Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Sea Claim v State of Queensland

The Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA) applied to change the venue of a case management hearing for the Torres Strait Regional Sea Claim from Thursday Island to Mer Island. The application was refused by the Federal Court. The court considered the application in the context of the broader dispute over native title in the Torres Strait. The court acknowledged the desire of Torres Strait Islander people to discuss matters concerning their country and waters on their own country, but held that moving the case management hearing to Mer Island was not feasible or consistent with the court's statutory obligations. The court noted that the application was only for the Part B Sea Claim and not for the six other proceedings, and that the management of each claim must be approached in an even-handed manner.

The court held that the application was only for QUD6040/2001 and did not extend to the six other proceedings. The Kaurareg applicants made two critical points. First, the Kaurareg People #1 claim completely overlapped with the Part B Sea Claim. Second, the interlocutory application was only made in QUD6040/2001 for a change of venue for the Part B Sea Claim, not the six other proceedings, and not – most significantly – the Kaurareg People #1 claim. It might be inferred that the TSRA has overlooked this issue. It might be inferred the TSRA intended the interlocutory application to be considered on the basis that it extended to all seven proceedings. However, the omission is revealing. The resolution of native title in the Torres Strait is not just about the Part B Sea Claim. The resolution is about all seven claims. At this stage, no claim (including the Part B Sea Claim) can be assumed or presumed to have precedence or priority over another, or to be made on a better or more substantive foundation than another.

The court refused the interlocutory application filed by the Torres Strait Regional Authority on 8 November 2017, seeking a change of venue for the case management hearing commencing 20 November 2017. The court noted that the TSRA had withdrawn from the proceeding as a respondent and that the potential conflicts to which the court had referred in its reasons would remain an issue to be canvassed at the Thursday Island case management hearing. The court held that if the TSRA had formally withdrawn as a respondent to QUD6040/2001 by that time, the court would consider the situation as it then stood.