The Wik Decision
In 1996, the High Court made the important decision known as the Wik Case, which allowed Aborigines use the claim of the Native Title on land that included pastoral leases which had been granted by the Queensland Government. The High Court stated that the Native Title could only be rejected if a law or act of the Government showed a clear intention to extinguish the title.
Pastoral leases in Queensland had been created to meet the needs of the emerging pastoral industry, and had no intention of removing the Native Title from the areas, and therefore the Native Title could be used on these lands as the leaseholders did not have the right to an exclusive possession of the land. However, confusion was caused because the rights of pastoralists were more important than the rights of the Native Title holders, which meant that the pastoralists also had the right to own the land as they had more power than the people who held the rights to the Native Title.
This was solved by stating that the rights of the leaseholder would prevail if there was any inconsistency between the rights of the leaseholder and the rights of the Native Title holder. However it was also stated that any remaining rights of the Native Title would still be in place, which ensured that the Aboriginals and leaseholders both got a fair share.
Pastoral leases in Queensland had been created to meet the needs of the emerging pastoral industry, and had no intention of removing the Native Title from the areas, and therefore the Native Title could be used on these lands as the leaseholders did not have the right to an exclusive possession of the land. However, confusion was caused because the rights of pastoralists were more important than the rights of the Native Title holders, which meant that the pastoralists also had the right to own the land as they had more power than the people who held the rights to the Native Title.
This was solved by stating that the rights of the leaseholder would prevail if there was any inconsistency between the rights of the leaseholder and the rights of the Native Title holder. However it was also stated that any remaining rights of the Native Title would still be in place, which ensured that the Aboriginals and leaseholders both got a fair share.