Hicks v Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission

Link copied
Case Copied 31 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hicks v Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission [2000] FCA 1449

ABORIGINES – native title – application for funding for native title claim – application refused by representative body – application to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission for direct funding – application declined pending judicial review of representative body decision – decision-making principles adopted by ATSIC – Program Statements, Policies and Guidelines – whether exceptional circumstances to warrant direct funding – whether error of law in ATSIC decision refusing direct funding – proper exercise of discretion – application dismissed.

Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989

Hicks v Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia (Inc) (2000) 98 FCR 435 referred to
Ward v Western Australia (2000) 170 ALR 159 referred to
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 referred to

WILFRED HICKS AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE WONG-GOO-TT-OO NATIVE TITLE CLAIMANT GROUP v ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION
W99 of 2000

FRENCH J
13 OCTOBER 2000
PERTH


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

 W 99 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

WILFRED HICKS AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE WONG-GOO-TT-OO NATIVE TITLE CLAIMANT GROUP
APPLICANT

AND:

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FRENCH J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 October 2000

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The time limited for making this application is extended to 16 June 200.

2.The application is dismissed.

3.        The Applicants are to pay the Respondent’s costs of the application.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

 W 99 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

WILFRED HICKS AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE WONG-GOO-TT-OO NATIVE TITLE CLAIMANT GROUP
APPLICANT

AND:

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FRENCH J

DATE:

13 October 2000

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) to refuse direct funding to a group of people which has applied for a native title determination in the West Pilbara region.  The application overlaps substantially with another by the Ngaluma and Yinjibandi People who were represented by the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia (ALS) which was, until 1 July 2000, the representative body for the Pilbara area under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The ALS having, on 16 September 1999, refused funding to the applicants they challenged that decision in this Court before Carr J on grounds including reasonable apprehension of bias having regard to the commitment of the ALS to the Ngaluma Yinjibandi claim. Prior to the resolution of those proceedings, the applicants also applied for direct funding from ATSIC under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989.  That application was refused on 20 April 2000 pending the resolution of the proceedings before Carr J.  That refusal…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hicks v Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2000] FCA 1449
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hicks v Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission, the applicants, Wilfred Hicks and others, sought judicial review of a decision by ATSIC to refuse their application for direct funding. The applicants had previously applied to the Native Title Tribunal for a native title determination, which was subsequently transferred to the Federal Court. The Aboriginal Legal Service (ALS) had earlier declined to fund the applicants' legal representation due to its policy on funding private practitioners. The applicants then applied to ATSIC for funding but were denied. The applicants challenged this decision in the Federal Court.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether ATSIC was bound by its own decision-making principles and program statements when refusing the applicants' request for funding. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the refusal was in accordance with ATSIC's policy that direct funding for native title claims should only be considered in exceptional circumstances, after other avenues of funding had been exhausted. Another key issue was whether the applicants had standing to bring this application for judicial review.

The court held that ATSIC was indeed bound by its decision-making principles and program statements. It found that ATSIC's refusal to fund the applicants was in accordance with its policy, which required that funding be sought through native title representative bodies (NTRBs) first. The court also found that the applicants had standing to bring this application, as they had a sufficient interest in the decision. The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time limited for making this application is extended to 16 June 200.

2. The application is dismissed.

3. The Applicants are to pay the Respondent’s costs of the application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Its assertion of its lack of capacity to further consider the applicants’ request for assistance is the subject of separate review proceedings, judgment on which is also delivered today – Hicks v Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia (Inc) [2000] FCA 1448. In the meantime, however, the applicants have pursued these proceedings seeking judicial review of the refusal by ATSIC to entertain their application for direct funding. The decision under review is that given prior to the decision of Carr J.Factual Background On 9 July 1998, Wilfred Hicks and others on behalf of the Wong-goo-tt-oo Group applied to the National Native Title Tribunal for a native title determination under the Native Title Act. By virtue of amendments to the Act, which came into effect on 30 September 1998, the application thereafter became a proceeding in the Federal Court. That matter, in common with other overlapping claims, is presently part heard before a judge of this Court. The ALS was, until 1 July 2000, a native title representative body determined as such by the Minister under s 202 of the Native Title Act. On 28 August 1999, Kitto & Kitto, solicitors acting for the applicants, wrote to the ALS seeking funding of $35,000 for their clients to obtain legal advice. On 5 May 1999, the ALS replied that it could not make the grant because its Native Title Policy prevented it from funding private practitioners on native title matters. The solicitors responded asking the ALS whether it would act for their clients. On 1 June 1999, the ALS replied that it would act for the applicants but that such representation would not be separate from the representation of the Ngaluma and Yinjibandi Group, which it was representing in respect of a claim substantially overlapping the applicants’ claim and which was also part heard. On 24 June 1999, Mr Hicks and one of the other applicants, Mr Douglas, applied to ATSIC for funding, estimated at $665,000, for legal representation and other costs related to the conduct of their claim. ATSIC wrote to the ALS on 8 September 1999 asking it to review its decisions on the matter of support to the applicants. On the following day the ALS advised Kitto & Kitto of ATSIC’s request and invited any additional submissions. On 16 September 1999, the ALS decided not to grant the funding as requested for the conduct of a separate native title application by the Wong-goo-tt-oo Group. The applicants challenged the ALS decision in the Federal Court pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act). The application was out of time but an extension of time was granted. Among the grounds of review was an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the ALS. Carr J concluded that the decision under challenge was vitiated on that ground and should be set aside. This was on the basis that given the duties which the principal legal officer of the ALS and in-house counsel owed professionally to the Ngaluma Yinjibandi Group “… a fair minded lay observer with knowledge of the material objective facts might entertain a reasonable apprehension that [principal legal officer] might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the decision under challenge”. Such an observer might reasonably consider that the two lawyers were too closely identified with the interests of the Ngaluma Yinjibandi Group. His Honour concluded that it would be reasonable for the ALS to brief an independent barrister to assess the legal merit of the claim being made by Mr Hicks and his fellow applicants in the native title application. An opinion could be obtained from an independent barrister or, alternatively, from an interstate equivalent of the ALS – Hicks v Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia (Inc) (2000) 98 FCR 435.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

FRENCH J
Section 22 provides for the formulation of decision-making principles about grants, loans and guarantees thus: “22(1)The Commission must formulate written principles (decision-making principles), not inconsistent with the objects of this Act, about: (a)making grants and loans under section 14 or 16; and (b)giving guarantees under section 15; and (c)subscribing for, or otherwise acquiring, shares or stock under section 17.(2)Subject to section 74, the Commission must perform its functions and exercise its powers under sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 in accordance with applicable provisions of the decision-making principles in force from time to time. (3)Without limiting the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that copies of the decision-making principles as in force from time to time are: (a)given to each Regional Council; and (b)available for inspection and purchase at each of the Commission’s offices.(4)The Chief Executive Officer must cause notice of the making of decision-making principles to be published in the Gazette.”Section 46 provides for the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer of the Commission. This is a ministerial appointment. The Chief Executive Officer manages the day to day administration of the Commission.Decision-making Principles The relevant decision-making principles, made pursuant to s 22 of the Act and relied upon by the decision-maker in this case, are in the following terms: “2.1The Commission will not exercise its powers under sections 14, 15 or 16 unless: ...b.in the case of a request for grant funding, the applicant is a body corporate, a State or Territory Government or a Commonwealth/State/Territory authority (including local government bodies), or an individual or unincorporated body applying under the Indigenous Business Incentive Program, although the Commission will consider on their merits, and in special circumstances approve, requests for grant funding from individuals and unincorporated bodies under other programs; ...2.5In making decisions under sections 14, 15 and 16 the Commission will: a.apply Commission policy as set out in Program Statements and the Program Policy and Guidelines Statements;”Program Statements and Program Policy and Guidelines Statement The relevant Program Statements and Program Policy and Guideline Statements applicable to native title grants are designated as: (a) The Native Title Program Statement; (b) The Native Title Program Policy and Guideline Statements 1999-2000; (c)The Native Title Policy Framework which is an attachment to the Native Title Program Policy and Guideline Statements ATSIC’s Program Policy and Guideline Statements 1999-2000 set out in paragraph 5: “5.It is ATSIC policy that: .funding for Native Title is provided through one national program (with decisions being made by the Board or its delegate following consultation with the elected arm);.assistance for native title claims and other processes under the NT Act is channelled through NTRBs. In exceptional circumstances, submissions for funding from specific claimant groups or other bodies will be considered after consultation with the relevant NTRB, and subject to any review process in the NT Act..funding for native title purposes is quarantined from ATSIC’s global allocation and strictly earmarked for those purposes.”The Native Title Policy Framework provides, in relation to direct funding, as follows: “Direct fundingATSIC will consider direct funding only in exceptional circumstances and only if the claimant has already sought and been denied funding by an NTRB and the original decision confirmed through the NTRB’s internal review processes. If requested, NTRBs shall advise ATSIC of any decision made to decline assistance to a native title claimant or group, and provide reasons for such refusal. NTRBs will be required to participate in any independent review of that decision by ATSIC.In the event that any independent review recommends assistance ATSIC will either: a)direct the NTRB to assist the applicant out of the NTRB’s existing allocation; b)provide additional funding to the NTRB to assist the applicant, orc)provide funding direct to the applicant if all other processes have failed.”Reasons for the ATSIC Decision

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FRENCH J

Full text does not contain this section.