82-536: Wik Peoples v The State of Queensland (commonly known as the Wik decision ) is a decision of the High Court of Australia delivered on 23 December 1996, on whether statutory leases extinguish native title rights. The court found that the statutory pastoral leases under consideration by the court did not bestow rights of exclusive possession on the leaseholder. As a result, native title rights could coexist depending on
164-536: A separation of powers . The original formulation of Griffith, Barton and Kingston provided only that the parliament could establish a court. The draft was later amended at various conventions. In Adelaide the court's proposed name was changed to be the "High Court of Australia". Many people opposed the idea of the new court completely replacing the Privy Council. Commercial interests, particularly subsidiaries of British companies preferred to operate under
246-663: A "10-point plan" to bring certainty to land ownership in Australia. This plan led to the longest debate in the Australian Senate’s history. In 1992, the High Court held in Mabo that the common law of Australia recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had a form of "native title," which reflected the entitlement of indigenous inhabitants to their traditional lands in accordance with their laws or customs. Native title
328-598: A certificate of appeal would be granted by the High Court. In 1986, with the passing of the Australia Act by both the UK Parliament and the Commonwealth Parliament (with the request and consent of the states), appeals to the Privy Council from state supreme courts were closed off, leaving the High Court as the only avenue of appeal. In 2002, Chief Justice Murray Gleeson said that
410-615: A dedicated courtroom was built in Little Bourke Street , next to the Supreme Court of Victoria . That space provided the court's Melbourne sitting place and housed the court's principal registry until 1980. The court also sat regularly in Sydney, sharing space in the criminal courts of Darlinghurst Courthouse , before a dedicated courtroom was constructed next door in 1923. The court travelled to other cities across
492-549: A notable controversy when the Constitution was drafted. Section 74 of the Constitution as it was put to voters, stated that there would be no appeals to the privy council in any matter involving the interpretation of the Constitution or state constitutions. The section as enacted by the Imperial Parliament was different. It only prohibited appeals on constitutional disputes regarding the respective powers of
574-642: A pact Japan had entered with the Axis powers prior to his arrival in Tokyo . Owen Dixon was also absent for several years of his appointment, while serving as Australia's minister to the United States in Washington . Sir George Rich acted as chief justice during Latham's absence. From 1952, with the appointment of Sir Owen Dixon as chief justice, the court entered a period of stability. After World War II,
656-635: A panel of five judges and sometimes by a single judge), the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia . In the Australian court hierarchy , the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the supreme courts of each of the states and territories. In relation to the other courts in the federal stream, it is superior to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for all jurisdictions except family law . It
738-484: A press conference held up a map of Australia purporting to show how much of Australia was at risk from native title claims. The Bulletin led with a cover in December 1997 depicting "Land Rights: How Much is Too Much" with the clear implication that all land holdings in Australia were under threat from native title claims as a result of the decision. Others pointed out that the decision only affected leasehold land and not
820-541: A proposition for: The decision provoked significant political and public reactions in Australia. Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson said that “country people are concerned with the Wik Native Title problem" Some State Premiers went further and publicly commented that suburban backyards were under threat from native title claims. Queensland Premier Rob Borbidge even commented that some of the High Court judges were "dills about history." Prime Minister John Howard in
902-487: A question of law is raised which is of public importance, involves a conflict between courts or "is in the interests of the administration of justice". Special leave hearings are typically presided over by a panel of two or three justices of the High Court. Parties are typically limited to an oral submission of 20 minutes, in addition to any written submissions. Appeals to the United Kingdom's Privy Council were
SECTION 10
#1732773371624984-553: A reaction in London which prevented any serious attempt to implement the bill through the British Imperial Parliament . Another draft bill was proposed in 1880 for the establishment of an Australasian court of appeal. The proposed court would consist of one judge from each of the colonial supreme courts, who would serve one-year terms. However, the proposed court allowed for appeals to the Privy Council, which
1066-547: A special Act of Parliament called the Aurukun Associates Act 1975 (Qld). There was an initial win in the Supreme Court of Queensland against the lease. However, an appeal to the Privy Council in London led to the decision being overturned. In the 1970s, the then-Aboriginal Development Commission attempted to purchase part of a pastoral lease. This lease was over part of traditional lands used by
1148-604: A sticking point however; with objections made by Secretary of State for the Colonies , Joseph Chamberlain , the Chief Justice of South Australia, Sir Samuel Way , and Samuel Griffith , among others. In October 1899, Griffith made representations to Chamberlain soliciting suggestions from British ministers for alterations to the draft, and offered alterations of his own. Indeed, such was the effect of these and other representations that Chamberlain called for delegates from
1230-595: A unanimous judgment rejecting the authority of the House of Lords decision in DPP v Smith , writing, "I shall not depart from the law on this matter as we have long since laid it down in this Court and I think that Smith's case should not be used in Australia as authority at all." The Privy Council overturned this by enforcing the UK precedent upon the High Court the following year. Thirteen High Court judges have heard cases as part of
1312-501: Is determined by sections 75 and 76 of Australia's Constitution. Section 75 confers original jurisdiction in all matters: Section 76 provides that Parliament may confer original jurisdiction in relation to matters: Constitutional matters, referred to in section 76(i), were conferred on the High Court by section 30 of the Judiciary Act 1903 . Whilst it may seem that the inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76 means that
1394-428: Is divided in its exercise between constitutional and federal cases which loom so largely in the public eye, and the great body of litigation between man and man, or even man and government, which has nothing to do with the Constitution, and which is the principal preoccupation of the court The broad jurisdiction of the High Court means that it has an important role in Australia's legal system. Its original jurisdiction
1476-462: Is empowered by section 73 of the Constitution to hear appeals from the supreme courts of the states and territories; as well as any court exercising federal jurisdiction. It may also hear appeals of decisions made in an exercise of its own original jurisdiction. The High Court's appellate jurisdiction is limited by the Judiciary Act , which requires special leave to be granted before the hearing of an appeal. Special leave may only be granted where
1558-617: Is the apex court of the Australian legal system . It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation. The High Court was established following the passage of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) . Its authority derives from chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests it (and other courts the Parliament creates) with
1640-514: The Constitution Alteration (Retirement of Judges) 1977 , which upon its commencement on 29 July 1977 amended section 72 of the Constitution so as require that all justices appointed from then on must retire on attaining the age of 70 years. Federal Court of Australia The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law (with
1722-867: The Archer River and the Edward River . The term Wik actually means "speech" or "language" in the Aboriginal languages of the region. The Wik people have previously litigated native title-type claims. In 1975, part of the Aboriginal reserve at Aurukun created in 1957 had been excised by the Queensland Government for a bauxite mining lease. The lease was granted to the Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty Limited ( Comalco ) through
SECTION 20
#17327733716241804-616: The Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court have been set up to reduce the court's workload in specific areas. In 1968, appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation were barred. In 1986, with the passage of the Australia Acts direct appeals to the Privy Council from state Supreme Courts were also closed off. The life tenure of High Court justices ended in 1977. A national referendum in May 1977 approved
1886-435: The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia on all general federal law matters ( family law matters are appealed to Division 1 of that Court). The Court also exercises general appellate jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters on appeal from the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island ; and exercises appellate jurisdiction in appeals from state supreme courts in some federal matters. Other federal courts and tribunals where
1968-484: The Supreme Court of Nauru in both criminal and civil cases, but not constitutional matters. There were a total of five appeals to the High Court under this agreement in the first 40 years of its operation. In 2017, however, this jumped to 13 appeals, most relating to asylum seekers. At the time some legal commentators argued that this appellate jurisdiction sat awkwardly with the High Court's other responsibilities, and ought be renegotiated or repealed. Anomalies included
2050-582: The judicial power of the Commonwealth. Its internal processes are governed by the High Court of Australia Act 1979 (Cth). The court consists of seven justices, including a chief justice , currently Stephen Gageler . Justices of the High Court are appointed by the governor-general on the formal advice of the attorney-general following the approval of the prime minister and Cabinet . They are appointed permanently until their mandatory retirement at age 70, unless they retire earlier. Typically,
2132-566: The "Winchanam" clan. The Bjelke-Petersen government refused to allow the purchase of the lease. A challenge in the High Court ensued, and the action was won by the corporation. However, the Queensland Government frustrated the decision by declaring the land a national park. The Wik people and the Thayorre people claimed to be the holders of native titles over two areas of land. The first is known as "Holroyd River Holding" and
2214-454: The "combined effect" of the legislation and the announcement in Kirmani "has been that s 74 has become a dead letter, and what remains of s 74 after the legislation limiting appeals to the Privy Council will have no further effect". Following an agreement between Nauru and Australia signed on 6 September 1976, the High Court became Nauru's apex court. It was empowered to hear appeals from
2296-498: The Aboriginal direction (and) the 10 Point Plan will return the pendulum to the centre". The Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 (Cth) was drawn up to implement the plan. It was introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament on 4 September 1997. It was passed by the House of Representatives, however, the Senate made 217 amendments to the bill and returned it to the lower house for reconsideration. The House of Representatives agreed to half of
2378-764: The Court exercises appellate jurisdiction include the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission . The Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court and Northern Territory Supreme Court over civil matters arising under those Territories' laws. It also has the power to interpret the Constitution . The jurisdiction of
2460-488: The Court. Drummond heard the claim between 17 and 26 October and 14 and 15 December 1994. He delivered his decision 29 January 1996 in Brisbane. On 29 January 1996 Drummond gave judgment on the five preliminary questions that had been identified. He found that the granting of the leases over the two land claims extinguished any native title rights to those lands. In Drummond’s opinion, each lease gave exclusive possession to
2542-532: The Federal Court of Australia includes the jurisdiction previously exercised by three former federal courts, the Federal Court of Bankruptcy , Commonwealth Industrial Court and Industrial Relations Court of Australia . The Federal Court of Bankruptcy had jurisdiction in bankruptcy matters and was created in 1930. The jurisdiction in bankruptcy was transferred to the Federal Court of Australia on its establishment in 1977. The Commonwealth Industrial Court
Wik Peoples v Queensland - Misplaced Pages Continue
2624-563: The High Court's original jurisdiction regarding constitutional matters could be removed, in practice section 75(iii) (suing the Commonwealth) and section 75(iv) (conflicts between states) are broad enough that many constitutional matters would still be within its jurisdiction. The original constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is now well established; the Australian Law Reform Commission has described
2706-611: The High Court. Following a court-packing attempt by the Labor Prime Minister Andrew Fisher In February 1913, the bench was increased again to a total to seven. Charles Powers and Albert Bathurst Piddington were appointed. These appointments generated an outcry, however, and Piddington resigned on 5 April 1913 after serving only one month as High Court justice. The High Court continued its Banco location in Melbourne until 1928, until
2788-605: The Land Act 1910. The lessees did not take up actual possession of the land. The first lease was forfeited for non-payment of rent in 1918. A second lease was granted in 1919. The new lessee also did not take up possession. The lease was surrendered in 1921. Each lease was issued for pastoral purposes. Since 1922 the land had been reserved for the benefit of Aboriginals. Both the Wik people and the Thayorre People made claims over
2870-574: The Privy Council regularly heard appeals against High Court decisions. In some cases the Council acknowledged that the Australian common law had developed differently from English law and thus did not apply its own principles. Other times it followed English authority, and overruled decisions of the High Court. This arrangement led to tensions between the High Court and the Privy Council. In Parker v The Queen (1964), Chief Justice Owen Dixon led
2952-418: The Privy Council. Sir Isaac Isaacs is the only judge to have sat on an appeal from the High Court, in 1936 after his retirement as governor-general. Sir Garfield Barwick insisted on an amendment to Privy Council procedure to allow dissent; however, he exercised that capacity only once. The appeals mostly related to decisions from other Commonwealth countries, although they occasionally included appeals from
3034-849: The Queensland Government pursuant to the Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty Limited Agreement Act 1957 (Qld) and the Aurukun Associates Agreement Act 1975 (Qld). These claims were brought before the commencement of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), came into operation. That law came into being because of the High Court’s decision in Mabo v Queensland (No 2). The Holroyd River Holding is 1,119 square miles (2,900 km) in area. The first Holroyd lease
3116-477: The Supreme Court of Queensland held that pastoral leases did confer a right of exclusive possession which reflected a common belief at that time that leases did extinguish native title. Del Villar points to despatches from Earl Grey in which there is the clear implication that native title was not to be respected when granting pastoral leases. High Court of Australia The High Court of Australia
3198-622: The area. There were also what were called the Comalco and Aurukun matters. Comalco Aluminium Ltd held several bauxite mining leases issued by the Queensland State Government under the Comalco Act 1957 (Qld). In each of these claims, the Wik peoples alleged that the mining leases were invalid because the Queensland Government owed fiduciary duties as a trustee to the Wik people, and that those duties had been breached by
3280-482: The case to the Supreme Court "differently constituted, for hearing according to law". On Nauru's 50th anniversary of independence, Baron Waqa declared to parliament that "[s]everance of ties to Australia's highest court is a logical step towards full nationhood and an expression of confidence in Nauru's ability to determine its own destiny". Justice Minister David Adeang said that an additional reason for cutting ties
3362-420: The changes but returned the bill to the Senate again. It was eventually passed one year later on 8 July 1998 by the Senate after the longest debate in the history of the Senate. One commentator described the amendments to native title law as using a "legal sledge hammer to crack a political nut". Maureen Tehan describes the Wik decision as the high point in law for native title in Australia. The decision balanced
Wik Peoples v Queensland - Misplaced Pages Continue
3444-480: The colonies to come to London to assist with the approval process, with a view to their approving any alterations that the British government might see fit to make; delegates were sent, including Deakin, Barton and Charles Kingston , although they were under instructions that they would never agree to changes. After intense lobbying both in Australia and in the United Kingdom, the Imperial Parliament finally approved
3526-662: The colonies, an 1849 report from the Privy Council suggested a national court be created. In 1856, the Governor of South Australia , Richard MacDonnell , suggested to the Government of South Australia that they consider establishing a court to hear appeals from the Supreme Courts in each colony. In 1860 the South Australian Parliament passed legislation encouraging MacDonnell to put the idea to
3608-684: The country, where it would use facilities of the respective supreme courts. Deakin had envisaged that the court would sit in many different locations, so as to truly be a federal court. Shortly after the court's creation, Chief Justice Griffith established a schedule for sittings in state capitals: Hobart in February, Brisbane in June, Perth in September, and Adelaide in October. It has been said that Griffith established this schedule because those were
3690-441: The court operates by receiving applications for appeal from parties in a process called special leave . If a party's application is accepted, the court will proceed to a full hearing, usually with oral and written submissions from both parties. After conclusion of the hearing, the result is decided by the court. The special leave process does not apply in situations where the court elects to exercise its original jurisdiction; however,
3772-766: The court typically delegates its original jurisdiction to Australia's inferior courts. The court has resided in Canberra since 1980, following the construction of a purpose-built High Court building , located in the Parliamentary Triangle and overlooking Lake Burley Griffin . Sittings of the court previously rotated between state capitals, particularly Melbourne and Sydney , and the court continues to regularly sit outside Canberra. The High Court exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction . Sir Owen Dixon said on his swearing in as Chief Justice of Australia in 1952: The High Court's jurisdiction
3854-426: The court's workload continued to grow, particularly from the 1960s onwards, putting pressures on the court. Sir Garfield Barwick , who was attorney-general from 1958 to 1964, and from then until 1981 chief justice, proposed that more federal courts be established, as permitted under the Constitution. In 1976 the Federal Court of Australia was established, with a general federal jurisdiction, and in more recent years
3936-551: The court. Opponents instead proposed that the court should be made up of state supreme court justices, taking turns to sit on the High Court on a rotation basis, as had been mooted at the Constitutional Conventions a decade before. Deakin eventually negotiated amendments with the opposition , reducing the number of judges from five to three, and eliminating financial benefits such as pensions. At one point, Deakin threatened to resign as Attorney-General due to
4018-492: The decision in the Mabo case . The State of Queensland was the first respondent to the claim. The Commonwealth of Australia was the second respondent. At a later stage, the Thayorre People were also joined as respondents. The Thayorre people also cross-claimed because their claim overlapped the claim of the Wik Peoples. The matter came on for hearing before Drummond. Five preliminary questions were posed for determination by
4100-538: The design of the court as it was. Inglis Clark took the view that the possibility of divergence was a good thing, for the law could adapt appropriately to Australian circumstances. Despite this debate, the draft's judicial sections remained largely unchanged. After the draft had been approved by the electors of the colonies, it was taken to London in 1899 for the assent of the British Imperial Parliament. The issue of Privy Council appeals remained
4182-458: The difficulties he faced. In his three and a half hour second reading speech to the House of Representatives , Deakin said, The federation is constituted by distribution of powers, and it is this court which decides the orbit and boundary of every power... It is properly termed the keystone of the federal arch... The statute stands and will stand on the statute-book just as in the hour in which it
SECTION 50
#17327733716244264-403: The draft constitution. The draft as passed included an alteration to section 74, in a compromise between the two sides. It allowed for a general right of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council, but the Parliament of Australia could make laws restricting this avenue. In addition, appeals in inter se matters were not as of right, but had to be certified by the High Court. The High Court
4346-438: The exception of family law matters), along with some summary (less serious) and indictable (more serious) criminal matters . Cases are heard at first instance mostly by single judges. In cases of importance, a full court comprising three judges can be convened upon determination by the Chief Justice. The Court also has appellate jurisdiction, which is mostly exercised by a Full Court comprising three judges (although sometimes by
4428-483: The granting of the mining leases. The Aurukun claim also included an attack on an agreement called the Aurukun Associates Agreement entered into under the Aurukun Associates Agreement Act 1975 (Qld). The Wik peoples lodged their claim on 30 June 1993 in the Federal Court of Australia . The claim was lodged before the commencement of Native Title legislation, introduced into Australia following
4510-405: The inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76 rather than section 75 as "an odd fact of history". The 1998 Constitutional Convention recommended an amendment to the constitution to prevent the possibility of the jurisdiction being removed by Parliament. The word "matter" in sections 75 and 76 has been understood to mean that the High Court is unable to give advisory opinions. The court
4592-565: The lessees. Drummond did not have to decide whether the Wik people or the Thayorre people actually were the holders of native title rights in respect of the land. On 22 March 1996 Justice Spender granted the appellants leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court against the judgment. Subsequent to that grant leave, the High Court made orders that the appeal be removed into the High Court for determination by that court. The appeal
4674-440: The meaning of a “lease” as used in Australia at the time. The court focused on the purpose for which the leases were granted at that time in light of the social and economic conditions of the times. The minority judges wrote a single joint judgment. They focused on the leases as well, but concluded that the leases conferred the right to exclusive occupation of the land thereby extinguishing native title. The majority decision became
4756-416: The need to apply Nauruan law and customary practice, and that special leave hearings were not required. Nauruan politicians had said publicly that the Nauru government was unhappy about these arrangements. Of particular concern was a decision of the High Court in October 2017, which quashed an increase in sentence imposed upon political protestors by the Supreme Court of Nauru. The High Court had remitted
4838-460: The other colonies. However, only Victoria considered the proposal. At a Melbourne inter-colonial conference held in 1870, the idea of an inter-colonial court was again raised. A royal commission was established in Victoria to investigate options for establishing such a court, and a draft bill was put forward. This draft bill, however, completely excluded appeals to the Privy Council, causing
4920-511: The other is known as "Michellton Pastoral Leases." Their claim before the court was on the basis that their native title was not extinguished by the granting of the various leases over the land. They asserted that their native title rights continued and co-existed with the pastoral lease. The Wik Peoples also claimed declarations, which challenged the validity of the Special Bauxite Mining Leases which had been granted by
5002-418: The overwhelming majority of Australia which is freehold land held under “ fee simple ”. The High Court had made clear that native title was extinguished in that situation. They emphasised the “shared use” of the land with a theme of "co-existence." The Howard government promised a response to the decision and came up with the “Wik 10 Point Plan”. Howard argued the decision "pushed the pendulum back too far in
SECTION 60
#17327733716245084-408: The rights of the pastoralists and the rights of Aboriginal people, but placed the primacy of pastoral title over native title. Richard Bartlett argues that the decision placed great significance on the principle of equality at common law. Philip Hunter notes that criticism of the High Court was "totally unjustified". He states that the High Court recognised that native title was in no way destructive of
5166-479: The states and the Commonwealth (" inter se " matters), except where the High Court certified it appropriate for the appeal to be determined by Privy Council. This occurred only once, and the High Court has said it would never again grant a certificate of appeal. No certificate was required to appeal constitutional cases not involving inter se matters, such as in the interpretation of section 92 (the freedom of inter-state commerce section). On non- inter se matters,
5248-499: The supreme court of an Australian state. Section 74 allowed parliament to prevent appeals to the Privy Council. It did so in 1968 with the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 , which closed off all appeals to the Privy Council in matters involving federal legislation. In 1975, the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 closed all routes of appeal from the High Court; excepting for those in which
5330-484: The terms and nature of the particular pastoral lease . Where there was a conflict of rights, the rights under the pastoral lease would extinguish the remaining native title rights. The decision provoked a significant debate in Australian politics. It led to intense discussions on the validity of land holdings in Australia. Some political leaders criticised the court for being out of touch and for introducing uncertainty into Australian life. The Howard government formulated
5412-786: The times of year he found the weather most pleasant in each city. The tradition of special sittings remains to this day, although they are dependent on the court's caseload. There are annual sittings in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane for up to a week each year, and sittings in Hobart occur once every few years. Sittings outside of these special occurrences are conducted in Canberra. The court's operations were marked by various anomalies during World War II . The Chief Justice, Sir John Latham , served from 1940 to 1941 as Australia's first ambassador to Japan; however, his activities in that role were limited by
5494-532: The title of pastoralists. He points out that where native title clashed with pastoral interests, pastoral interests would always override native title. Frank Brennan described the approach of the court as taking into account an "incomplete reading of the history". Gim Del Villar goes further and argues that the Wik judgment is "flawed" from a historical perspective. He argues that the court used questionable historical material to reach its conclusion that pastoral leases were not common law leases. He notes that in 1870
5576-470: The unified jurisdiction of the British courts, and petitioned the conventions to that effect. Others argued that Australian judges were of a poorer quality than those of the English, and than the inevitable divergence in law that would occur without the oversight of the Privy Council; would put the legal system at risk. Some politicians (e.g. George Dibbs ) supported a retention of Privy Council supervision; whereas others, including Alfred Deakin , supported
5658-475: Was assented to. But the nation lives, grows and expands. Its circumstances change, its needs alter, and its problems present themselves with new faces. [The High Court] enables the Constitution to grow and be adapted to the changeful necessities and circumstances of generation after generation that the High Court operates. Deakin's friend, painter Tom Roberts , who viewed the speech from the public gallery, declared it Deakin's " magnum opus ". The Judiciary Act 1903
5740-416: Was disliked by some of the colonies, and the bill was abandoned. The idea of a federal supreme court was raised during the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s. A proposal for a supreme court of Australia was included in an 1891 draft. It was proposed to enable the court to hear appeals from the state supreme courts, with appeals to the Privy Council only occurring on assent from the British monarch . It
5822-447: Was established in 1956 as a result of the Boilermaker's case , where the High Court held that a Chapter III Court could not exercise a non-judicial power, the arbitral function, because of the constitutional separation of powers in Australia . The judicial functions were given to the newly created Commonwealth Industrial Court and the arbitral functions were given to Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission . The court
5904-570: Was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act. The Chief Justice of the Federal Court is Debra Mortimer . The Federal Court has no constitutional jurisdiction- its jurisdiction is provided by statute. The Court's original jurisdiction include matters arising from Commonwealth legislation such as, for example, matters relating to taxation, trade practices, native title, intellectual property, industrial relations, corporations, immigration and bankruptcy. The Federal Court of Australia also has appellate jurisdiction from Division 2 of
5986-504: Was finally passed on 25 August 1903, and the first three justices, Chief Justice Sir Samuel Griffith and justices Sir Edmund Barton and Richard O'Connor , were appointed on 5 October of that year. On 6 October, the court held its first sitting in the Banco Court in the Supreme Court of Victoria . On 12 October 1906, the size of the High Court was increased to five justices, and Deakin appointed H. B. Higgins and Isaac Isaacs to
6068-449: Was heard by the High Court between 11 and 13 June 1996 with all 7 judges sitting, Gerard Brennan CJ , Daryl Dawson , John Toohey , Mary Gaudron , Michael McHugh , William Gummow and Michael Kirby JJ . The court reserved its decision until 23 December 1996. The Court decided in favour of the Wik people by a four/three majority. Each of the majority judges wrote separate judgments in support of their decision. The majority focused on
6150-419: Was issued to Marie Stuart Perkins in 1945. It was granted under the Land Act of 1910 (Qld). This lease was surrendered in 1973. The first lease was granted for pastoral purposes. A second lease for thirty years was issued under the Land Act 1962 (Qld) in 1975 to John Herbert Broinowski, John Darling, James Maurice Gordon, and Ross Farm Pty Ltd. The second lease was not limited to pastoral purposes. The Holroyd land
6232-553: Was not defined by the Wik decision. However, it is commonly accepted to include rights to perform ceremonies or to gather foods or medicines. The Wik peoples are a grouping of Aboriginal Australians who reside in north-eastern Australia. They live in an area on the western Cape York Peninsula between 11° 40' and 14° 50' south latitude. The group comprises the peoples of Wik-Ompom, Wik-Mungkana, Wik-Paacha, Wik-Thinta, Wik-Ngathara, Wik-Epa, Wik-Me'anha, Wik-Nganthara, Wik-Nganychara, and Wik-Liyanh. Their traditional lands centre around
6314-487: Was not enough work for a federal court to make it viable. The then Attorney-General Alfred Deakin introduced the Judiciary Bill to the House of Representatives in 1902. Prior efforts had been continually delayed by opponents in the parliament, and the success of the bill is generally attributed to Deakin's passion and persistence. Deakin proposed that the court be composed of five judges, specially selected to
6396-427: Was not immediately established after Australia came into being. Some members of the first Parliament , including Sir John Quick , then one of the leading legal experts in Australia, opposed legislation to set up the court. Even H. B. Higgins , who was himself later appointed to the court, objected to setting it up, on the grounds that it would be impotent while Privy Council appeals remained, and that in any event there
6478-460: Was proposed that the Privy Council be prevented from hearing appeals on constitutional matters. This draft was largely the work of Sir Samuel Griffith , then the Premier of Queensland . The attorney-general of Tasmania Andrew Inglis Clark also contributed to the constitution's judicial clauses. Clark's most significant contribution was to give the court its own constitutional authority, ensuring
6560-724: Was renamed the Australian Industrial Court in 1973. In 1977 the jurisdiction of the Australian Industrial Court was transferred to the Federal Court of Australia. In 1993 the industrial relations jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia was transferred to the Industrial Relations Court of Australia , and transferred back to the Federal Court of Australia in 1996. The last judge of the Industrial Relations Court, Anthony North , retired in September 2018. The court
6642-727: Was subject solely to a claim by the Wik people. The Mitchellton Lease was 535 square miles (1,390 km) in area. It is located north of Normanton, in far north Queensland. The claim extends from the Mitchell River to the Edward River in the north and west to the Gulf of Carpentaria. It is in the District of Cook which was opened up for occupation in 1866. The first Michellton lease was granted to Alfred Joseph Smith, Thomas Alexander Simpson and Marshall Hanley Woodhouse in 1915 under
6724-478: Was the cost of appeals to the High Court. Nauru then exercised an option under its agreement with Australia to end its appellate arrangement with 90 days notice. The option was exercised on 12 December 2017 and the High Court's jurisdiction ended on 12 March 2018. The termination did not become publicly known until after the Supreme Court had reheard the case of the protesters and had again imposed increased sentences. Following Earl Grey 's 1846 proposal to federate
#623376