18 December 1978, 1985 ATS 4 (entered into force 15 February 1985). 2 For more detailed discussions of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement, see Marcus Haward, ‘The Australian Offshore Constitutional Settlement’ (1989) 13 Marine Policy 334; Richard Cullen, Federalism in Action: The Canadian and Australian Offshore Disputes (1990) 104–29; Michael Crommelin, ‘Offshore Mining and Petroleum: Constitutional Issues’ (1981) 3 Australian Mining and Petroleum Law Journal 191; Brian Opeskin and Donald Rothwell, ‘Australia’s Territorial Sea: International and Federal Implications of its Extension to 12 Miles’ (1991) 22 Ocean Development and International Law 395, 408–10; Richard Cullen, ‘Canada and Australia: A Federal Parting of the Ways’ (1989) 18 Federal Law Review 53, 75–7; Richard Cullen, ‘The Encounter between Natural Resources and Federalism in Canada and Australia’ (1990) 24 University of British Columbia Law Review 275, 297–8. See also editorials in (1979) 53 Australian Law Journal 605; (1976) 50 Australian Law Journal 206. 3 Opened for signature on 10 December 1982, 450 UNTS 82, 21 ILM 1261 (entered into force 16 November 1994). 4 Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 (‘Mabo’). Melbourne Journal of International Law [Vol 2 The first step is to examine the means by which British sovereignty was asserted over Australia and the legal mechanisms used to accomplish it.5 The principal means used in the legal acquisition of Australian territory was the proclamation of Letters Patent. The Letters Patent, issued to the Governor of the particular colony in his Commission, described what the limits of the colony were for the purpose of the exercise of the Governor’s powers. The description of territory in the Letters Patent is important to the present discussion because it was subsequently used by the colonial courts to delimit the boundaries of the Colony of New South Wales, and the later colonies created out of it.6 As the present day Commonwealth of Australia, exclusive of the external territories, is a federation created from these colonies, the limits of Australian sovereignty in the present are, by and large, circumscribed by the old colonial instruments. The Torres Strait Islands are currently part of the State of Queensland, and given that the State’s boundaries have remained unaltered since Federation, the Islands were part of the Colony of Queensland in 1900.7 The Colony of Queensland was itself created out of the Colony of New South Wales by Letters Patent in 1859.8 These Letters Patent provided that Queensland succeeded all the New South Wales territory north of the boundary that still separates the two States, and east of 141° East longtitude.9 Significantly, they also included ‘all and every the adjacent islands and appurtenances in the Pacific Ocean’.10 Consequently, the boundaries of New South Wales in 1859 must be ascertained. The 1859 boundaries of New South Wales can be found, inter alia, in three Letters Patent issued in 1786,11 178712 and 1855.13 The first two Letters Patent indicated that New South Wales included all the territory between Cape York 5 At this point, consideration of native title in this context is not necessary. In Mabo, the High Court of Australia indicated that the existence of native title did not detract from the ultimate validity of the State and Federal governments in Australia. Accordingly, since the boundaries of an Australian State determine the jurisdictional reach of a State government, the manner in which these boundaries are determined is an important exercise. See Mabo 175 CLR 1, 2 (Mason CJ, Brennan and McHugh JJ). Native title will be considered in Part VII below. 6 See, eg, the High Court’s consideration of the issue in Wacando v Commonwealth (1981) 148 CLR 1. 7 This can be said with certainty because the Australian Constitution in ss 111 and 123 requires certain procedures to be followed in the event that a State surrenders territory or changes its boundaries. See discussion by Richard Lumb, ‘Legal Aspects of the Torres Strait Treaty’ in Peter Boyce and Michael White (eds), The Torres Strait Treaty: A Symposium (1981) 51, 52. These procedures have not been used in Queensland, so it follows that the limits of the State have remained static since Federation. 8 Colony of Queensland, ‘Letters Patent Constituting the Colony of Queensland’, Government Gazette, Proclamation No 1, 10 December 1859. The Letters Patent were issued pursuant to s 7 of the New South Wales Constitution Act 1855 (Imp) which permitted the creation of a new colony in the north. 9 Colony of Queensland, ‘Letters Patent Constituting the Colony of Queensland’, Government Gazette, Proclamation No 1, 10 December 1859. 10 Ibid. 11 Frederick Watson (ed), Historical Records of Australia, (1914) series 1, vol 1, 1–2. 12 Ibid 2–16. 13 Daniel O’Connell and Ann Riordan, Opinions on Imperial Constitutional Law (1971) 247. 2001] Law of the Sea and Native Title Issues in the Torres Strait and South Cape in Tasmania14 and ‘all the islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean’15 with the latitudes of those features. The reference
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Mabo to Yorta Yorta: Native Title Law in Australia
    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 19 Access to Justice: The Social Responsibility of Lawyers | Contemporary and Comparative Perspectives on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples January 2005 From Mabo to Yorta Yorta: Native Title Law in Australia Lisa Strelein Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation Lisa Strelein, From Mabo to Yorta Yorta: Native Title Law in Australia, 19 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 225 (2005), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol19/iss1/14 This Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Mabo to Yorta Yorta: Native Title Law in Australia Dr. Lisa Strelein* INTRODUCTION In more than a decade since Mabo v. Queensland II’s1 recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights to their traditional lands, the jurisprudence of native title has undergone significant development. The High Court of Australia decisions in Ward2 and Yorta Yorta3 in 2002 sought to clarify the nature of native title and its place within Australian property law, and within the legal system more generally. Since these decisions, lower courts have had time to apply them to native title issues across the country. This Article briefly examines the history of the doctrine of discovery in Australia as a background to the delayed recognition of Indigenous rights in lands and resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Oceans Law and Policy in the Post-UNCED Era: Australian and Canadian Perspectives
    International Environmental Law and Policy Series Oceans Law and Policy in the Post-UNCED Era: Australian and Canadian Perspectives Edited by Lorne K. Kriwoken, Marcus Haward, David VanderZwaag and Bruce Davis KLUWER LAW INTERNATIONAL *LONDON - THE HAGUE - BOSTON ~ s: c...(, 4" -c~ 1,\,. _., 'wi'" -i- .....I ! I \ C') r-j ~ q~! Published by \ q Sold and distributed in the USA The International Environmental Law and Policy Series Kluwer Law International Ltd and Canada by Sterling House KluwerLaw International 66 Wilton Road 675 MassachusettsAvenue LondonSWIV lDE CambridgeMA 02139 Series General Editor United Kingdom USA Stanley P. Johnson KluwerLaw International Ltd incorporates In all other countries, sold and distributed thepublishingprogrammes of by Kluwer Law International Advisory Editor Graham& Trotman Ltd, P.O. Box 85889 Giinther HamIl KluwerLaw & TaxationPublishers 2508 CN The Hague and MartinusNijhoff Publishers. The Netherlands Othertitles in the series ISBN 90-411-0937-4 Transferring Hazardous Technologies and Substances, G. Handl, R.E. Lutz © KluwerLaw International 1996 (ISBN 0-86010-704-3) First published1996 Understanding US and European Environmental Law: A Practitioner's Guide, T.T. Smith, P. Kromarek (ISBN 1-85333-305-0) Air Pollution Control in the European Community: Implementation of the EC Directives in the British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Twelve Member States, G. Bennett (ed.) A cataloguerecordfor this book is availablefrom the BritishLibrary (ISBN 1-85333-567-3) International Responsibility for Environmental Harm, F. Francioni and T. Scovazzi (eds.) Library of Congress Cataloguing-In-Publication Data is available (ISBN 1-85333-579-7) Environmental Protection and International Law, W. Lang, H. Neuhold, K. Zemanek (eds.) (ISBN 1-85333-611-4) International Law and Global Climate Change, R.
    [Show full text]
  • Akiba V Cth .Pdf
    250 CLR 209] AKIBA V THE COMMONWEALTH 209 AKIBA.. ................................................................ APPELLANT; APPLICANT, AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS.............................................. RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS, [2013] HCA 33 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Aboriginals — Native title to waters — Fishing — Whether right to fish for HC of A commercial or trading purposes extinguished by legislation — Whether 2013 reciprocal access and use rights between Torres Strait Island communities constituted native title rights and interests — Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), Feb 12; ss 211, 223, 225. Aug 7 2013 Thirteen island communities in the Torres Strait applied to the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) for a French CJ, Hayne, determination of native title over part of the waters of the Strait. A judge Crennan, Kiefel and of that Court made a native title determination over the waters which Bell JJ included a non-exclusive group right to access resources and to take for any purpose resources in the native title areas in accordance with the traditional laws and customs of the native title holders and the laws of the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth, including the common law. Certain reciprocal rights and interests subsisting between members of Torres Strait Island communities were found not to constitute native title rights and interests within the meaning of s 223 of the Native Title Act. The Commonwealth appealed against the determination on the ground that colonial, State and Commonwealth fisheries legislation had extinguished any native title right to take fish and other aquatic life for commercial purposes. The Torres Strait Islanders cross-appealed against the finding that the reciprocal rights did not constitute native title rights and interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Programme
    THE LIMITS OF MARITIME JURISDICTION CONFERENCE PROGRAMME THE LIMITS OF MARITIME JURISDICTION First Day: Monday, November 28 18:00‐20:30 Welcome Reception Venue: The Deck, Novotel Northbeach Hotel, Wollongong Welcome to Wollongong Martin TSAMENYI (Professor and Director, ANCORS, University of Wollongong, Australia) Luke McNamara (Professor and Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Wollongong, Australia) Introduced by Clive SCHOFIELD (Professor and Director of Research, ANCORS, University of Wollongong, Australia) Second Day: Tuesday, November 29 Venue: iC Theatre, ITAMS Building, Innovation Campus (iC), University of Wollongong 08:30‐09:15 Opening Ceremony Judy RAPER (Professor and Deputy Vice‐Chancellor (Research), University of Wollongong, Australia) Jon M. VAN DYKE (Professor, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, USA) JungNG‐Keuk KA (President, Korea Ocean Research & Development Institute (KORDI), Korea) Moderated by Clive SCHOFIELD (Professor and Director of Research, ANCORS, University of Wollongong, Australia) 09:15‐10:00 Keynote Address: Ivan SHEARER (Adjunct Professor of Law, University of South Australia, Adelaide; Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Sydney and University of New South Wales, Australia) “The Limits of Maritime Jurisdiction” Introduced by William EDESON (Legal Adviser, Forum Fisheries Agency; Professorial Fellow, ANCORS, University of Wollongong, Australia) 10:00‐10:30 Coffee Break 10:30‐12:00 Panel One: On the Limits of Maritime Jurisdiction Panel Chair: Hasjim DJALAL (Ambassador,
    [Show full text]
  • Council of Australian Law Deans Meeting 2005/1 Bond University 20 March 2005
    CALD Minutes, Meeting 2005#1 (Bond University, 20 March 2005) Council of Australian Law Deans Meeting 2005/1 Bond University 20 March 2005 MINUTES PRESENT Deans and Heads of School Professor Michael Coper Australian National University Professor Duncan Bentley Bond University Professor Ned Aughterson Charles Darwin University Professor Paul Moyle Edith Cowan University Professor Gary Davis Flinders University Associate Professor Justin Malbon Griffith University Professor Steve Graw James Cook University Professor The Hon Michael Lavarch Queensland University of Technology 1 CALD Minutes, Meeting 2005#1 (Bond University, 20 March 2005) Professor Stanley Yeo Southern Cross University Mr Geoff Nicoll University of Canberra (acting) Professor Michael Crommelin University of Melbourne Professor Stephen Colbran University of New England Professor Leon E Trakman University of New South Wales Professor Jill McKeough University of Technology, Sydney Professor Bill Ford University of Western Australia Deputising for Deans Professor Tania Sourdin La Trobe University Professor Neil McLeod Murdoch University Professor Christoph Antons University of Wollongong In Attendance Kate Massy-Greene CALD Secretariat Apologies Professor Mirko Bagaric Deakin University Professor Gordon Walker La Trobe University Professor Ros Croucher Macquarie University Professor Arie Frieberg Monash University Professor Michael Pendleton Murdoch University (acting dean) Professor Paul Fairall University of Adelaide Professor Ted Wright University of Newcastle Professor Charles
    [Show full text]
  • Native Title and the 'Acquisition of Property' Under the Australian
    —M.U.L.R- Brennan - final proof (pre-press completed).doc — Native Title — printed 19/05/04 at 21:14 — page 28 of 52 NATIVE TITLE AND THE ‘ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY’ UNDER THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION ∗ SEAN BRENNAN [The ‘just terms’ guarantee in s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution offers protection for the property rights of Australians, but does this protection extend to indigenous people who have native title rights and interests in land? Gummow J of the High Court has suggested the answer is no, at least where native title is extinguished by the grant of inconsistent rights over the same land to third parties. This article reviews recent case law on the meaning of ‘property’ and ‘acquisition’ under s 51(xxxi). The Australian law on native title — in particular its characterisation, its content and its extinguishment — is examined and assessed against the law on s 51(xxxi). The conclusion drawn is that in general the extinguishment of native title answers the description of an ‘acquisition of property’. Gum- mow J’s analysis that native title is inherently defeasible, and therefore that the ‘just terms’ guarantee does not apply to its extinguishment by inconsistent grant, should be rejected on the basis of precedent and principle.] CONTENTS I Introduction...............................................................................................................29 II Native Title as ‘Property’..........................................................................................30 A Conceptualising Native Title: Different Streams of Thought.......................30
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Equality: the Long Road
    INDIGENOUS EQUALITY: THE LONG ROAD GREG MCINTYRE SC This essay identifies some of incremental progress towards substantive racial equality in Australia for First Nations Peoples observed in the course of a legal practice extending over the past 44 years, affected by cases brought before the courts, particularly the case of Mabo v Queensland. It discusses the impact on that progress of legislation, particularly the Native Title Act. It concludes that recognition of the fiduciary duty of the Government towards its First Nations Peoples may be a necessary prerequisite to according them self determination and equality within the Australian nation. LLB (UWA) 1974, Barrister, Michael Kirby Chambers, Western Australia, Adjunct Professor, UNDA and UWA. INDIGENOUS EQUALITY: THE LONG ROAD VOL 8(2) 2021 CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................2 II MY INTRODUCTION TO INDIGENOUS EQUALITY...........................................................................3 III LITIGATION OR LEGISLATION……………………….........................................................................5 IV LEGISLATING NATIVE TITLE........................................................................................................5 V PUSHING BACK THE STATES........................................................................................................6 VI PASTORAL LEASES V NATIVE TITLE............................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous People's Rights: Mabo and Others V. State of Queensland - the Australian High Court Addresses 200 Years of Oppression
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 21 Number 2 Winter Article 4 May 2020 Indigenous People's Rights: Mabo and Others v. State of Queensland - The Australian High Court Addresses 200 Years of Oppression Gerald McGinley Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation Gerald McGinley, Indigenous People's Rights: Mabo and Others v. State of Queensland - The Australian High Court Addresses 200 Years of Oppression, 21 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 311 (1993). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. Indigenous Peoples' Rights: Mabo and Others v. State of Queensland1 - The Australian High Court Addresses 200 Years of Oppression GERALD P. MCGINLEY I. INTRODUCTION Australian Aboriginals share the common heritage of indigenous peo- ples. It is a history of violent dispossession, followed by alternating neg- lect and paternalism, culminating in belated and bewildered concern.' An international movement has evolved to rectify these wrongs.' 1993 is to be the International Year of the World's Indigenous Peoples" during which * Senior Lecturer in International Law, University of Adelaide. 1. Mabo v. Queensland, 107 A.L.R. 1 (1992). 2. See JANINE ROBERTS, MASSACRES TO MINING 13-19 (1981)[hereinafter ROBERTS]; MARC GUMBERT, NEITHER JUSTICE NOR REASON 15-25 (1984); HENRY REYNOLDS, DISPOSSES- SION (1989)[hereinafter REYNOLDS]. For a discussion of the history and problems of other indigenous peoples, see Raidza Torres, The Rights of Indigenous Populations:The Emerg- ing InternationalNorm, 16 YALE J.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Title in Queensland Twenty-Five Years Post-Mabo
    NATIVE TITLE IN QUEENSLAND TWENTY-FIVE YEARS POST-MABO DR CHRIS DAVIES ABSTRACT The Mabo decision was undoubtedly one of the most significant in Australian legal history, removing the fiction that the land had been settled as terra nullius, and recognising that native title to land had survived the acquisition of sovereignty. Subsequent cases established the principles of law in regard to questions such as whether pastoral leases extinguished native title. An examination of the 2017 Federal Court cases relating to native title claims in Queensland has highlighted that, frequently, the main issue was whether the claimants could prove continuity with their traditional laws and customs. The High Court decision in Yorta Yorta v Victoria established the principles relevant to this question and is the case that is most likely to be cited in present day native title decisions. The successful claims have recognised native title rights such as hunting, carrying out ceremonies and maintaining sacred sites. These rights, however, have not been granted as exclusive rights, with local councils and mining companies being some of the groups that have maintained concurrent rights. I INTRODUCTION It is now 25 years since Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (‘Mabo’)1 established that native title exists in Australia. The decision was undoubtedly one of the most significant in Australia’s legal history and brought Australia into line with the rest of the world in regard to the issue of indigenous land rights. Subsequent to the decision, the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (‘NTA’) was enacted. It now states what native title is in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • 17 April 2007
    INTRODUCTION TO SEMINAR ON DAVID HICKS, MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND THE RULE OF LAW When this seminar was first planned by the Queensland Branch of the International Commission of Jurists, David Hicks was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and grave uncertainty attached to his future. He had been imprisoned for five years without being convicted of any crime. Many informed commentators were concerned about the legality of the charge laid against him. Advice had been sought on the question by the Law Council of Australia. The joint advice received was signed by Professor Tim McCormack, the Australian Red Cross Professor of International Humanitarian Law at the University of Melbourne, Peter Vickery QC, Special Rapporteur, International Commission of Jurists, Victoria, the Honourable Alistair Nichsolson AO RFD QC, former Judge Advocate General of the Australian Defence Force, Professor Hilary Charlesworth, Professor of International Law and Human Rights at the Australian National University, Gavin Griffith AO QC, Professor Andrew Byrnes, Professor of International Law at the University of New South Wales, Mr Gideon Boas, former senior legal officer of the International Criminal Tribunal in Yugoslavia, Professor Stuart Kaye, Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne and Professor Don Rothwell, Professor of International Law at the Australian National University. That opinion concluded that the charge formally laid against David Hicks of providing material support for terrorism pursuant to s 950(v)(25) of the Military Commissions Act 2006 did not constitute a war crime contrary to the law of war and it was clearly retrospective in its application to David Hicks. Affidavit material filed in support of Mr Hicks’ application for British citizenship alleged that Mr Hicks had been abused during interrogations in Afghanistan and elsewhere before his arrival at Guantanamo Bay in early 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Mabo Oration: Terri Janke
    2011 Mabo Oration: Terri Janke Mrs Bonita Mabo, the Mabo family, Commissioner Kevin Cocks, Bryan Keon-Kohen QC, Bill Lowah, fellow Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginal people, and those who have come to celebrate the opening of The Torres Strait Islands: A Celebration. I acknowledge the Anti- Discrimination Commission Queensland and the Queensland Performing Arts Centre for hosting tonight's oration. I pay respect to all the traditional owners of the Brisbane area, and all elders past and present. Thank you Eddie Ruska for your welcome to country. Whenever I hear a welcome to country given from the heart, I feel strengthened and encouraged. I am honoured to present the Mabo Oration, not only as a lawyer, but as a Torres Strait Islander. I have two grandmothers who were born in the Torres Strait. My paternal grandmother is Agnes Blanco. She was born in 1921 on Murray Island in the village of Gigrid, of the Peibre clan. She was the daughter of Azzie Leyah, a Meriam woman and Victor Blanco. Victor's mother Annie, who married Juan Blanco from the Phillipines, was from Old Mapoon in Cape York. Grandma Agnes attended Sacred Heart Convent on Thursday Island (TI), before moving to the mainland during the Second World War. My maternal grandmother is Modesta (Maudie) Mayo who was born on TI and her Torres Strait Islander heritage can be traced back to Gebar Island. She too attended Sacred Heart Convent. Maudie married Kitchell Anno, of Wuthathi and Malay descent. He was also born on TI. They moved to Cairns in the 1940s where my mother and father were born.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES Reference: Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty CANBERRA Monday, 29 September 1997 OFFICIAL HANSARD REPORT CANBERRA JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES Members: Mr Taylor (Chairman) Mr McClelland (Deputy Chairman) Senator Abetz Mr Adams Senator Bourne Mr Bartlett Senator Coonan Mr Laurie Ferguson Senator Cooney Mr Hardgrave Senator Murphy Mr Tony Smith Senator Neal Mr Truss Senator O’Chee Mr Tuckey For inquiry into and report on: Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty. WITNESSES KAYE, Mr Stuart Bruce, Lecturer in Law, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-89, Hobart, Tasmania 7001 ................................ 52 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty CANBERRA Monday, 29 September 1997 Present Mr Taylor (Chairman) Senator Coonan Mr Adams Senator Cooney Mr Hardgrave Ms Jeanes Mr McClelland Mr Truss The committee met at 10.35 a.m. Mr Taylor took the chair. 51 TR 52 JOINT Monday, 29 September 1997 KAYE, Mr Stuart Bruce, Lecturer in Law, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-89, Hobart, Tasmania 7001 CHAIRMAN—Before we start, there is a quick housekeeping matter. I welcome Susan Jeanes to the committee. I am sure you will find it a very interesting committee indeed. This particular inquiry into the Maritime Delimitation Treaty with Indonesia is a very important one, and it is a very technical one. It is a very technical one in legal terms and a very technical one in terms of the administrative wherewithal that goes with it. We have already had a hearing here in Canberra. We have also taken evidence in Perth from the Solicitor-General of Western Australia, from the Western Australian government and from a number of interested individuals in Western Australia.
    [Show full text]