High Court of Australia
High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ. Attorney-General (NT) v Hand (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [1991] HCA 17
ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.
Cur. adv. vult.
The Court delivered the following written judgment:—
May 22 Mason C.J., Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ.
The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 Cth ("the Act") is expressed in its long title to be "An Act providing for the granting of Traditional Aboriginal Land in the Northern Territory for the benefit of Aboriginals, and for other purposes". The scheme of the legislation has been discussed in a number of decisions of this Court: see, e.g., Reg. v. Toohey; Ex parte Attorney-General (N.T.) [1] ; Reg. v. Toohey; Ex parte Meneling Station Pty. Ltd. [2] ; Reg. v. Kearney; Ex parte Northern Land Council [3] ; Reg. v. Kearney; Ex parte Japanangka [4] ; Reg. v. Kearney; Ex parte Jurlama [5] .
1. (1980) 145 C.L.R. 374. 2. (1982) 158 C.L.R. 327. 3. (1984) 158 C.L.R. 365. 4. (1984) 158 C.L.R. 395. 5. (1984) 158 C.L.R. 426.
The present appeal concerns a fairly narrow aspect of the legislation, though, to explain how the issue arises, some reference to the wider scheme is called for.
The Act provides for the establishment of Aboriginal Land Trusts:
to hold title to land in the Northern Territory for the benefit of Aboriginals entitled by Aboriginal tradition to the use or occupation of the land concerned, whether or not the traditional entitlement is qualified as to place, time, circumstance, purpose or permission: s. 4(1). Land Trusts must be established to hold the Crown land described in Sched. 1 to the Act. Otherwise, Land Trusts are established to give effect to acceptance by the federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs of a recommendation by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner that an area of Crown land should be granted to a Land Trust for the benefit of Aboriginals entitled by Aboriginal tradition to the use or occupation of that area or land, whether or not the traditional entitlement is qualified in the sense referred to in s. 4(1): see generally s. 50, read with s. 11.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate