Queensland’s Human Rights Act faces Appeal Court test over sacred Doongmabulla Springs
Nagana Yarrbayn Wangan & Jagalingou Cultural Custodians
MEDIA ALERT
17 November 2025
WHEN: Tuesday 18 and Wednesday 19 November 2025, commencing from 9.30 am
WHERE: Queensland Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, George Street, Brisbane, Appeal Court, Level 3
WHAT: Appeal and cross-appeal hearing in the groundbreaking Doongmabulla Springs Aboriginal cultural rights case
Qld Attorney General and Human Rights Commission intervene on opposite sides in groundbreaking cultural rights case
THE QUEENSLAND COURT OF APPEAL will hear a landmark case that will determine whether Aboriginal cultural rights under the Queensland Human Rights Act can be enforced to protect sacred sites from environmental destruction.
The case has drawn interventions on opposite sides: the Queensland Attorney General supporting the government’s appeal, and the Queensland Human Rights Commission supporting Nagana Yarrbayn Wangan & Jagalingou Cultural Custodians’ position on the application of human rights act to enforcement.
The Cultural Custodians are defending their case while also cross-appealing to strengthen protection for the sacred Doongmabulla Springs, which are threatened by Adani’s Carmichael Coal Mine.
This appeal and cross-appeal concern how cultural rights cases can be brought under Queensland’s Human Rights Act, and whether these rights are freestanding and enforceable when government agencies fail to prevent environmental harm to sacred sites.
Nagana Yarrbayn Senior Cultural Custodian, Adrian Burragubba said: “The Government’s application to dismiss our case has been rejected by the trial judge, yet it continues to try to kill off our case by appeal. Our cross appeal is defending the integrity of our human rights and environment case; and our fundamental right as the Cultural Custodians, under our own cultural law protocols, to protect the Doongmabulla Springs.
“We hope the Judges will ultimately allow us to have our day in court to test the scientific evidence of the harm to the Doongmabulla Springs. The Government needs to be held to account for their failure to enforce its own law to protect the Springs from mining, and to uphold our human rights. While all this legal argument is going on, the Springs are further imperiled.
“For eleven years we have fought to protect these Springs. We have always warned the mine would destroy this significant site and now the evidence is mounting. The Government acknowledged in their own court documents that the Springs have ‘exceptional ecological value’ and ‘spiritual significance’ to us. Yet the LNP Government has chosen to fight us in court rather than do its job and protect the Springs from the mining operations.”
“The government has a responsibility not to usurp our cultural rights, which are rooted in First Law. But the government is being obstinate by refusing to respect our right to be heard and failing to understand our law.”
The legal battle
The government seeks to establish that cultural rights cannot compel regulatory enforcement action to protect culturally significant sites – reading down the Human Rights Act. The Cultural Custodians argue the opposite: that the Act creates obligations when sacred sites and the environment face destruction. The outcome will set precedent across Queensland for how cultural rights interact with environmental law.
Alison Rose, Special Counsel at Ninox Law, said: “This case strikes at the heart of two intersecting legal systems with different foundational philosophies: the Western Legal System, which focuses on individual rights; and the First Law which focuses on collective duties to care for Country, community and environment. The Court of Appeal must decide whether, and the way in which Queensland’s Human Rights Act can bridge these two systems.”
The Doongmabulla Springs have been central to Wangan & Jagalingou culture for millennia and are essential to maintaining spiritual connection to Country and transmitting cultural knowledge to younger generations.
The Cultural Custodians presented expert evidence from Griffith University’s Professor Matthew Currell and Flinders University’s Professor Adrian Werner, along with the Government’s own CSIRO and Geosciences Australia reports, showing serious risks of irreversible damage to the Doongmabulla Springs from mining operations, in contravention of the Environmental Approval for the mine.
Available for comment:
Adrian Burragubba – Senior W&J Cultural Custodian and Nagana Yarrbayn spokesperson
Alison Rose – Special Counsel, Ninox Law (legal analysis)
For more information and to arrange interviews: Anthony Esposito – NYWJCC adviser – 0418 152 743
Background to the Appeal
In June 2025, Justice Burns delivered a decision that rejected the Government’s attempt to strike out the case entirely but dismissed parts of the Cultural Custodians’ claims. The decision prompted both an appeal and a cross-appeal.
What the Cultural Custodians secured:
● A legal breakthrough: The right to seek declaratory relief under the Civil Proceedings Act. According to legal analysis by Ninox Law, this appears to be the first Queensland case where declaratory relief under the Civil Proceedings Act has been permitted to proceed in the absence of judicial review remedies, “potentially opening a new remedial pathway for enforcing human rights.”
● Justice Burns found sufficient grounds to allow their standing claim to be determined at trial
What was dismissed:
● The statutory judicial review component that could have allowed the court to order the Government to exercise its environmental protection powers
Why both sides are now appealing:
The Government, with the Attorney General directly intervening, is appealing to shut down the Civil Proceedings Act pathway entirely before it sets precedent for other human rights cases.
The Cultural Custodians are cross-appealing to restore the judicial review component that was dismissed. The Queensland Human Rights Commission has intervened supporting the Cultural Custodians’ position on human rights enforcement.
Case History
● December 2023: Queensland Government refused to exercise environmental protection powers despite independent expert evidence of harm to the Springs
● February 2024: Nagana Yarrbayn Cultural Custodians filed Supreme Court action
● March 2024: Government sought to dismiss the case before trial
● May 2024: Strike-out application heard before Justice Burns
● June 2025: Justice Burns delivered decision – rejecting Government’s strike-out of declaratory relief claim but dismissing the judicial review component
● June 2025: Orders hearing held – Government criticised for non-compliance
● June 2025: Government filed appeal to prevent the case proceeding
● July 2025: Cultural Custodians filed cross-appeal
● November 2025: Appeal and cross-appeal to be heard together
Legal Significance
The legal innovation: Justice Burns’ decision allowed human rights claims to proceed under the Civil Proceedings Act – the first case in Queensland to do so without judicial review remedies. This pathway circumvents traditional judicial review limitations. The government is appealing to shut it down before it becomes precedent for other human rights cases.
The case could establish precedent for:
● Whether human rights claims can proceed under the Civil Proceedings Act to bypass judicial review limitations
● Whether government regulatory “inaction” can violate Indigenous cultural rights
● How courts should interpret cultural rights with environmental law
● What obligations governments have when presented with evidence of threats to sacred sites
● The practical application of the Human Rights Act in protecting Indigenous interests
CASE DETAILS: Case name: Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation v Nagana Yarrbayn Wangan and Jagalingou Cultural Custodians Ltd
Court of Appeal number: CA 2558/25
Original case: BS 1902/24 (Supreme Court of Queensland)









You must be logged in to post a comment.