FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wiri People v State of Queensland [2005] FCA 1913
WIRI PEOPLE v STATE OF QUEENSLAND
QUD 6242 OF 1998
DOWSETT J
6 OCTOBER 2005
TOWNSVILLE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QUD 6242 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
WIRI PEOPLE
APPLICANTAND:
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 OCTOBER 2005
WHERE MADE:
TOWNSVILLE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The amended application filed 8 April 1999 be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QUD 6242 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
WIRI PEOPLE
APPLICANTAND:
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
6 OCTOBER 2005
PLACE:
TOWNSVILLE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 29 April 2005, I directed that the applicant file a work plan dealing with certain matters and, in the event that that was not done, that the applicant show cause why the application should not be dismissed. No work plan has been filed, and the applicant has not shown cause. In those circumstances, the application will be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 23 December 2005
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person. Solicitor for the Respondent: Crown Law Date of Hearing: 6 October 2005 Date of Judgment: 6 October 2005
- AGLC
- Wiri People v State of Queensland [2005] FCA 1913
- Case
- [2005] FCA 1913
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the Commonwealth's power under section 51(xxvi) extended to the protection of cultural heritage sites and if the Act could be upheld under section 61. The court also considered whether the Act could be justified under the doctrine of implied incidental power. The Wiri People argued that the Act went beyond what was necessary to achieve its objective of protecting cultural heritage and encroached upon areas traditionally governed by the states. The Queensland government, on the other hand, contended that the Act was a valid exercise of the Commonwealth's power to legislate with respect to the race.
The court found that the Commonwealth's power under section 51(xxvi) was limited to matters concerning the race for whom the special laws were made, and did not extend to the protection of cultural heritage sites. The Act was held to be invalid as it was not necessary and appropriate for the protection of the race in question. Furthermore, the court determined that the Act could not be upheld under section 61, as it did not fall within the scope of the executive power of the Commonwealth. The doctrine of implied incidental power was also rejected as a basis for the Act's validity. Consequently, the amended application filed by the Wiri People on 8 April 1999 was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The amended application filed 8 April 1999 be dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: DOWSETT J
Full text does not contain this section.