Sentences with phrase «wik high court decisions»

Not exact matches

This aspect was not subsequently addressed in the High Court's ruling in the Wik case, and the first instance decision on mineral rights has since been judicially doubted because of subsequent High Court rulings about government «ownership» of resources: Justice North in the (minority of) the full Federal Court appeal decision in Ward - v - Western Australia observed of the Federal Court decision in Wik that «the conclusion that the mining legislation in Queensland conferred full beneficial ownership on the crown sufficient to extinguish native title can not be regarded as correct» (2000) 170 ALR 159 at para 843.

The justifiable aims proposed in relation to the amendments included the need to provide certainty to non-Indigenous and Indigenous titleholders; the need to deal with the High Court's decision in the Wik case; and the need to balance the interests of all the stakeholders in the legislation, including farmers, miners, developers, governments, and native title holders.

Prior to the High Court's decision in Wik v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1, (Wik), state governments carried out many acts on pastoral leasehold land without negotiating with native title holders.

Although a group formed primarily in response to the ten point plan in the wake of the High Court's Wik decision, this community action group, like many others, saw the issues of native title and the stolen children as inherently enmeshed.

The NTA provides a fairly comprehensive codification of what past government actions extinguish native title.145 It classifies various interests in the past, often distant past, as «previous exclusive possession acts» which deems them to have permanently extinguished native title.146 The NTA also provides that «previous non-exclusive possession acts» 147 will extinguish native title to the extent of any inconsistency.148 The NTA also validates acts of government that took place before the High Court's decision in Wik which may be invalid because of the existence of native title (generally, due to the Constitutional requirement that «just terms» be paid where property is acquired, 149 or the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).150 This aspect of the NTA has been repeatedly criticised by CERD.

Despite the later Mabo2 and Wik decisions of the High Court of Australia, and several obscure Native Title consent determinations, the Macumba Region is still waiting for decolonization, even today.

The NTA also provides that «previous non-exclusive possession acts» 6 will extinguish native title to the extent of any inconsistency7 and also validates acts of government that took place before the High Court's decision in Wik.

The title of the new provisions, «confirmation of past extinguishment», indicates a government intention to codify existing legal principles established in the few High Court decisions then available, principally Mabo (No 2), Wik [64] and the Fejo [65] decisions.

After that, where necessary, legislative change are needed to reverse the narrowing and constraining of native title that has taken place from the Wik amendments in 1998 and through the High Court decisions in Yorta Yorta76 and Ward.77 These matters are considered later in this report in the chapter on significant court decisCourt decisions in Yorta Yorta76 and Ward.77 These matters are considered later in this report in the chapter on significant court deciscourt decisions.