Pareroultja & Ors v Tickner

The applicants, Janice Pareroultja and others, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. They were challenging the application of the *Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976* (Cth) (the Land Rights Act) to land in respect of which native title existed. The respondents were the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and the Central Land Council.

The central legal issues before the Court were: first, whether the Land Rights Act applied to land already subject to valid common law native title, thereby preventing the grant of such land to a land trust; second, if the Land Rights Act did apply, whether its granting and management provisions were overridden by s 10(3) of the *Racial Discrimination Act 1975* (Cth) (the Racial Discrimination Act); and third, whether the granting provisions of the Land Rights Act fell within s 10(1) of the Racial Discrimination Act, and if so, whether the Land Rights Act constituted a "special measure" exempting it from the operation of that section. A fourth submission, based on the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth), was also raised, arguing that this Act provided native title holders with a choice regarding how their title was held.

The applicants' primary submission was that the Land Rights Act should not apply to land where native title subsisted, as this would preclude the grant of land to a land trust. Alternatively, they argued that the relevant provisions of the Land Rights Act were rendered inoperative by s 10(3) of the Racial Discrimination Act, as interpreted by this Court in *Mabo (No 1)* and *Mabo (No 2)*. Further, they contended that the granting provisions of the Land Rights Act directly contravened s 10(1) of the Racial Discrimination Act, and that the Land Rights Act was not a special measure. The fourth submission posited that the *Native Title Act 1993* offered native title holders a choice between holding their title directly or through a prescribed corporation.