Skip to main content

Gorringe on behalf of the Mithaka People v State of Queensland [2015] FCA 1116

Year
2015
Jurisdiction
Queensland
Forum
Federal Court
Legislation considered
s 87 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
s 94A Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
Summary

Rangiah J

In this decision, Rangiah J recognised the native title rights and interests of the Mithaka People in relation to land and waters covering approximately 33, 752 square kilometres of primarily pastoral lease tenures in south-western Queensland.

The claim was filed on 28 November 2002 and registered on 24 December that year. The claim has been amended three times to accurately reflect the written description and map now contained in Form 1, to reduce the claim area following mediation with the Wangkangurru/Yarluyandi and Yandruwandha/Yawarrawarraka peoples, and finally to amend the applicant and claim group. The respondent parties included the State of Queensland, Barcoo Shire Council, Diamantina Shire Council, as well as a number of pastoralists and mining companies.

The native title rights and interests in relation to the land and waters are the non-exclusive rights to:

access, be present on, move about on and travel over the area
camp and live temporarily as part of camping, and for that purpose erect temporary shelters
hunt, fish and gather for personal, domestic and non-commercial communal purposes
take, use and share and exchange Natural Resources for personal, domestic and non-commercial communal purposes
take and use the water for personal, domestic and non-commercial communal purposes
conduct ceremonies
hold meetings
teach on the area the physical and spiritual attributes of the area
maintain places of importance and areas of significance to the native title holders under their traditional laws and customs and protect those places and areas, by lawful means, from physical harm
light fires on the area for domestic purposes including cooking, but not for the purpose of hunting or clearing vegetation
to be buried and to bury native title holders
be accompanied onto the area by certain non-Mithaka People, being:

immediate family of the native title holders, pursuant to the exercise of traditional laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title holders; and
people required under the traditional laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title holders for the performance of, or participation in, ceremonies.

From [13] Rangiah J summarised the history of the Mithaka People. Anthropological evidence of the impact of the arrival of European squatters for the region’s Aboriginal inhabitants. For example, violence, disease, sexual exploitation and a loss of control of waters were not uncommon experiences for Aboriginal men and women. This was followed by a period of harsh government control from the late 1890s which saw Aboriginal people moved to fringe camps and from there some were taken to reserves while others remained to work on stations. This strict control continued until the 1970s with the Queensland government's policies of Aboriginal 'protection' including control over wages, government approval required to spend money, control over where people could work, and live, who they could marry. In his judgment, Rangiah J noted at [14] that the Mithaka People were a distinct group united by a sense of shared affinity as well as language. Justice Rangiah summarised the anthropological evidence at [18]-[21] and concluded that the Mithaka People have held rights and interests in the area under their traditional laws and customs since prior to sovereignty and have continued to do so to the present. Evidence provided demonstrated that the rules of the Mithaka People connected to bush resources, hunting, fishing and gathering are part of land management and to ensure sustainability and regeneration. 

The Court was satisfied that it should make the orders agreed to by the parties. The Mithaka Aboriginal Corporation is the prescribed body corporate.