Hika Tawara Te-Kowhai v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty

2026/00122140

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – on 16 October 2025, the first respondent, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty (the Minister) appointed the second respondent, Mr Callaghan, as the administrator of the third respondent, Cobowra Local Aboriginal Land Council (the CLALC), pursuant to s 222 of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) (ALRA) (the appointment decision) – by summons, the appellant commenced proceedings in the name of the CLALC seeking review of the appointment decision on the following grounds: (1) the Minister failed to comply with the statutory preconditions imposed by ss 223A and 222 of the ALRA to the exercise of his power to make the appointment decision; (2) the Minister failed to comply with the requirements of procedural fairness imposed by s 222; (3) the Minister made the appointment decision for an improper purpose; (4) the appointment decision was unreasonable and/or “disproportionate” – the appellant sought leave to advance an additional ground of review that the appointment decision was made contrary to s 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) – the primary judge held that the proceedings, having been commenced by the appellant without the authority of the CLALC, were liable to be struck-out or stayed, but her Honour made orders (in accordance with the alternative relief proposed by the Minister) that the CLALC be removed as a party pursuant to r 6.29 of the UCPR, and the appellant be joined as the sole applicant in the proceedings pursuant to r 6.24 – the Minister accepted that the appellant had standing to bring the proceedings – the primary judge held that the appellant had not made out any of the grounds of review, and further, her Honour refused to grant leave to the appellant to advance the additional ground of review – the primary judge dismissed the amended summons – whether the primary judge made various errors in construing and applying the ALRA – whether the primary judge erred in finding that each dismissal was validly made – whether the primary judge erred in failing to allow the respondent to advance a ground of review in relation to s 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and in failing to consider that ground of review – whether the primary judge erred in “failing to consider the interest of the third respondent in respect of judicial review”.

Hika Tarawa Te-Kowhai v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Treaty [2026] NSWLEC 20