Australia is under renewed fire from legal experts after rejecting a United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) decision that found breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in a native‑title dispute involving the Wunna Nyiyaparli people.
The International Bar Association (IBA) reports that around 200 Wunna Nyiyaparli members lodged a claim in 2012 over the Roy Hill Pastoral Lease in Western Australia, which overlapped a broader Nyiyaparli claim filed in 1998.
After a 2015 “separate question” process and periods where the Wunna Nyiyaparli were unrepresented, the Federal Court dismissed their claim and in 2018, the broader Nyiyaparli claim was positively determined, foreclosing the Wunna Nyiyaparli’s avenue to pursue rights in the area.
With domestic options exhausted, the group petitioned the UNHRC in 2019.
In 2023, the Committee found violations of Article 14(1) (fair hearing/access to justice) and Article 27 (minority rights), recommending reconsideration of the claim.
However, the Australian Government’s 2024 response rejected that view, saying no breach occurred and asserting the native‑title process already accounted for ICCPR obligations.
Counsel for the Wunna Nyiyaparli, Scott Calnan, and former IBA Indigenous Peoples Committee chair David Paterson KC called the stance a missed chance for reconciliation and inconsistent with international law.
The Committee’s “Views” document details why lack of effective participation (including unrepresented periods and missed hearings) undermined a fair process.
And while the government argues the Committee’s findings are non‑binding in Australian law, the IBA notes that comparable UNHRC views have prompted legislative fixes elsewhere, citing the Sandra Lovelace case in Canada.
Whether Canberra re‑examines procedures to ensure meaningful participation will signal its commitment to human‑rights norms in complex native‑title litigation.
Discover more from Indigenous News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
