Yanner v Eaton
[1999] HCA 53(1999) 201 CLR 351
Yanner
vEaton
High Court of Australia
Judges:
Gleeson CJ
McHugh J
Gummow J
Kirby J
Callinan J
Hayne J
Gaudron J
Legislative References:
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) - s 211
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) - The Act
Defence Act 1903 (Cth) - s 124(1)
Judiciary Act 1903 - s 78A(1)
Judgment date: 7 October 1999
Order
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 27 February 1998; and in lieu thereof, order that the order nisi of Williams J dated 28 November 1996 be discharged.
3. Order that each of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, the Attorney-General of the State of Western Australia, the Attorney-General of the State of South Australia and the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory pay to the appellant the additional costs incurred by him by reason of the intervention of that Attorney-General, such additional costs to be taxed.
4. The question of costs in respect of the proceedings in this Court and in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland be reserved.
5. The appellant is to have leave to file and serve, within 14 days of the date of this order, written submissions on the reserved question of costs.
6. The respondent is to have leave to file and serve, within a further 14 days, written submissions on the reserved question of costs.
The name of the tribe is sometimes spelled "Gungaletta". The spelling "Gangalidda" was given by the appellant in his interview with police.
Native Title Act, s211(1)(a) and (3)(a) and (b).
Native Title Act, s211(1)(b).
Native Title Act, s211(1)(c).
Native Title Act, s211(2).
Justices Act 1886 (Q), s209.
Eaton v Yanner; Ex parte Eaton unreported, Court of Appeal of Queensland, 27 February 1998.
Native Animals Protection Act 1906 (Q), s9(c). See also the Animals and Birds Act 1921 (Q), s17(b) (which extended the exception to native birds as well as animals), the Fauna Protection Act 1937 (Q), s25, and the Fauna Conservation Act 1952 (Q), s78 (which further modified the exception by limiting its operation to Aboriginals not in employment on terms that included the provision of food by the employer).
The Fauna Authority was defined by s5 as the Minister for the time being administering the Fauna Act "and subject to the Minister" the Director of National Parks and Wildlife appointed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975 (Q).
s5.
s5.
s5.
s6.
s22.
s24.
s25.
s24A.
s27(1).
Fauna Act, PtVI
s60.
s54(1)(b)(i).
s54(1)(b)(ii).
s54(2).
Animals and Birds Act 1921 (Q), s8B (inserted by s2(4) of the Animals and Birds Act Amendment Act 1924 (Q)); Fauna Protection Act 1937 (Q), s16; Fauna Conservation Act 1952 (Q), s56.
Queensland, Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 12 September 1924 at 824-826.
Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ed by W Harrison (1948) at 337, n 1; K Gray and S F Gray, "The Idea of Property in Land", in Bright and Dewar (eds), Land Law: Themes and Perspectives, (1998) 15 at 15.
See, for example, Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel (1944) 68 CLR 261 at 285 per Rich J.
Gray, "Property in Thin Air", (1991) 50 Cambridge Law Journal 252 at 252.
See, for example, Kohler and Palmer, "Information as Property" and Magnusson, "Proprietary Rights in Human Tissue", in Palmer and McKendrick (eds), Interests in Goods, 2nd ed (1998) 3 and 25 respectively.
See, for example, Colbeam Palmer Ltd v Stock Affiliates Pty Ltd (1968) 122 CLR 25 at 34 per Windeyer J.
Gray, "Property in Thin Air", (1991) 50 Cambridge Law Journal 252 at 299.
Jeremy Bentham recognised this long ago. Bentham pointed out that "in common speech in the phrase 'the object of a man's property', the words 'the object of' are commonly left out; and by an ellipsis, which, violent as it is, is now become more familiar than the phrase at length, they have made that part of it which consists of the words 'a man's property' perform the office of the whole". See An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ed by W Harrison (1948) at 337, n 1.
K Gray and S F Gray, "The Idea of Property in Land", in Bright and Dewar (eds), Land Law: Themes and Perspectives, (1998) 15 at 16.
Jones v Skinner (1835) 5 LJ Ch (NS) 87 at 90 per Lord Langdale MR. See also Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Q) v Donaldson (1927) 39 CLR 539 at 550 per Isaacs ACJ; In re Prater; Desinge v Beare (1888) 37 Ch D 481 at 483 per Lord Halsbury LC, 486 per Cotton LJ.
Jones v Skinner (1835) 5 LJ Ch (NS) 87 at 90 per Lord Langdale MR.
Pollock, A First Book of Jurisprudence, 4th ed (1918) at 178.
Blackstone, Commentaries, vol II at 14, 391, 395.
Case of Swans (1592) 7 Co Rep 15b at 17b [ 77 ER 435 at 438]; Blades v Higgs (1865) 11 HL Cas621 at 638 [ 11 ER 1474 at 1481].
Case of Swans (1592) 7 Co Rep 15b at 17b [ 77 ER 435 at 438].
Blades v Higgs (1865) 11 HL Cas621 at 631 [ 11 ER 1474 at 1478].
252 US 416 at 434 (1920).
See also Geer v Connecticut 161 US519 at 538-539, 541-542 (1896) per Field J, 543-544 per Harlan J; Toomer v Witsell 334 US 385 (1948); Baldwin v Montana Fish and Game Commission 436 US 371 (1978); Hughes v Oklahoma 441 US 322 (1979).
Animals and Birds Act 1921 (Q), s8B (inserted by the Animals and Birds Act Amendment Act 1924 (Q), s2(4)).
(1955) 92 CLR 630 at 641 per Dixon CJ, Williams, Webb, Fullagar and Kitto JJ.
Toomer v Witsell 334 US 385 at 402 (1948) per Vinson CJ (footnote omitted).
Queensland, Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 12 September 1924 at 825.
Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (rev ed) (1954) at 111.
s24, s24A, s25, s27, s30, s60.
s71(2), s83(3).
s67.
s54(1)(a).
Native Title Act, s223(1)(a).
Native Title Act, s223(1)(b).
Native Title Act, s223(1)(c); Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 .
Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 69 per Brennan J, 110 per Deane and Gaudron JJ; Western Australia v The Commonwealth (Native Title Act Case) (1995) 183 CLR 373 at 439 per Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ; Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 84-85 per Brennan CJ; Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 72 ALJR 1442 at 1451 per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ, 1468 per Kirby J; 156 ALR 721 at 736, 759.
(1998) 72 ALJR 1442 at 1451; 156 ALR 721 at 736. See also (1998) 72 ALJR 1442 at 1466 per Kirby J; 156 ALR 721 at 756-757.
Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 85 per Brennan CJ, 125 per Toohey J, 146-147 per Gaudron J, 185 per Gummow J, 247 per Kirby J.
Melbourne Corporation v Barry (1922) 31 CLR 174 at 188-190 per Isaacs J, 211 212 per Higgins J; Williams v Melbourne Corporation (1933) 49 CLR 142 at 148-149 per Starke J, 155-156 per Dixon J; Brunswick Corporation v Stewart (1941) 65 CLR 88 at 93-94 per Rich ACJ, 95 per Starke J; Municipal Corporation of City of Toronto v Virgo [1896] AC 88 at 93-94.
(1982) 158 CLR 327 at 358.
K Gray and S F Gray, "The Idea of Property in Land", in Bright and Dewar (eds), Land Law: Themes and Perspectives, (1998) 15 at 27.
(1987) 163 CLR 561 .
s5.
s5.
Blades v Higgs (1865) 11 HL Cas621 at 631 [ 11 ER 1474 at 1478].
Native Animals Protection Act 1906 (Q), s9(c). The Animals and Birds Act 1921 (Q), s17(b), the Fauna Protection Act 1937 (Q), s25 and the Fauna Conservation Act 1952 (Q), s78 were to similar effect.
(1987) 163 CLR 561 at 566-567.
In The Common Law (1882), Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr said (at 215): "When we say that a man owns a thing, we affirm directly that he has the benefit of the consequences attached to a certain group of facts, and, by implication, that the facts are true of him. The important thing to grasp is, that each of these legal compounds, possession, property, and contract, is to be analyzed into fact and right, antecedent and consequent, in like manner as every other." In a subsequent passage, he pointed out (at 220): "The law [of property] does not enable me to use or abuse this book which lies before me. That is a physical power which I have without the aid of the law. What the law does is simply to prevent other men to a greater or less extent from interfering with my use or abuse."
cf Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania 505 US 833 at 954 (1992) per Rehnquist CJ (White, Scalia and Thomas JJ agreeing).
s7(1).
(1859) Bell 93 [ 169 ER 1180 ].
Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 169.
Ben Ward & Ors on behalf of the Miriuwung and Gajerrong People; Walden & Ors; Northern Land Council; and the Cape York Land Council (Aboriginal Corporation).
Attorneys-General for the Commonwealth, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 69-70, 111; Wik (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 124-126, 166, 203, 238; cf Ward v Western Australia (1998) 159 ALR 483 at 504.
Mabo [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 70.
The Fauna Act has since been repealed by the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Q), which came into force on 19 December 1994.
S5 provided: "'take' includes - (a) in relation to fauna, hunt, shoot, kill, poison, net, snare, spear, trap, catch, pursue, disturb, stupefy, disable, pluck, injure, destroy or damage or attempt or permit any of those acts".
S5 provided: "'keep' includes have in possession or under control in any place, whether for the use of or benefit of the person of whom the term is used or of another person, and although another person has the actual possession or custody of the thing in question".
Eaton v Yanner; Ex parte Eaton, unreported, 27 February 1998.
See Mabo [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 70, 110; cf Grattan and McNamara, "The Common Law Construct of Native Title", (1999) 8 Griffith Law Review 50 at 6365.
A term also defined in s5; see SVI of these reasons.
(1992) 175 CLR 1 at 58.
See Western Australia v The Commonwealth (Native Title Act Case) (1995) 183 CLR 373 at 459; The Commonwealth v Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dam Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1 at 274-275.
Wik (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 177.
(1996) 187 CLR 1 at 169.
Mabo [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 66-67.
Mabo [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 89.
Mabo [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 58.
Mabo [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 57.
Mabo [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 109-110.
Mabo [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 61, 110.
Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 72 ALJR 1442 at 1452, 1454; 156 ALR 721 at 737, 739.
(1996) 187 CLR 1 .
(1998) 72 ALJR 1442 at 1451-1454; 156 ALR 721 at 736-740.
Fejo (1998) 72 ALJR 1442 at 1452; 156 ALR 721 at 737.
Mabo [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 58.
Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol 2 at 177.
(1811) 18 Ves Jun 384 at 390 [ 34 ER 362 at 364]. See also Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1915) 21 CLR 69 at 77, 87; In re Waugh (deceased) [1955] NZLR 1129 at 1130.
Judicature Act 1876 (Q), s5(4); Property Law Act 1974 (Q), s17.
Native Title Act Case (1995) 183 CLR 373 at 454; Wik (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 167168.
Native Title Act Case (1995) 183 CLR 373 at 435-438; North Ganalanja Aboriginal Corporation v Queensland (1996) 185 CLR 595 at 613-614.
For example, Fauna Conservation Act 1952 (Q), repealed by s4(1) of the Fauna Act.
cf McQuaker v Goddard [1940] 1 KB 687 at 695, 699.
Geer v Connecticut 161 US519 at 539-540 (1896). Field J was in dissent, but the majority decision was overruled in Hughes v Oklahoma 441 US 322 (1979).
Blades v Higgs (1865) 11 HL Cas621 [ 11 ER 1474 ].
In May v Burdett (1846) 9 QB 101 at 110-111 [ 115 ER 1213 at 1217], Lord Denman CJ said: "[w]hoever keeps an animal accustomed to attack and bite mankind, with knowledge that it is so accustomed, is prima facie liable in an action on the case at the suit of any person attacked and injured by the animal, without any averment of negligence or default in the securing or taking care of it"; Besozzi v Harris (1858) 1 F & F 92 [ 175 ER 640 ]. It is unnecessary to consider, for the purposes of construing s7 of the Fauna Act as enacted in 1974, the effect, if any, of the subsequent decision of Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520 on this branch of the tort law.
Pollock and Wright, Possession in the Common Law, (1888) at 231.
S7(1) was amended on 15 May 1984 by the Fauna Conservation Act and Another Act Amendment Act 1984 (Q) ("the 1984 Amendment Act"), s5. The words "otherwise than in contravention of this Act" were inserted after the phrase "taken or kept". Nothing turns on this amendment.
Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71 at 80-81, 88-90, 101-102, 126-129.
Wheeler v Baldwin (1934) 52 CLR 609 at 632-633.
National Trustees Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1954) 91 CLR 540 at 583.
Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71 at 81, 90; Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd [1999] 1 SCR 142 at 156.
"Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning", (1913) 23 Yale Law Journal 16 at 21.
The Commonwealth v WMC Resources Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 1 at 73-74; Don King Productions Inc v Warren [1999] 3 WLR 276 at 314-316; [1999] 2 All ER 218 at 232-234.
Wily v St George Partnership Banking Ltd (1999) 84 FCR 423 at 431.
"Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning", (1913) 23 Yale Law Journal 16 at 21-22. See also Gray and Gray, "The Idea of Property in Land", in Bright and Dewar (eds), Land Law: Themes and Perspectives, (1998) 15 at 27-30.
(1997) 191 CLR 471 at 544-545.
Maguire v Simpson (1977) 139 CLR 362 at 371-373. See Finn, "Claims Against the Government Legislation", in Finn (ed), Essays on Law and Government, vol 2, The Citizen and the State in the Courts, (1996) 25 at 26-32.
Leeming, "The Liability of the Government under the Constitution", (1998) 17 Australian Bar Review 215 at 216-219.
Crown Proceedings Act 1980 (Q), s4(2)(a) and Sched.
S108 states: "Every law in force in a Colony which has become or becomes a State, and relating to any matter within the powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, shall, subject to this Constitution, continue in force in the State; and, until provision is made in that behalf by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the Parliament of the State shall have such powers of alteration and of repeal in respect of any such law as the Parliament of the Colony had until the Colony became a State."
See Sue v Hill (1999) 73 ALJR 1016 at 1034-1035, 1049; 163 ALR 648 at 673674, 693. S31(3)(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Q) defined "the Crown" but merely in terms of the particular monarch at the time.
This provided: "Petitioner may sue as in ordinary cases. Any such petitioner may sue such nominal defendant at law or in equity in any competent court and every such case shall be commenced in the same way and the proceedings and rights of parties therein shall as nearly as possible be the same and judgment and costs shall follow on either side as in an ordinary case between subject and subject at law or in equity."
S5 defined "open season" to mean, in relation to any fauna, "the period declared by Order in Council under this Act during which that fauna may be taken".
[1921] 1 AC 401 .
[1921] 1 AC 401 at 409. See also The Commonwealth v New South Wales (1923) 33 CLR 1 at 45; Perth Corporation v Crystal Park Ltd (1940) 64 CLR 153 at 168; Bathurst City Council v PWC Properties Pty Ltd (1998) 72 ALJR 1470 at 1480-1483; 157 ALR 414 at 427-431.
(1987) 163 CLR 561 at 582.
See Case of Swans (1592) 7 Co Rep 15b [ 77 ER 435 ]; Chitty, A Treatise on the Law of the Prerogatives of the Crown, (1820) at 142-144. As to the meaning of "royalties of the Crown", see Stanton v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1955) 92 CLR 630 at 641.
Earl of Selborne LC in Bradlaugh v Clarke (1883) 8 App Cas 354 at 358 said that it is an "incontestable proposition of law, that 'where a penalty is created by statute, and nothing is said as to who may recover it, and it is not created for the benefit of a party grieved, and the offence is not against an individual, it belongs to the Crown, and the Crown alone can maintain a suit for it'". This construction of the Fauna Act is supported by the saving provision in s84 and by s85 which provided that "all penalties, costs, fees, royalty and compensation recovered under this Act shall be paid into and form part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund".
The Fauna Act was amended by: Fauna Conservation Act and Another Act Amendment Act 1976 (Q), PtII; Fauna Conservation Act Amendment Act 1979 (Q); the 1984 Amendment Act, PtII; Deer Farming Act 1985 (Q), s4(1), Sched 2; Fauna Conservation Act and Another Act Amendment Act 1989 (Q), PtIII.
(1996) 187 CLR 1 .
(1996) 187 CLR 1 at 185. See also Fejo (1998) 72 ALJR 1442 at 1451; 156 ALR 721 at 736.
Fejo (1998) 72 ALJR 1442 at 1452; 156 ALR 721 at 737.
(1996) 187 CLR 1 at 171. See Grattan and McNamara, "The Common Law Construct of Native Title", (1999) 8 Griffith Law Review 50 at 78.
(1996) 187 CLR 1 at 203.
(1999) 73 ALJR 345 ; 160 ALR 638 .
(1999) 73 ALJR 345 at 372; 160 ALR 638 at 674-675.
(1995) 183 CLR 373 at 474.
In R v Sundown (1999) 170 DLR (4th) 385 at 398-399, the Supreme Court of Canada gave some consideration to the relevance of the means by which a treaty right to hunt may be pursued in that country by First Nation peoples. However the different history of that country, its first inhabitants, treaties made there and its legislation might give rise to different considerations from those of relevance to this country. Similarly in McRitchie v Taranaki Fish and Game Council [1999] 2 NZLR 139 the different legislative regime and the Treaty of Waitangi give rise to matters which are not relevant to this case.
For a discussion of the evidentiary problems thrown up by a case of this kind see Mabo v State of Queensland [1992] 1 Qd R 78 at 84ff per Moynihan J.
By Order-in-Council dated 29 August 1974 and published in the Government Gazette on 31 August 1974, the operation of the Act was extended to cover crocodiles.
(1987) 163 CLR 561 .
Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 561 at 566.
(1865) 11 HL Cas621 at 631 [ 11 ER 1474 at 1478-1479].
Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 561 at 566-567.
For a discussion of the changing nature of these preoccupations, see Itzkowitz, Peculiar Privilege: A Social History of English Foxhunting 1753-1885 (1977).
See The Crown v Murphy (1990) 64 ALJR 593 at 596-597; 95 ALR 493 at 498499.
For a discussion of Darwin's influence in this respect, see Verney, Animals in Peril (1979) at 176-184.
Hutton and Connors, A History of the Australian Environment Movement (1999) at 21. For a discussion of the emergence and manifestation of this consciousness at the same time in the United States and Europe, see Verney, Animals in Peril (1979); for a discussion of its emergence and manifestation in Britain, see Ritvo, "Animals in Nineteenth-Century Britain", in Manning and Serpell (eds), Animals and Human Society (1994) 106.
S8A was inserted by Animals and Birds Act Amendment Act 1924 (Q), s2(4).
Fauna Protection Act 1937 (Q), s15; Fauna Conservation Act 1952 (Q), s6(2).
A landowner has, generally speaking, a right to extract the gas and oil beneath his or her land, including gas and oil which is there by the power of "selftransmission" (Brown v Spilman 155 US 665 (1895); Ohio Oil Company v Indiana (No 1) 177 US190 (1900); DuLaney v Oklahoma State Department of Health 868 P 2 d 676 (1993)). However, ownership of gas and oil is subject to the possibility of escape and loss of title. This is reflected in what is known as the "rule of capture", which is that "the owner of a tract of land acquires title to the oil or gas he or she produces from wells on his or her land even though part of the oil or gas may have migrated from adjoining lands, without incurring liability to the adjoining land for drainage" (38 Am Jur 2d, Gas and Oil at §10). Thus, a landowner is entitled to extract gas or oil from his property to capture the contents of the pool regardless whether this diminishes the availability of the gas or oil to his neighbours.
(1987) 163 CLR 561 .
(1992) 175 CLR 1 .
R v Alphonse (1993) 80 BCLR (2d) 17 at 26-27. See also Ward v Western Australia (1998) 159 ALR 483 at 615.
See Native Animals Protection Act 1906 (Q), s9(c); Animals and Birds Act 1921 (Q), s8A, s17(b); Fauna Protection Act 1937 (Q), s15, s25; Fauna Conservation Act 1952 (Q), s6(2), s78.
(1996) 187 CLR 1 at 185.
Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 247.
See, for example, Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 72 ALJR 1442 at 1466; 156 ALR 721 at 756.
Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 58.
See, for example, Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 58 per Brennan J; Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 185 per Gummow J.
See, for example, Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 58 per Brennan J; Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 185 per Gummow J.
See, for example, Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 60 per Brennan J; Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 126 per Toohey J, 185, 203 per Gummow J.
See, for example, Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 58, 61 per Brennan J; Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 126 per Toohey J; cf Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 72 ALJR 1442 at 1452; 156 ALR 721 at 737.
See, for example, Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 58, 61 per Brennan J; Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 126 per Toohey J; cf Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 72 ALJR 1442 at 1452; 156 ALR 721 at 737.
See, for example, Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 61-62 per Brennan J; Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 561 at 565 per Brennan J.
Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 126.
Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 50, 64, 68-70, 89-90, 110-111, 195-196; Western Australia v The Commonwealth (Native Title Act Case) (1995) 183 CLR 373 at 418, 422, 433-434, 452-453, 492, 495; Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 84-86, 126, 132-133, 135, 146-147, 168-169, 185, 203, 214, 243, 244, 247.
(1998) 72 ALJR 1442 ; 156 ALR 721 .
Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 at 167-168.
(1995) 183 CLR 373 at 454.