Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen |
|
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | High Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen & Ors; Queensland v Commonwealth |
| Decided | 11 May 1982 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent action(s) | Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1988) 92 FLR 104 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Gibbs CJ, Stephen, Mason, Murphy, Aickin, Wilson & Brennan JJ |
The case of Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen was a very important legal battle in Australia. It was decided by the High Court of Australia on May 11, 1982. The case was about whether a law called the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 was valid. It also looked at how the Queensland Government stopped Aboriginal people from buying land.
Contents
Understanding the Koowarta Case
John Koowarta was an Aboriginal Australian man. He was a member of the Wik peoples from the Cape York Peninsula. In 1974, Koowarta and other stockmen wanted to buy the Archer River cattle station. This land was part of the Wik peoples' traditional home.
They planned to use money from the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. The owner, Remington Rand, agreed to sell the land. In February 1976, a contract was made to buy the property. But the Queensland Government stopped the sale before it could be finished.
Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who was the Premier of Queensland, did not approve the sale. He believed Aboriginal people should not own large areas of land. This was also the official policy of his government. He told the Queensland Minister of Lands not to approve the sale.
Koowarta complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission. He said stopping the sale was unfair and discriminatory. The Commission agreed with Koowarta. However, the Queensland Government appealed this decision. They also argued that the Australian Government did not have the power to create the Racial Discrimination Act. Because of this, the case went to the High Court.
What Each Side Argued
John Koowarta argued that the Queensland Government's actions were discriminatory. He said they broke sections 9 and 12 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Section 9 says it's against the law to treat someone differently because of their race. This includes interfering with their human rights. Section 12 makes it illegal to refuse to sell or allow someone to use land based on their race.
Joh Bjelke-Petersen, representing Queensland, argued that the Racial Discrimination Act was not valid. He said the Australian Government did not have the power to make such a law. He pointed to Section 51 of the Australian Constitution. This section lists the powers of the Australian Government.
The 'Race' Power in the Constitution
Bjelke-Petersen argued that subsection xxvi of Section 51 did not apply. This subsection allows the Australian Parliament to make laws for "the people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws." He said the Act applied to all races, not just one specific race.
Originally, this part of the Constitution had an exception for Aboriginal people. But this exception was removed in the 1967 referendum. After that, the Australian Government could make laws for Aboriginal people. The court agreed that the government could make laws to stop discrimination against people of any race. However, they found that the Act aimed to stop discrimination against all people. So, it didn't fit under the 'any race' power.
Australia's 'External Affairs' Power
The court also looked at another reason for the Act's validity. The Racial Discrimination Act was made to follow an international agreement. This agreement was the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Australia had signed this treaty on October 13, 1966.
Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution gives the Parliament power over "external affairs." This term is not fully explained in the Constitution. The Australian Government argued that since the Act helped Australia meet its international duties under the CERD, it fell under the 'external affairs' power.
A key question was whether the Act could be an "external affair" if it only applied inside Australia. The court had previously allowed the 'external affairs' power to be used for treaties. The Australian Government argued that not following the Convention would harm Australia's international reputation.
The Court's Decision
Most judges (six out of seven) agreed that the Racial Discrimination Act was not valid under the "race" power. But, by a close vote (four to three), the court decided the Act was valid under the "external affairs" power.
Three judges (Gibbs, Aickin, and Wilson) thought the 'external affairs' power should be used very carefully. They believed a treaty had to be clearly "international" to use this power. They worried that using this power too broadly would upset the balance of power between the Australian Government and the States.
Three other judges (Mason, Murphy, and Brennan) had a wider view. They said that if Australia had signed a treaty, that was enough. It didn't matter what the treaty was about. Justice Murphy said that without the power to put treaties into action, Australia would be "an international cripple." He meant Australia wouldn't be able to keep its promises to other countries.
The deciding opinion came from Ninian Stephen. He agreed with Mason, Murphy, and Brennan that the law was valid. But he used a slightly different test. He said the 'external affairs' power could be used if the treaty's topic was of "international concern." Stephen found that stopping racial discrimination was indeed an international concern. So, the Racial Discrimination Act was valid.
In the end, four judges said the law was valid under the 'external affairs' power. But they didn't all agree on the exact reason why.
What Happened After the Case?
This case confirmed that the Racial Discrimination Act was a valid law. It also supported the Australian Government's power to put international treaties into action. This was important for future cases, like the Tasmanian Dam case. In that case, the wider view of the 'external affairs' power became very important.
The part of the case about the Queensland Government stopping Koowarta's land purchase went back to the Supreme Court of Queensland. In 1988, the decision was made in Koowarta's favor. The sale was supposed to go ahead. However, Joh Bjelke-Petersen declared the Archer River property a national park. This was done to make sure no one could ever own it.
But on October 6, 2010, Premier Anna Bligh announced a large part of the park would be given to the Wik-Mungkana peoples. This land became their freehold land.
Learn More
- Australian constitutional law
- List of Australian native title court cases
