[1] For example Torrens title and old system title.
[2] Mabo v Queensland (No2) (1992) 175 CLR; 107 ALR 1.
[3] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1at 61; 107 ALR 1 at 44 per Brennan J.
[4] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 61; 107 ALR 1 at 44 per Brennan J; 175 CLR 1 at 110; 107 ALR 1 at 83 per Deane & Gaudron JJ.
[5] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 61; 107 ALR 1 at 44 per Brennan J
[6] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 61; 107 ALR 1 at 44 per Brennan J per Deane & Gaudron J; 175 CLR 1 at 132-133; 10
[7] ALR at 101-102 per Dawson J. 7 Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 132-133; 107 ALR 1 at 101-102 per Dawson J.
[8] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 214; 107 ALR 1 at 167 per Toohey J.
[9] Ward v Western Australia (2000) 170 ALR 159 at 178. The same concept was also taken up in Western Australia v Ward [2000] ACA 28 (8 August 2002) para 95.
[10] Cooper v Stuart (1889) 14 App Cas 286; Attorney General v Brown (1847) 1 Legge 312.
[11] Mabo v Queensland (No2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 ; ALR 1.
[12] Mabo v Queensland (No2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 58 ; ALR 1 at 42.
[13] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 57; 107 ALR 1 at 41 per Brennan J. Similar expressions are to be found at 175 CLR at 81-82; 107 ALR 1 at 60-61 Deane & Gaudron JJ, and at 175 CLR 1 at 182-184; 107 ALR at 142- 143 per Toohey J.
[14] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR at 70; 107 ALR 1 at 51 per Brennan J.
[15] Mabo v Queensland (No2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 59-60; 107 ALR 1 at 43.
[16] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1; 107 ALR 1.
[17] S Motha, 'Mabo: the Recognition of Difference,' (1998) 7 (1) Griffith Law Review, at 83.
[18] Note that Native Title Act 1993 s 223(1) recognises individual and group rights in relation to land or waters that are recognised by the common law.
[19] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1at 89; 107 ALR 1 at 67.
[20] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 51; 107 ALR 1at 36.
[21] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 51; 107 ALR 1at 36.
[22] United States v Alcea Band of Tillamooks 1 329 US 40 at 49,52 (1946).
[23] Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1988] I CNLR 14 at 113 (SC (Can)).
[24] See discussion in R Bartlett, Native Title in Australia, Butterworths, Sydney, 2000, p188.
[25] Contrast this with the general principle of contract law which upholds privity of contract so that a right is only enforceable against the parties to the contract.
[26] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 187; 107 ALR 1 at 146.
[27] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 196; 107 ALR 1 at 153. According to Toohey J if extinguishment took place compensation would flow. Wrongful extinguishment could not occur. However, in Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1; 141 ALR 129 Toohey J together with Gaudron, Gummow and Kirby JJ concluded that native title could be extinguished without compensation if there is a clear and plain intention for that to occur. See discussion in R Bartlett, Native Title in Australia, Butterworths, Sydney, 2001 p 184- 187.
[28] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 213; 107 ALR 1 at 167.
[29] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 206; 107 ALR 1 at 161.
[30] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 187; 107 ALR 1 at 146.
[31] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 51; 107 ALR 1 at 36.
[32] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 60; 107 ALR 1 at 43.
[33] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 61; 107 ALR 1 at 44.
[34] N Pearson, Principles of Communal Native Title 5, (3) (2000) Indigenous Law Bulletin 4-9.
[35] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 60; 107 ALR 1 at 43.
[36] See also J Webber , 'Beyond Regret: Mabo's Implications For Australian Constitutionalism' in D Ivison, P Patton, W Sanders, Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, p61.
[37] Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1; 141 ALR 129
[38] Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 126-127; 141 ALR at 185
[39] Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 169; 141 ALR at 220
[40] Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1; 141 ALR 129
[41] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1; 107 ALR 1; Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1; 1
[41] ALR 129
[42] R Bartlett, Native Title in Australia, Butterworths, Sydney, 2000, p185. This point was taken up in a slightly different fashion in Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 122 where the Court rejected the 'argument that native title can be treated differently from other forms of title because native title has different characterisitics from those other forms of title and derives from a different source.'
[43] The Commonwealth v Yarmirr; Yarmirr v the Northern Territory [2001] HCA 56 (11 October 2001) para 11; 184 ALR 113 at 121.
[44] Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 FLR 141.
[45] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 59; 107 ALR 1 at 42 per Brennan J; at CLR 88, 110; ALR 66, 83 per Deane, Gaudron JJ. It can, of course, be surrendered to the Crown.
[46] It is acknowledged that technically a lease has historically been classified as personalty, although today it is treated as proprietary in nature, as well (as having a contractual element).
[47] View is supported by R Bartlett, The Mabo Decision- Commentary and Full Text of the Decision in Mabo and others v State of Queensland, Butterworths, Sydney, 1993, pxv. Further, cases such as the Commonwealth v Yarmirr; Yarmirr v Northern Territory [2001] HCA 56 (11 October 2001) para 70; 184 ALR 113 at 138 have spelt out the various ways in which native title rights may be used and enjoyed.
[48] Calder v Attorney-General of British Columbia (1973) 34 DLR (3rd) 145 (Sc Can); St Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co v R (1888) 14 App Cas 46.
[49] Ward v Western Australia (1998) 159 ALR 483 (Lee J). Known as the Miriuwung Gajerrong Determination.
[50] Hayes v Northern Territory [1999] FCA 1248. Known as the Arrernte Determination.
[51] See L Strelein, 'Conceptualising Native Title', (2001) 23 (1) Sydney Law Review, 95 at 99. See 'Minute of Order' (Lee J) in Miriuwung Gagerrong determination and 'Draft Minute of Proposed Determination of Native Title' (Olney J) in the Arrernte determination.
[52] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (28 August, 2002).
[53] Commonwealth v Yarmirr; Yarmirr v Northern Territory [2001] HCA 56 (11 October 2001) para 87; 184 ALR 113 at 142.
[54] The question of inconsistency arises in Wik Peoples v Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1; 141 ALR 1.
[55] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 89; 107 ALR 1 at 66.
[56] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 89; 107 ALR 1 at 66-67.
[57] Attorney - General (Quebec) v A-G (Canada) (1921) 1 AC 401 at 408.
[58] Delgamuukw v British Columbia [1988] I CNLR 14 at 113.
[59] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 51; 107 ALR 1 at 36.
[60] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 51; 107 ALR 1 at 36.
[61] Palmer, 'Aboriginal Land Ownership Among the Southern Pitjantjatjara of the Great Victorian Desert', in H McRae, G Nettheim, & L Beacroft, Indigenous Legal Issues, LBC, Sydney, 1997, p90.
[62] Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 51; 107 ALR 1 at 36.
[63] Commonwealth v Yarmirr; [2001] HCA 56 (11 October, 2001) para 301.
[64] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002)
[65] Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1; 141 ALR 129.
[66] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 477.
[67] Another example of an interest that can be alienated in limited circumstances only (eg pur autre vie) but still remains a property interest, is a life estate. See M Neave, C Rossiter & M Stone, Sackville and Neave, Property Law- Cases and Materials, Butterworths, Sydney, 1999, p171.
[68] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 89.
[69] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 89.
[70] One of these benefits is that compensation would flow on its loss. This issue is discussed later.
[71] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002).
[72] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 82.
[73] R Bartlett, Native Title in Australia, Butterworths, Sydney, 2000, p184 seems to favour a proprietary analysis of native title. Note also Brennan J in Mabo v Queensland (No2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 58-62; 107 ALR 1 at 42-45.
[74] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 90.
[75] See Commonwealth v Yarmirr; Yarmirr v the Northern Territory [2001] HCA 56 (11 October 2001); (2001) 184 ALR 113.
[76] This is the approach adopted in Brennan J's judgement in Mabo (No2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 58-62; 107 ALR 1 and implicitly followed by the great majority of subsequent commentators and judgements. See especially his discussion of the recognition and enforcement of native title by the ordinary courts at 42-5 of that decision.
[77] J Webber in D Ivison, P Patton, W Sanders, Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, p61.
[78] J Webber in D Ivison, P Patton, W Sanders, Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, p61.
[79] D Sweeney, 'Fishing, Hunting and Gathering Rights of Aboriginal Peoples in Australia' (1993) 16 (1) University of New South Wales Law Journal, 97 at 104.
[80] M Harris, 'Native Title in Australia- the frustration of Indigenous aspirations' paper delivered at the Law and Society Conference, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary, 4-7 July, 2001.
[81] For a discussion of incommensurability, a concept related to the process of interpretation of Indigenous traditions and customs, see P Fitzpatrick, 'Passions out of Place, Incommensurability and Resistance' (1995) Vol 1 (1) Law and Critique, 96.
[82] L Strelein, 'Conceptualising Native Title' (2001) 23 (1) Sydney Law Review, 95 at 97.
[83] R Bartlett, Native Title in Australia, Butterworths, Sydney, 2000 p184-197; R Bartlett, 'The Proprietary Nature of Native Title' (1993) Vol 6 APLJ Lexis 1. K McNeil, Common Law Aboriginal Title, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989; D Rose, 'The 10 Point Plan- Its Constitutional Validity' (1998) 17 AMPLJ, 216 at 225. K Gray & S Gray, 'The Idea of Property in Land' in S Bright & J Dewar (eds), Land Law: Themes and Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998.
[84] With the exception of Kirby J.
[85] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002).
[86] Clunies-Ross v Commonwealth (1984) 155 CLR 193 at 202; 55 ALR 609 at 612
[87] Minister for the Army v Dalziel (1944) 68 CLR 261 at 285
[88] Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1 at 349
[89] For a more detailed analysis of this and other points concerning compensation see R Bartlett, Native Title in Australia, Butterworths 2000, pp187-191.
[90] See Geordiadis v Australia and Overseas Telecommunications Corp (1994) 179 CLR 297 at 314, 319-20; 119 ALR 629 at 633-5, 639 and R Bartlett, Native Title in Australia, Butterworths 2000, p 190.
[91] The Commonwealth v Yarmirr; Yarmirr v Northern Territory [2001] HCA 56 (11 October, 2001) para 11; 184 ALR 113 at 121.
[92] Sadly it is a common refrain that moral rights and legal rights are not always the same. For example a trust offering eleemosynary relief does not necessarily give rise to a trust for a charitable purpose.
[93] quoting Tucker v US Dept of Commerce 958 F 2d 1411 at 1413 (7th Cir 1992) per Posner J.
[94] The Commonwealth v Yarmirr; Yarmirr v Northern Territory [2001] HCA 56 (11 October 2001) para 236; 184 ALR 113 at 177 per Mc Hugh J quoting himself and Gaudron J in Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71 at 115.
[95] Perhaps the respect should arise from a desire to preserve doctrinal purity.
[96] If the instances where native title were extinguished were reduced the need for compensation for its loss would be reduced.
[97] J Webber, 'Beyond Regret: Mabo's Implications For Australian Constitutionalism' in D Ivison, P Patton & W Sanders, Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, p82.
[98] N Pearson, Principles of Communal Native Title, 5 (3) Indigenous Law Bulletin, 4.
[99] L Strelein, 'Conceptualising Native Title', (2001) 23 (1) Sydney Law Review, 95 at 98.
[100] Ward v Western Australia (2000) 170 ALR 159 at 178.
[101] Ward v Western Australia (2000) 170 ALR 159 at 178. See discussion in L Strelein, 'Conceptualising Native Title' (2001) 23 (1) Sydney Law Review, 95 at 102.
[102] Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96 at 151.
[103] Western Australia v Ward (2000) 170 ALR 159.
[104] The Commonwealth v Yarmirr; Yarmirr v Northern Territory [2001] HCA 56 (11 October, 2001) para 12; 184 ALR 113 at 121.
[105] The Commonwealth v Yarmirr; Yarmirr v Northern Territory [2001] HCA 56 (11 October, 2001) para 12; 184 ALR 113 at 121.
[106] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 95.
[107] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 95. Note that Kirby J was in the majority but he expressed his views in a separate judgement.
[108] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 95.
[109] L Strelein, 'Conceptualising Native Title' (2001) 23 (1) Sydney Law Review, 95 at 103.
[110] Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Mc Hugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ referred to the existence of the intersection in Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) CLR 96 at 128.
[111] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002).
[112] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 85.
[113] J Webber, 'Beyond Regret: Mabo's implications for Australian Constitutionalism' in D Ivison, P Patton, W Sanders, Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[114] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 580.
[115] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 580.
[116] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 580.
[117] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 578.
[118] Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 578 per Kirby J.
[119] In Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002) para 583 per Kirby J refers to the Court's concern in Bulun Bulun v R &T Textiles Pty Ltd (1988) 86 FCR 244 that recognizing rights analogous to intellectual property would fracture the 'skeletal principle' of the common law. The 'skeletal' analogy was first employed by Brennan J in Mabo v Queensland (No2) (1992) 175 CLR1; 107 ALR at 43.