Wik Peoples v Queensland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
| Wik Peoples v Queensland | |
High Court of Australia |
|
| Full case name | The Wik Peoples v State of Queensland & Ors; The Thayorre People v State of Queensland & Ors |
| Date decided | December 23, 1996 |
| Citations | (1996) 187 CLR 1 |
| Judges sitting | Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow & Kirby JJ |
| Case history | |
|---|---|
| Prior actions: | Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 134 ALR 637 - Federal Court of Australia decision |
| Subsequent actions: | none |
| Case opinions | |
| (4:3) the pastoral leases in question did not extinguish native title (per Toohey, Gaudron, Gummow & Kirby JJ)
(4:3) native title rights and pastoral lease rights can coexist, but where they are inconsistent, the pastoral rights prevail (per Toohey, Gaudron, Gummow & Kirby JJ) |
|
The Wik Decision is a decision of the High Court of Australia in Wik Peoples v. The State of Queensland in December 1996, regarding the right of access by the Wik peoples of Cape York Peninsula in North Queensland to Crown land held under pastoral leases for cattle grazing. The court decided (4 judges to 3) that the rights of indigenous people who can prove a connection to the land can coexist with the rights of the leaseholders (or pastoralists), but where there is any inconsistency between the two, the rights of the pastoralist will prevail.
In other words, pastoral leases do not automatically give exclusive possession to the pastoralist, and therefore do not necessarily extinguish native title. This had been a major assumption upon which the Commonwealth Native Title Act had first been drafted.
Since the case, the Native Title Amendment Act has been created, introducing more stringent procedures for awarding Native Title.
