Case Study Of Koowarta V Bjelke-Petersen

Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen [1982] HCA 27

Answer

The High Court’s judgement in “Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen [1982] HCA 27” is regarded as a landmark in Australian legal and political history. The case has shifted perceptions on complex issues like ethnicity, race etc. The High Court’s decision in Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen changed the way of interpretation for federal constitutionalism along with international laws.

Case Introduction

John Koowarta and his companions pushed to buy the Archer River cattle property in 1976 with the help of the Aboriginal Fund Commission. This relocation was made to offer an exclusive cattle farm for the Aboriginal people. The present owners agreed to sell the lease, but Bjelke-Petersen, leader of the Queensland National Party, refused. The Bjelke – Peterson family opposed reserving substantial lands for the Aboriginal people. Their attitude was validated by the cabinet’s position towards Aboriginals. Peterson told the Queensland Ministry’s lands department to reject the deal. Faced with such resistance, the Koowarta group resolved to go to the High Court (Genovese, 2018). The Koowartha group argued that the Queensland government had violated Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975 by refusing the acquisition of Archer River cattle ranch.

Legal Specifics

It is a legal requirement that the leasing deal is approved by the Queensland government. The Queensland government’s policy clearly states that the Aborigine population has been assigned and reserved land in Queensland for its welfare and progress. The Discrimination Act’s provisions eradicated any kind of racial impartiality or discrimination. The administration of Bjelke-Petersen questioned the legality of the Discrimination Act in Australia. The main counter-argument was that the Commonwealth’s authority exceeded the Constitution’s limitations (Sargent, 2016). They maintained that the Commonwealth had no constitutional jurisdiction to interfere in Australian racial discrimination laws.

Arguments were put forward by both parties.

Since the lease was prohibited by the Queensland government on misleading grounds, John Koowarta and others alleged bad faith and discrimination. The defendant side said that the Aboriginal population of Australia already had a reasonable amount of sovereignty over Queensland land. So putting more land under the sovereignty of the Aboriginal people is impossible (Groves, Boughey and Meagher, 2019). The Queensland government argued before the High Court that the Commonwealth could not violate the RDA’s rules. The defendants asked the High Court whether the Commonwealth had the jurisdiction to imply the Racial Discrimination Act in Australia.

Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen 

The Koowarta and parties alleged discrimination under sections 9 and 12 of the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975. It is because that section 9 of the act deals with human rights violations that have been caused by discrimination based on race. Under the Racial Discrimination Act, preventing any individual or group of people from acquiring property or confining a race in a certain geographical place was deemed prohibited. As previously stated, the genuine legitimacy of the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975 in Australia was questioned by the jury of the High Court (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2015). The Queensland administration, led by Bjelke-Petersen, advanced their case by challenging the Australian government’s jurisdiction to expand the Commonwealth’s foreign affairs power outside the Constitution’s conventions. Section 51 of the Australian Constitution bars such operations of the federal and provincial governments, the High Court said.

Ruling was given by High Court

Regarding the case, the major challenge which was faced by the Jury of the High Court was in regarding the query over external affairs authority and such challenge was whether the legislation could be classified as an affair of external matters since it was practised within the dominion of Australia. The universal agreements were granted to the external land affairs by rulings made under the Submerged land Case and the Paris Convention case. However, the court has made it clear in its verdict that the authority of external affairs was not limited to the foreign issues of Australia, though the suspicion remains whether it has the authority to involve in the local issues which don’t involve any foreigners or foreign countries (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2015). The major argument that there would be a negative impact on the international reputation of Australia if they do not abide by the guidelines mentioned under the convention was put forward before the jury by the Commonwealth. The legislative body of Australia was empowered to make policies and laws regarding external affairs as per the norms laid down under Section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution (Australian Government, 2015). Though the jury pointed out the term external affairs is not well defined and could bring ambiguity towards the intent. Countering the points, the Commonwealth body has argued that it has an inseparable role in external affairs since Australia is also a signatory in CERD.

By taking into account the provision of section 52 (xxix), the liability of the state laws in abiding with the Racial Discrimination Act by dint of external affairs authority was made clear under the verdict of the High Court (Australian Government, 2015). The decision was made by a narrow margin of 4 against 3 by the jury. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was to be formed under the conventions laid under the Racial Discrimination Act. Thus the Commonwealth authorities have all the right to pass it under the powers mentioned under external affairs.

Critical Analysis

The Racial Discrimination Act prohibits any harm to native entitlement or insensitive extinguishment of the native community, while the Native Title Act 1993 exempts particular situations. Section 109 of the Constitution facilitates the Racial Discrimination Act for replacing conflicting state legislation. In Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, racial discrimination was declared constitutional. As stated in Section 9 (1) of the Racial Discrimination Act, any form of restriction, disparity, or prohibition based on nationality (race), ethnic origin, race (descent), colour, etc. with the intent to invalidate or annul fundamental human rights in political, public, social, and cultural aspects is illegal. Section 12 prohibits racial discrimination in the clearing of certain estates and lands (O’Neill et al, 2004). The above-mentioned arguments were the plaintiff’s main points. These arguments have shifted the discourse towards the plaintiff. Affirmative action is an action taken to prevent a person from being discriminated against based on colour, race, ethnicity or nationality. Initially, the defendant was doomed to lose due to their harmful attitude against the world and local societies’ ban of racial discrimination. “Any race linked to aboriginal community” was included in the special statute, weakening the defence case of Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (Baier, 2011). On the other hand, the jury was unbiased in this case since racial discrimination was never restricted to particular races and was relentless on everyone, declassifying it from special legislation.

The judgement in the case of Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen has earned the local government a favourable reputation in front of the worldwide community. The previous legislative system was unable to address discrimination based on colour, nationality, race, ethnicity, and other factors. The backdrop of discrimination was provided by the defending party (Millane, 2006). The defence presented its case to the jury in the incorrect way. The decision by the Bjelke-Petersen administration to turn the disputed property into a National Park is seen as an unjust and unprincipled attempt to deny the Koowarta and their parties success. The proposal by Bjelke-Petersen to turn the Archer River cattle pasture into a national park was rescinded by Anna Bligh in 2010.

References

Australian Government, 2015. Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00089

Australian Human Rights Commission. 2015. Forty years of the Racial Discrimination Act. Retrieved from https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/opinions/forty-years-racial-discrimination-act

Baier, G. 2011. Courts and Federalism: Judicial Doctrine in the United States, Australia, and Canad. UBC Press.

Genovese, A. 2018. Australian Critical Decisions: Remembering Koowarta and Tasmanian Dams. Routledge.

Groves, M., Boughey, J. and Meagher, D. 2019. The Legal Protection of Rights in Australia. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Millane, V. 2006. Legal Studies. Pascal Press.

O’Neill et al. 2004. Retreat from Injustice: Human Rights Law in Australia. Federation Press.

Sargent, S. 2016. Indigenous Rights: Changes and Challenges in the 21st Century. Legend Press Ltd.