The Yunupingu Native Title High Court decision, explained

The Excessive Courtroom lately handed down judgment within the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu, a landmark determination that’s the most vital improvement in Native Title since Mabo in 1992. 

The case began after the late Indigenous activist and Yolngu man Galarrwuy Yunupingu made a Native Title declare for the Gumatj clan in northeast Arnhem Land, searching for compensation over bauxite mining websites on the Gove Peninsula. 

The declare for compensation for the Gumatj individuals has been estimated as as much as $700 million, with the mining lease — initially granted to Nabalco, an organization that now exists as a part of Rio Tinto — winding up in 2030.  

The bauxite mining and refining that befell on the land has left poisonous chemical waste that may take greater than a century to dissipate.

What was being argued? 

The Yunupingu case handled the overlap between Native Title rights, governance of the territories, and the “simply phrases” clauses within the structure, made well-known by the 1997 film The Fort. 

The Commonwealth structure, underneath Part 51, empowers the Commonwealth to accumulate property, from any state or individual for any goal in respect of which the Parliament has energy to make legal guidelines, however solely on “simply phrases”.

This limitation on the kinds of individuals captured by the scope of the Parliament is a vital challenge within the Yunupingu case, as states and territories are handled in a different way underneath the structure. 

Dr Leon Terrill teaches Native Title regulation and land regulation on the College of New South Wales and informed Crikey that the excellence between states and territories was essential — as till 1978 (with the passing of the Northern Territory Self-Authorities Act), the Commonwealth was answerable for the governance of the Northern Territory after taking on from South Australia in 1911. 

“We’re speaking in regards to the Commonwealth structure, which solely protects towards acquisitions by the Commonwealth,” he mentioned. 

“There isn’t a simply phrases safety within the New South Wales structure, or the South Australian structure, or the West Australian structure [and] … most land issues are handled by states.” 

Part 122 of the structure grants the Commonwealth the ability to make legal guidelines and govern territories, which function in a different way from states. 

The Commonwealth within the Yunupingu case tried to argue that the “simply phrases” assure solely operated in very restricted circumstances that usually didn’t apply to the territories. 

“The entire judges are clear that while you’re working within the [Northern] Territory, and if it includes an acquisition of property, though it’s underneath the ‘territories energy’, it nonetheless engages Part 51 and it’s nonetheless bought to be on simply phrases,” Terril mentioned.  

In terms of Native Title, the excellence between state legal guidelines and the Commonwealth is once more important, Terrill mentioned. 

“The massive level to make is that almost all Native Title was extinguished by the colonies previous to Federation and has been extinguished by states after Federation … the findings in Yunupingu, they matter for actions of the Commonwealth since 1901, that’s most related within the Northern Territory as a result of they ran the Territory straight from 1911 till 1978.” 

Due to this extinguishing of Native Title rights, Terrill mentioned that “this is the reason Native Title litigation is usually so lengthy and complicated, as a result of it includes these historic investigations about what occurs, in some instances over a interval of centuries to work out what [native title] rights could be left by the point the Commonwealth got here alongside”.  

What did the Excessive Courtroom discover? 

The Excessive Courtroom discovered that the ability conferred on the Parliament by Part 122 — that’s, the ability referring to the territories — didn’t imply that the “simply phrases” provisions of the structure in Part 51 didn’t apply. Actually, they did apply. 

The Excessive Courtroom additionally discovered that Native Title operated like property, and that taking away Native Title rights is like taking away property, which is why the “simply phrases” assure utilized. 

What does this imply? 

Requested why this case was important when there have been a number of limitations on the related time intervals and what little Native Title could stay in components of Australia the place land is just not administered by the Commonwealth, Terrill mentioned it was “important for these individuals it impacts”. 

It was beforehand thought that compensation for Native Title would solely be obtainable for acts that occurred after the introduction of 1975’s Racial Discrimination Act, however this case “opens the door”, in keeping with Terrill. 

“There are going to be locations the place the Commonwealth has extinguished Native Title earlier than 1975 — with out this determination, compensation was simply off the desk. Now it’s again on the desk, albeit not straightforwardly. 

“It opens the door, however it opens the door right into a room the place there are nonetheless additional hurdles.”

Have one thing to say about this text? Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au. Please embrace your full title to be thought of for publication in Crikey’s Your Say. We reserve the correct to edit for size and readability.