Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T01:39:03.136Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Gove Land Rights Case: A Judicial Dispensation for the Taking of Aboriginal Lands in Australia?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

John Hookey
John Hookey*
Affiliation:
School of General Studies, Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1971, Blackburn J., delivering a swingeing judgment in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, held that the members of three Arnhem I and clans had no legally recognizable rights in their ancestral lands, and thereby decided what was thought to be the first case brought by Australian aboriginals seeking legal recognition of their customary land rights.

British settlements were first established in Australia in 1788. Ever since it is a notorious fact that aboriginals have been consistently deprived of their land by settlers, miners and governments. The surprising thing therefore, to lawyers unfamiliar with the history of Australian race relations, is that aboriginal rights in land do not appear to have been asserted in the courts by aboriginal plaintiffs before the present proceedings began. The absence of reported cases dealing specifically with the rights of Australian aboriginals in their lands is all the more exceptional in the light of the wide range of decisions on indigenous claims in other murisdictions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 1972 , pp. 85 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Militrrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd and The Commonwealth of Australia (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141

2 Id., 150 199.

3 A number are discussed by Sir K. Roberts-Way in Commonwealth and Colonial Law (1966) Chap. 14.

4 E.g., Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1954) 348 US. 272; In Re The Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] N,Z,L.R. 461; Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (1969) 8 D.L.R. (3d) 59, (1970) 13 D.L.R. (3d) 64.

5 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 198.

6 Id., 244, 245.

7 Id., 151, 198.

8 The Letters Patent of 19 February J 836, establishing the Province of South Australia and made under statutory authority, were relied on by the plaintiffs, but do not expressly refer to the Northern Territory, which was not administered By South Australia until 1863.

9 (1971) 17 FLR 141 262

10 Ibid.

11 Id., 273-274.

12 Id., 280-283.

13 Id., 287, 292.

14 Id., 207-208.

15 Johnson and Graham's Lessee v. M'lntosh (1823) 8 Wheaton 542, 574, 603. Worcester v. State of Georgia (1832) 6 Pet. 515, 544-545.

16 O'Connell, D. P., International Law (2nd ed., 1970) Vol. 1, 377-8Google Scholar; Worcester v. State of Georgia (1832) 6 Pet. 515, 543-544.

17 Franciscus de Victoria (sometimes referred to as Vitoria), De Indis (1532) J. P. Bate c.1913, Wildy & Sons Ltd, London; reprinted 1964, Oceana Inc., (New York) Sect. I, 128, Sect. II, 138-148. Cohen, L. K. (ed.), “The Legal Conference” Selected Papers of Felix S. Cohen (New Haven, 1960) 289-292Google Scholar.

18 de Victoria, op. cit. Sect. I, 120-128.

19 (1831) 5 Pet. I, 48.

20 (1823) 8 Wheaton 543, 592.

21 Worcester v. State of Georgia (1832) 6 Pet. 515, 543-544; Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) 8 Wheaton 543, 574.

22 Marshall C.J. considered that discovery perfected by occupation gave the Crown rights of pre-emption, not that recognition of Indian title flowed from these constitutional facts: Johnson v. M'lntosh (1823) 8 Wheaton 543, 587. In the same judgment there is ample evidence that by 1823 the constitutional rights of the State and Federal governments in North America depended partly on discovery perfected by occupation, and partly on conquest and cession. Recogtion of Indian title was not regarded as dependent on either mode of acquisition: Id., 587, 591.

23 In colonies acquired by settlement rather than by cession, Marshall C.J. considered that Indian rights survived the change of sovereignty, being qualified primarily by the restriction on alienation inherent in the Crown's assertion of the pre-emptive rights: id., 573, 574; cf. Cramer v. United States (1922) 261 US. 219, 225, and United States v. Shoshone Tribe (1937) 304 U.S. 111, 116.

24 (1832) 6 Pet. 515, 542-543.

25 (1823) 8 Wheaton 543, 573.

26 Id., 592.

27 Worcester v. State of Georgia (1832) 6 Pet. 515, 544.

28 Campbell v. Hall (1774) 1 Cowp. 204, 209; 98 E.R. 1045, 1047.

29 Johnson v. M'lntosh (1823) 8 Wheaton 543, 576-580; A. Stokes, A View of the Constitution of the British Colonies in North America and the West Indies (1783) (rep. 1969, London) 3-4.

30 Johnson v. M'lntosh (1823) 8 Wheaton 543; Mitchel v. United States (1835) 9 Pet. 711; Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia (1831) 5 Pet. 1, 49.

31 E.g., Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) 8 Wheaton 543, 585 indicates that the right of pre-emption depended on statute in Virginia after 1779; cf. Wallis v. Solicitor-General for New Zealand [1903] A.C. 173, 179.

32 (1823) 8 Wheaton 543, 603.

33 Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia (1831) 5 Pet. 1, 49.

34 Worcester v. State of Georgia (1832) 6 Pet. 515, 544-546.

35 Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) 8 Wheaton 543, 574, 592; Buttz v. Northern Pacific Railroad (1886) 119 U.S. 55, 66; United States v. Shoshone Tribe (1937) 304 U.S. 111, 116.

36 Cramer v. United States (1923) 261 U.S. 219.

37 Stokes, op. cit. 30.

38 (1847) N.Z.P.C.C. 387,388.

39 Id., 388-389.

40 Id., 389-390.

41 Id., 390.

42 Cf. Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 237.

43 (1847) N.Z.P.C.C. 387, 388-390.

44 ln Re The Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] N.Z.L.R. 461, 467 per North J.

45 (1847) N.Z.P.C.C. 387, 390.

46 [1901] A.C. 561, 579.

47 Id., 567.

48 North America: Mickcnberg, N. H., “Aboriginal Rights in Canada and the United States” (1971) 9 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 119, 133-138CrossRefGoogle Scholar; New Zealand: Native Rights Act, 1865 (29 Vict. No. 11), Native Lands Act, 1865 (29 Vict. No. 71); Africa: 11 Halsb. (2nd ed.) 130, 140, 179-80, 238 n(s), 239-40, 245-6;. Pacific Islands: Roberts-Wray, Sir K., Commonwealth and Colonial Law (1966) 899, 901, 911Google Scholar.

49 E.g., Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker [1901] A.C. 561, 580.

50 Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) 8 Wheaton 543; Worcester v. State of Georgia (1832) 6 Pet. 515.

51 [1921] 2 A.C. 399, 407.

52 Id., 404, 407.

53 Id., 407.

54 [1957] 2 All E.R. 785.

55 Id., 788.

56 [1921] 2 A.C. 399.

57 [l941] 67 C.L.R. 544, 552, 557: see Roberts-Wray, op. cit. 132-3.

58 [1921] 2 A.C. 399, 407.

59 [1957] 2 All E.R. 785.

60 Id., 788.

61 Ibid.

62 (1941) 67 C.L.R. 544.

63 (1877) 3 N.Z. Jurist 72.

64 Id., 78.

65 Art. 2. For a discussion of the Treaty see Roberts-Wray, op. cit. 634-636.

66 (1877) 3 N.Z. Jurist 72, 78.

67 Ibid.

68 [1901] A.C. 561, 577.

69 Wi Parata's case (1877) 3 N.Z. Jurist 72, 77, 79.

70 [1901] A.C. 561, 579.

71 Id., 577, 580.

72 (1970) 13 D.L.R. (3d) 64.

73 ld., 66-67.

74 Cramer v. United States (1922) 261 U.S. 219, 229; and cases cited supra, nn. 15, 38.

75 Amodu Tijani v. Secretary, Southern Nigeria [1921] 2 A.C. 399, 402-407; Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) 8 Wheaton 543, 547-548, 574.

76 E.g., Sobhuza Il v. Miller [1926] A.C. 518.

77 E.G., Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker [1901] A.C. 561, 579-580.

78 E.g., Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1954) 348 U.S. 272, 279; Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (1970) 13 D.L.R. (3d) 64, 67; relied on by Blackburn J., (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 217-218, 219-223, 242.

79 In Re The Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] N.Z.L.R. 461, 477-478; Wilkinson, G. A., “Indian Tribal Claims before the Court of Claims” (1966) 55 Georgetown Law Journal 511Google Scholar; Calder v. Attorney-General for British Columbia (1971) 13 D.L.R. (3d) 64, 73-74; St Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888) 14 App. Cas. 46, 54-55.

80 Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141,259.

81 In Re The Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] N.Z.L.R. 461, 469-470; Mickenberg, N. H., “Aboriginal Rights in Canada and the United States” (1971) 9 Osgoode Hall Low Journal 119, 138-140Google Scholar.

82 E.g., Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1954) 348 U.S. 272, 283-285; Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia (1970) 13 D.L.R. (3d) 64, 67; and see Mickenberg, op. cit. 137-138.

83 (1954) 348 U.S. 272, 285.

84 Id., 279.

85 Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) 8 Wheaton 543,573,603; Worcester v. State of Georgia (1832) 6 Pet. 515, 544.

86 E.g., Johnson v. M'Intosh. (1823) 8 Wheaton 543, 588.

87 E.g., Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1954) 348 U.S. 272, 279; In Pe The Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] N.Z.L.R. 461, 468, 476-477. But cf. Nireaha Tamaki v. Baker [1901] A.C. 561, 577-578.

88 Amendment V (1791) : “. . . nor shall priv te pr p rty be tak- fo;pub ' use, without just compensation”.

89 31 Stat. 321, § 27; cited (1954) 348 U.S. 272, 278.

90 (1954) 348 U.S. 272, 279.

91 (1970) 13 D.L.R. (3d) 64.

92 Id., 66.

93 Id., 66-67.

94 (1918) 88 L.J.P.C. 1, 12.

95 Id., 7, 12, 15-16.

96 (1954) 348 U.S. 272,279.

97 (1823) 8 Wheaton 543, 588-591, 598, 603.

98 (1969) 8 D.L.R. (3d) 59, 82.

99 (1970) 13 D.L.R. (3d) 64, 69, 80, 95, 110.

1 Id., 95.

2 Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 209, 262.

3 [1963] N.Z.L.R. 461, 468.

4 E.g., Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States (1954) 348 U.S. 272, 273-274, 291.

5 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141.

6 (1970) 13 D.L.R. (3d)64, 66-67.

7 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141,273-274.

8 Id., 268.

9 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 270; see Mickenberg, op. cit. supra n. 81.

10 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141,270-271.

11 Id., 223, 254-255.

12 Calder’s case (1970) 13 D.L.R. (3d) 64, 95.

13 1971) 17 P.L.R. 141, 262. His Honour’s further reference to recognition by executive policy probably does not imply that such recognition, by itself, creates a legally enforceable obligation.

14 Ibid.

15 Id., 159-161, 198, 250, 262.

16 Id., 206-207, 244,262.

17 Amodu Tijani v. Secretary, Southern Nigeria [1921] 2 A.C. 399, 407, 410; oyekan v. Adele [1951] 2 All E.R. 785, 788.

18 Dependent largely on a distinction drawn in another unappealed Territory decision, Kean v. The Commonwealth (1963) 5 F.L.R. 432, behveen legislative and executive systems of acquisition: (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 283-292.

19 [1921] 2 A.C. 399, 407; cited at (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 230.

20 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 231.

21 [1921] 2 A.C. 399, 404, 407,410.

22 Id., 401, 408.

23 Id., 409.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 Id., 410.

27 [1957] 2 All E.R. 785.

28 Id., 788.

29 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 233.

30 (1970] A.C. 179, 227.

31 Burmah O:! Co. Ltd v. Lord Advocate [1965] A.C. 75.

32 Id., 76, 102.

33 (1957] 2 All E.R. 785, 789.

34 Ibid.

35 The Crown Grants (Township of Lagos) Ordinance, s. 3; discussed Id., 790.

36 [1921] 2 A.C. 399, and Sakariyawo Oshodi v. Moriamo Dakolo [1930] A.C. 667.

37 [1957] 2 All E.R. 785,790.

38 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 233.

39 Secretary of State for India v. Bai Rajbai (1915) L.R. 42 Ind. App. 229.

40 Vajesingji Joravarsingji v. Secretary of State for India (1924) L.R. 51 Ind. pp.357.

41 Secretary of State for India v. Sardar Rustam Khan [1941] A.C. 356.

42 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 224-227.

43 [1899] A.C. 572.

44 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 227.

45 (1924) L.R. 51 Ind. App. 357, 360.

46 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 225.

47 Id., 223, 226, 227.

48 Id., 223.

49 (1774) 1 Cowp. 204, 209; 98 E.R. 1045, 1047.

50 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 225.

51 Salaman V. Secretary of State for India [1906] 1 K.B. 613, 639-640; Secretary of State in Council of India v. Kamachee Boye Sahaba (1859) 7 Mcore India App. 476, 19 E.R. 388; Nissan v. Attorney-General [1970] A.C. 179, 216, 218, 231.

52 Nissan’s case [1970] A.C. 179, 232.

53 Id., 231-232; Salaman v. Secretary oj State for India [1906] 1 K.B. 613, 639-640; Sprigg v. Sigcau [1897] A.C. 238.

54 Sprigg v. Sigcau [1897] A.C. 238, 246.

55 [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1044, 1054.

56 [1970] A.C. 179, 237.

57 Id., 220-221.

58 Vajesingji’s case and Bai Rajbai’s case (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 225-227.

59 (1915) L.R. 42 Ind. App. 229.

60 Id., 237.

61 Id., 233-234.

62 (1859) 7 Moore Ind. App. 476; 19 E.R. 388.

63 (1774) 1 Cowp. 204; 98 E.R. 1045.

64 (1774) 1 Cowp. 204, 209; 98 B.R. 1045, 1047.

65 (1924) L.R. 51 Ind. App. 357.

66 Id., 358-359, 363-364.

67 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 225.

68 [1899] A.C. 572.

69 Id., 578.

70 Id., 573, 577.

71 [1970] A.C. 179.

72 Id., 226.

73 Id., 211.

74 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 225.

75 [1899] A.C. 572, 578.

76 Hoani Te Heuheu Tukino v. Aotea District Maori Land Board [1941] A.C. 308, 324-325.

77 D. P. O’Connell, International Law (2nd ed., 1970) Vol. I, 378.

78 Discussed, (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 201.

79 Id., 227.

80 Salaman v. Secretary of State for India [1906] 1 K.B. 613, 640.

81 Nissan v. Attorney-General [1970] A.C. 179, 211.

82 Id., 224.

83 Id., 227.

84 Id., 210-211.

85 Burmah Oil Co. Ltd v. Lord Advocate [1965] A.C. 75.

86 (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141, 226-227.