Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Australian Indigenous Law Reporter

Editors --- "Western Australia, Minister For Lands (WA) and Minister For Aboriginal Affairs (WA) v. Minister For Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Cth); Chapman and Others v. Tickner, Saunders and Others; Barton and Knott v. Tickner, Saunders and Others - Case Summary" [1996] AUIndigLawRpr 32; (1996) 1(1) Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 31

Western Australia, Minister For Lands (Wa) And Minister For Aboriginal Affairs (WA) v Minister For Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Cth);

Douglas And Douglas V. Minister For Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Cth);

Minister For Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Cth) V. Western Australia, Minister For Lands (Wa) And Minister For Aboriginal Affairs (Wa)

7 February 1995, Perth

Aborigines -- Special lease to extend crocodile farm on land that contained a significant Aboriginal
site -- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) -- Emergency declarations (s. 9) and permanent declaration (s. 10) made by Commonwealth Minister --
Applications for review under Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) --
Whether denial of natural justice in failing to provide notice and an opportunity to make submissions -- Whether error of law -- Whether no evidence -- Whether unreasonable -- Whether applicants
"persons aggrieved" so as to be entitled to seek judicial review and a statement of reasons -- Form of relief.

D. sought, and ultimately obtained, from the Minister for Lands (WA) a special lease of land to extend a crocodile farm which they operated near Broome. Yawuru Aboriginal people sought protection in respect of significant sites, first under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) and subsequently under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth).

The Commonwealth Minister made an emergency declaration under s. 9(1) which was extended by a second declaration under s. 9(3). He also decided not to revoke the first declaration as requested by the applicants. Later, the Minister made a third declaration under s. 10 to protect the area for five years, on the basis of a full report as required by the Act.

The State and State Ministers and D. applied under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) for orders relating to the first, second and third declarations and the decision not to revoke the first declaration. Grounds relied upon included denial of natural justice (procedural unfairness), error of law, no evidence and "Wednesbury" unreasonableness.

In a separate application, the Federal Minister argued that the State, the Lands Minister and the State Minister lacked standing. However, the Court dismissed that application.

Held, making declarations in relation to the first and second declarations and setting aside the third declaration, referring it to the Federal Minister for further consideration:

(1) The first and second declarations were affected by breaches of the rules of natural justice in that the applicants, being entitled, were denied reasonable notice of the intention to make the declarations and a reasonable opportunity to make submissions.

(2) The third declaration was affected by breaches of the rules of natural justice in the making of the declaration, particularly in the failure to provide the applicants with adequate information about fresh material and an opportunity to respond.

(3) The Minister failed to consider representations attached to the s. 10 report as required by
s. 10(1)(c) of the Act.

The decision has been taken on appeal to the full Federal Court.