Bropho v Western Australia

The case of Bropho v Western Australia involved a dispute between the appellants, representing the South Victoria Aboriginal Corporation (SVC), and the respondents, representing the State of Western Australia, regarding the administration of a reserve designated for the use and benefit of Aboriginal inhabitants. The dispute arose from the revocation of a management order by the Department of Land Administration, which placed the care, control and management of the reserve with the SVC. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the actions of the Administrator contravened the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA), particularly under sections 9, 10, and 12. The appellants argued that the revocation of the management order, which resulted in the exclusion of all persons from the reserve, was discriminatory and based on race.

The court examined whether the actions of the Administrator could be considered discriminatory under the RDA. It was established that an act of the administrator could be impeached if it contravened sections 9 or 12 of the RDA, but only if it involved the operation of a law under section 10 of the RDA, which denied the enjoyment of rights by Indigenous persons or limited those rights in circumstances where those rights were enjoyed by persons of another race or colour. The court found that the Administrator's actions did not amount to discrimination based on race, as the exclusion of the SVC from the reserve was not due to their race, but rather to the circumstances considered inducive to the loss of human rights of certain women and children resident on the Reserve. The court also concluded that the rights claimed by the appellants in relation to the management and ownership of the reserve did not have the status of human rights or fundamental freedoms within the context of the RDA.

Based on the court's reasoning, the appeal was dismissed with costs. The court found that the Administrator's actions did not contravene the RDA and, therefore, the appellants' claims were not substantiated. The decision upheld the revocation of the management order and the exclusion of all persons from the reserve, as it was not based on race but rather on the need to address the issues of substance abuse and sexual abuse within the community.