DOCSLIB.ORG

High Court of Australia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
High Court of Australia 5KIPGFD[#WUV.++ HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA GLEESON CJ, GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE AND CALLINAN JJ Matter No D7/2000 THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA APPELLANT AND MARY YARMIRR & ORS RESPONDENTS Matter No D9/2000 MARY YARMIRR & ORS APPELLANTS AND THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA & ORS RESPONDENTS The Commonwealth v Yarmirr Yarmirr v Northern Territory [2001] HCA 56 11 October 2001 D7/2000 and D9/2000 ORDER Appeals dismissed with costs. On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia 4GVTKGXGFHTQO#WUV.++QP(GDTWCT[CV 8GTKH[XGTUKQP 5KIPGFD[#WUV.++ 2. Representation: Matter No D7/2000 D M J Bennett QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth and M A Perry and S B Lloyd with J S Stellios for the appellant (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor) J Basten QC with K R Howie SC and S A Glacken for the first and ninth respondents (instructed by Northern Land Council) T I Pauling QC, Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory with R J Webb for the second respondent (instructed by Solicitor for the Northern Territory) G E Hiley QC with N J Henwood for the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents (instructed by Cridlands Lawyers) No appearance for the eighth respondent Interveners R J Meadows QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Western Australia with K M Pettit intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of Western Australia) B M Selway QC, Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia with S E Carlton intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of South Australia) B A Keon-Cohen QC with C F Thomson intervening on behalf of the Mirimbiak Nations Aboriginal Corporation (instructed by Mirimbiak Nations Aboriginal Corporation) G M G McIntyre with G M Irving and D L Ritter intervening on behalf of the Yamatji Barna Baba Maaja Aboriginal Corporation (instructed by Yamatji Barna Baba Maaja Aboriginal Corporation) G M G McIntyre intervening on behalf of the Kimberley Land Council (instructed by Kimberley Land Council) D F Jackson QC with S J Gageler SC intervening on behalf of the Lardil, Kaiadilt Yangkaal and Gangalidda Peoples (instructed by Chalk & Fitzgerald) 4GVTKGXGFHTQO#WUV.++QP(GDTWCT[CV 8GTKH[XGTUKQP 5KIPGFD[#WUV.++ 3. Matter No D9/2000 J Basten QC with K R Howie SC and S A Glacken for the appellants (instructed by Northern Land Council) T I Pauling QC, Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory with R J Webb for the first respondent (instructed by Solicitor for the Northern Territory) D M J Bennett QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth and M A Perry and S B Lloyd with J S Stellios for the second respondent (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor) G E Hiley QC with N J Henwood for the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents (instructed by Cridlands Lawyers) No appearance for the eighth and ninth respondents Interveners R J Meadows QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Western Australia with K M Pettit intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of Western Australia) B M Selway QC, Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia with S E Carlton intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of South Australia (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of South Australia) H B Fraser QC with P J Flanagan intervening on behalf of the Attorney-General of the State of Queensland (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of Queensland) G M G McIntyre with G M Irving and D L Ritter intervening on behalf of the Yamatji Barna Baba Maaja Aboriginal Corporation (instructed by Yamatji Barna Baba Maaja Aboriginal Corporation) G M G McIntyre intervening on behalf of the Kimberley Land Council (instructed by Kimberley Land Council) D F Jackson QC with S J Gageler SC intervening on behalf of the Lardil, Kaiadilt Yangkaal and Gangalidda Peoples (instructed by Chalk & Fitzgerald) Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports. 4GVTKGXGFHTQO#WUV.++QP(GDTWCT[CV 8GTKH[XGTUKQP 5KIPGFD[#WUV.++ 4GVTKGXGFHTQO#WUV.++QP(GDTWCT[CV 8GTKH[XGTUKQP 5KIPGFD[#WUV.++ CATCHWORDS The Commonwealth v Yarmirr Yarmirr v Northern Territory Aboriginals – Native title in relation to waters – Application for determination of native title to seas, sea-bed and sub-soil – Territorial application of Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – Whether common law applies to territorial sea beyond low-water mark – Whether common law recognises native title in territorial sea beyond low-water mark – Whether recognition by common law influenced by legislative purpose of Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – Relevance of concept of radical title – Effect of successive acquisitions of sovereignty over the territorial sea and sea-bed by the Crown in right of the United Kingdom in 1824 and the Crown in right of the Commonwealth by the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth) – Nature and effect of right and title to the territorial sea and sea-bed vested in the Northern Territory by the Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Act 1980 (Cth). Aboriginals – Native title in relation to waters – Whether evidence demonstrated rights under traditional law and custom to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the territorial sea and sea-bed within the claimed area to the exclusion of all others – Whether evidence demonstrated right under traditional law and custom to exclusive fishery – Whether right of exclusive possession asserted effectively – Whether public rights to fish and to navigate and international right of innocent passage in territorial sea inconsistent with exclusive native title rights. Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15B. Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Act 1980 (Cth), s 5. Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Act 1980 (Cth), s 4. Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), ss 6, 11, 223, 225 and 253. Off-shore Waters (Application of Territory Laws) Act 1985 (NT), ss 2 and 3. Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth), ss 6, 7 and 11. 4GVTKGXGFHTQO#WUV.++QP(GDTWCT[CV 8GTKH[XGTUKQP 5KIPGFD[#WUV.++ 4GVTKGXGFHTQO#WUV.++QP(GDTWCT[CV 8GTKH[XGTUKQP 5KIPGFD[#WUV.++ 1 GLEESON CJ, GAUDRON, GUMMOW AND HAYNE JJ. Croker Island lies to the north of Cobourg Peninsula, a promontory of land at the north-western tip of Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory. Mary Yarmirr and others, on behalf of a number of clan groups 1, applied under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ("the Act") for determination of native title in respect of an area which the application said "may generally be described as the seas in the Croker Island region of the Northern Territory". (It is convenient to refer to the applicants and those whom they represented as "the claimants".) The area the subject of the application was set out on maps attached to the application for determination. The area included the seas and sea-beds contained within the area and extended to "any land or reefs contained within the boundary other than land or reefs which has been granted for the benefit of Aboriginal people pursuant to the [Commonwealth] Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976". Several islands, including Croker Island, lie within the claimed area. In 1980, pursuant to the last-mentioned Act, all of those islands were granted to the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust for the benefit of Aboriginal people. The islands were, therefore, excluded from the claim. Proceedings at first instance 2 The application was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia2. The primary judge (Olney J) determined that native title exists in relation to the sea and sea-bed within an area described in the determination, an area which, for present purposes, may be taken to be generally similar to the area claimed. It was determined that, where the area abuts the coast of an island or the mainland, the sea-bed in relation to which native title exists ends at the mean low-water mark, and the seas in relation to which those rights exist are the waters above that sea-bed and the waters above the inter-tidal zone adjacent to that sea-bed (being an area ending at the mean high-water mark). It was determined that the native title rights and interests "do not confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the sea and sea-bed within the claimed area to the exclusion of all others". The determination further provided that: 1 Described in the amended Native Title Determination Application as the Mandilarri-Ildugij, Mangalarra, Muran, Gadurra, Minaga, Ngayndjagar and Mayorram peoples. 2 Yarmirr v Northern Territory [No 2] (1998) 82 FCR 533. 4GVTKGXGFHTQO#WUV.++QP(GDTWCT[CV 8GTKH[XGTUKQP 5KIPGFD[#WUV.++ Gleeson CJ Gaudron J Gummow J Hayne J 2. "5. The native title rights and interests that the Court considers to be of importance are the rights and interests of the common law holders, in accordance with and subject to their traditional laws and customs to - (a) fish, hunt and gather within the claimed area for the purpose of satisfying their personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs including for the purpose of observing traditional, cultural, ritual and spiritual laws and customs; (b) have access to the sea and sea-bed within the claimed area for all or any of the following purposes: (i) to exercise all or any of the rights and interests referred to in subparagraph 5(a); (ii) to travel through or within the claimed area; (iii) to visit and protect places within the claimed area which are of cultural or spiritual importance; (iv) to safeguard the cultural and spiritual knowledge of the common law holders." (In the course of argument of the present appeals there was no discussion about what was meant by pars 5(b)(iii) and (iv) or how effect might be given to a right of access to "protect" places or "safeguard" knowledge.
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]
  • SCOTUS and the Origins of Australia's Scabrous Constitutional Signature Benjamen Franklen Guss
    Br. J. Am. Leg. Studies 10(1) (2021), DOI: 10.2478/bjals-2021-0001 The Engineers Case Centenary: SCOTUS and the Origins of Australia’s Scabrous Constitutional Signature Benjamen Franklen Gussen* Sahar Araghi** ABSTRACT Since the Engineers Case decision in 1920, the role of the United States Constitution in interpreting the Australian Constitution has been diminished, leading to inefficiencies in High Court of Australia (HCA) dealing with constitutional issues. To explain this thesis, the article looks at the 7,657 cases decided by the HCA, from the first case in 1903, to the 31st of August 2020, the centenary of the Engineers Case. The analysis identifies outliers that have much higher complexity (in terms of word- length) than the other judgments. This complexity has one common denominator: comparative analysis with the United States Constitution. The article explains why this common denominator has resulted in such complexity, and concludes with possible research extensions on the roles of the Australian judiciary in embracing SCOTUS jurisprudence when interpreting the Australian Constitution. KEYWORDS High Court of Australia (HCA), Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), The Engineers Case, Constitutional Signature, Complexity CONTENTS I. Introduction ....................................................................................... 29 II. Overview of High Court Cases 1903-2020 ...................................... 31 III. First Tier Outliers .......................................................................... 33 1
    [Show full text]
  • Ocean Management: the Legal Framework
    Assessment Report Ocean management the legal framework > Healthy wisely for the Healthy oceans: for the The South-east Regional Marine Plan Title: Ocean management – the legal framework The South-east Regional Marine Plan Assessment Reports Copyright: National Oceans Office 2002 Disclaimer: This report was prepared by the National Oceans Office to assist with consultation on the development of the South-east Regional Marine Plan, as part of the Commonwealth Government’s Australia’s Oceans Policy. The views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the contents of this report. Sourcing: Copies of this report are available from: The National Oceans Office Level 1, 80 Elizabeth St, Hobart GPO Box 2139 Hobart TAS 7001 Tel: +61 3 6221 5000 Fax: +61 3 6221 5050 www.oceans.gov.au For further information about this report, contact Ester Guerzoni, Public Affairs Officer, tel (03) 6221 5000. Reproduction: Information in this report may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes, subject to the inclusion of acknowledgment of the source and provided no commercial usage or sale of the material occurs. Reproduction for purposes other than those given above requires written permission from the National Oceans Office. Requests for permission should be addressed to the Public Affairs Officer, National Oceans Office, GPO Box 2139, Hobart TAS 7001. Credits: Design: CSIRO Marine Research Prepress: Photolith Printing: Printing Authority of Tasmania Published by the National Oceans Office Photographs: Ship in rough seas, cray pots © CSIRO Marine Research Division; king prawn tail © Karen Gowlett- Holmes; puffer fish and ship’s anchor © Dave Stephenson State Library Ref: Ocean management – the legal framework South-east Regional Marine Plan Assessment Reports 1-877043-20-6 The National Oceans Office is an Executive Agency of the Commonwealth Government of Australia Ocean management Contents Executive Summary .
    [Show full text]
  • A Regional Approach to Managing Aboriginal Land Title on Cape York1
    Chapter Thirteen A Regional Approach to Managing Aboriginal Land Title on Cape York1 Paul Memmott, Peter Blackwood and Scott McDougall In 1992 the High Court of Australia for the first time gave legal recognition to the common law native title land rights of the continent's indigenous people.2 The following year the Commonwealth Government of Australia passed the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA), which introduced a statutory scheme for the recognition of native title in those areas where Aboriginal groups have been able to maintain a traditional connection to land and where the actions of governments have not otherwise extinguished their prior title. Native title as it is codified in the NTA differs from Western forms of title in three significant ways. Firstly, it is premised on the group or communal ownership of land, rather than on private property rights; secondly, it is a recognition and registration of rights and interests in relation to areas of land which pre-date British sovereignty, rather than a formal grant of title by government (QDNRM 2005: 3); thirdly, it may coexist with forms of granted statutory title, such as pastoral leases, over the same tracts of land. While native title is a formal recognition of indigenous landownership and sets up a process of registration for such interests, it remains a codification within the Western legal framework, and as such is distinct from, though related to, Aboriginal systems of land tenure as perceived by Aboriginal groups themselves. This distinction is exemplified in the sentiment often expressed by Aboriginal people that their connection to country, and the rules and responsibilities attaching to this connection, continue to apply, irrespective of the legal title of the land under `whitefellow law'.
    [Show full text]
  • Seeing Visions and Dreaming Dreams Judicial Conference of Australia
    Seeing Visions and Dreaming Dreams Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium Chief Justice Robert French AC 7 October 2016, Canberra Thank you for inviting me to deliver the opening address at this Colloquium. It is the first and last time I will do so as Chief Justice. The soft pink tones of the constitutional sunset are deepening and the dusk of impending judicial irrelevance is advancing upon me. In a few weeks' time, on 25 November, it will have been thirty years to the day since I was commissioned as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The great Australian legal figures who sat on the Bench at my official welcome on 10 December 1986 have all gone from our midst — Sir Ronald Wilson, John Toohey, Sir Nigel Bowen and Sir Francis Burt. Two of my articled clerks from the 1970s are now on the Supreme Court of Western Australia. One of them has recently been appointed President of the Court of Appeal. They say you know you are getting old when policemen start looking young — a fortiori when the President of a Court of Appeal looks to you as though he has just emerged from Law School. The same trick of perspective leads me to see the Judicial Conference of Australia ('JCA') as a relatively recent innovation. Six years into my judicial career, in 1992, I attended a Supreme and Federal Courts Judges' Conference at which Justices Richard McGarvie and Ian Sheppard were talking about the establishment of a body to represent the common interests and concerns of judges, to defend the judiciary as an institution and, where appropriate, to defend individual judges who were the target of unfair and unwarranted criticisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Of the Barrister Class by the Hon Michael Mchugh AC, Introduction
    THE RISE (AND FALL?) OF THE BARRISTER CLASS BY THE HON MICHAEL McHUGH AC INTRODUCTION* The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG As barristers go, Michael McHugh's career was unusual. There was little about it that was privileged - except his intellect and drive. Born in Newcastle, he moved with his family to North Queensland at the age of seven because his father was seeking wartime work in the mines. On his return to Newcastle, at the age of thirteen, he attended the Marist Brothers' school. There, and from his father Jim, he learned two Irish Catholic lessons that were to remain with him throughout his life in the law. First, that there are rules to be obeyed. And secondly, that civil liberties matter. To the disappointment of Jim McHugh, the young Michael left school at age fifteen. He took odd jobs, including that of the proverbial telegram boy. But his questioning intellect soon took him back to the * Notes on which were based remarks in the Common Room of the New South Wales Bar Association on 20 August 2007 on the delivery by the Hon Michael McHugh AC of a Lecture in the series on Rhetoric. 2. Hamilton High School at night. He gained his matriculation. In 1958 he commenced studies for the Barristers' Admission Board, working during the day as a clerk for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Michael McHugh was admitted to the New South Wales Bar in 1961. He read with two fine advocates who once frequented this common room: John Wiliams QC, himself from Newcastle, and John Kearney QC.
    [Show full text]
  • Surviving Common Law: Silence and the Violence Internal to the Legal Sign
    SURVIVING COMMON LAW: SILENCE AND THE VIOLENCE INTERNAL TO THE LEGAL SIGN Peter D. Rush* It is a not uncommon situation nowadays: an indigenous person comes before the common law courts in Australia and asks for a response to the demands of injustice suffered. She is a member of the stolen generations and asks for relief.1 Another is accused of a crime and questions the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine his claim. He appears before the High Court of Australia as “Denis Bruce Walker, Bejam, Kunminarra, Jarlow, Nanaka Kabool, of Moongalba, via Goompie, Minjerribah, Quandamooka. I am the son of Oodgeroo of the tribe Noonuccal, custodian of the land Minjerribah.” He wants to be adjudged not only by the judges of the common law but also by the council of the Noonuccal. “I suspect you and your friends are trifling with me,” interjects the judge.2 Another tells the court that current as well as past and future governments are the heirs-at-law of the dispossession and death of the Wiradjuri people. Declarations recognizing aboriginal sovereignty and granting reparation for the appropriation of land and for the genocide of the Wiradjuri are requested. The High Court judge directly rejects the idea that any * Professor of Law, Law School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. This article was presented at the Derrida/America conference held at the Benajmin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, February 20-21, 2005. Thank you to Nasser Hussain for extensively discussing the thesis of the article and making sure that it did not get lost in the writing, and to Tom Dumm.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Select Committee on Native Title Rights in Western Australia
    REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIVE TITLE RIGHTS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA Presented by the Hon Tom Stephens MLC (Chairman) Report SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIVE TITLE RIGHTS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA Date first appointed: 17 September 1997 Terms of Reference: (1) A Select Committee of five members is hereby appointed. Three members of the committee shall be appointed from among those members supporting the Government. (2) The mover be the Chairperson of the Committee. (3) The Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on — (a) the Federal Government’s proposed 10 Point Plan on native title rights and interests, and its impact and effect on land management in Western Australia; (b) the efficacy of current processes by which conflicts or disputes over access or use of land are resolved or determined; (c) alternative and improved methods by which these conflicts or disputes can be resolved, with particular reference to the relevance of the regional and local agreement model as a method for the resolution of conflict; and (d) the role that the Western Australian Government should play in resolution of conflict between parties over disputes in relation to access or use of land. (4) The Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records and to move from place to place. (5) The Committee report to the House not later than November 27, 1997, and if the House do then stand adjourned the Committee do deliver its report to the President who shall cause the same to be printed by authority of this order. (6) Subject to the right of the Committee to hear evidence in private session where the nature of the evidence or the identity of the witness renders it desirable, the proceedings of the Committee during the hearing of evidence are open to accredited news media representatives and the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Title – a Constitutional Shift?*
    University of Melbourne Law School JD Lecture Series 24 March 2009 Native Title – A Constitutional Shift?* Introduction The recognition of indigenous customary title to land and waters in Australia has been a part of Australia's constitutional history, constitutional in the "C" and "c" senses. That is not surprising for it has involved fundamental questions about the basis upon which Australia was colonised in the 18th century, the relationship between the law of the colonies, the common law of England, the provisions of the written Constitution that came into existence in 1901 and the law and custom of the indigenous inhabitants. The constitutional story is also part of a story of Australia's emergence as a nation State in a global community of nations which has become in some respects a global society. In this lecture I will offer an overview of major developments leading to the recognition of indigenous land rights in Australia. Pre-history The colonisation of inhabited territories has given rise over many generations to acute social, economic and legal questions which persist to the present day. Some of those legal questions, relevant to customary title for land, were set out by Professor Kent McNeil in his book, Common Law Aboriginal Title1: * This paper reproduces elements of previous papers given by the same author including: French, "The Constitution and the People" in French, Lindell and Saunders (eds) Reflections on the Australian Constitution (Federation Press, 2003) at 68-85; French, The Role of the High Court in the Recognition
    [Show full text]
  • Native Title from the Perspective of International Standards'
    Native Title from the Perspective of International Standards' Sarah Pritchard* I. Introduction In 1992 in Mabo v Queensland (No 2)2 the High Court of Australia held that the common law of Australia recognises a form of native title to land. The Court held that pre-existing rights to land survived colonisation and continue to exist today, where they have not been extinguished by legislation or by an action of government which shows a clear and plain intention inconsistent with the continued exercise of native title rights. The Federal Government responded to Mabo (No 2) with the passage of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA). In 1996 the new Federal Government introduced a Bill proposing a number of amendments to the NTA. Also in 1996, in Wik Peoples v Queensland, the High Court held that the granting of a pastoral lease did not necessarily extinguish native title, and that the rights of native title holders can coexist with those of pastoral leaseholders.3 In 1997 the Government introduced a Native Title Amendment Bill incorporating amendments to the NT A proposed in 1996, as well as amendments arising specifically out of the High Court's Wik decision. After protracted rounds of debate in the Senate in November and December 1997, April 1998 and July 1998, the Native Title Amendment Bill was passed by the Senate on 8 July 1998. The Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth) (NTAA) received the Royal Assent on 27 July. The commencement of its provisions on 30 September 1998 will conclude a turbulent period in Australian political life.
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal History Journal: Volume 21
    Aboriginal History Volume twenty-one 1997 Aboriginal History Incorporated The Committee of Management and the Editorial Board Peter Read (Chair), Rob Paton (Secretary), Peter Grimshaw (Treasurer/Public Officer), Neil Andrews, Richard Baker, Ann Curthoys, Brian Egloff, Geoff Gray, Niel Gunson, Luise Hercus, Bill Humes, Ian Keen, David Johnston, Harold Koch, Isabel McBryde, Diane Smith, Elspeth Young. Correspondents Jeremy Beckett, Valerie Chapman, Ian Clark, Eve Fesl, Fay Gale, Ronald Lampert, Campbell Macknight, Ewan Morris, John Mulvaney, Andrew Markus, Bob Reece, Henry Reynolds, Shirley Roser, Lyndall Ryan, Bruce Shaw, Tom Stannage, Robert Tonkinson, James Urry. Aboriginal History aims to present articles and information in the field of Australian ethnohistory, particularly in the post-contact history of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. Historical studies based on anthropological, archaeological, linguistic and sociological research, including comparative studies of other ethnic groups such as Pacific Islanders in Australia will be welcomed. Issues include recorded oral traditions and biographies, narratives in local languages with translations, previously unpublished manuscript accounts, resumes of current events, archival and bibliographical articles, and book reviews. Editors 1997 Rob Paton and Di Smith, Editors, Luise Hercus, Review Editor and Ian Howie Willis, Managing Editor. Aboriginal History Monograph Series Published occasionally, the monographs present longer discussions or a series of articles on single subjects of contemporary interest. Previous monograph titles are D. Barwick, M. Mace and T. Stannage (eds), Handbook of Aboriginal and Islander History; Diane Bell and Pam Ditton, Law: the old the nexo; Peter Sutton, Country: Aboriginal boundaries and land ownership in Australia; Link-Up (NSW) and Tikka Wilson, In the Best Interest of the Child? Stolen children: Aboriginal pain/white shame, Jane Simpson and Luise Hercus, History in Portraits: biographies of nineteenth century South Australian Aboriginal people.
    [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]