The case has large implications for compensation to Indigenous peoples for government acts between 1911 and 1975, particularly in the Northern Territory and also the Australian Capital Territory.
Prior to Wednesday's High Court decision, The Australia Institute is pleased to publish research by Dr Ed Wensing outlining the potential implications for the ACT.
Key points:
- Native title matters remain unresolved in the ACT with no statutory land rights system.
- The issues raised by Yunupingu in the Northern Territory have many similarities with historical circumstances faced by Traditional Owners in the ACT.
- The ACT Government has acted hypocritically. It has a policy of reconciliation and healing, but joined the Commonwealth's appeal to the High Court on two out of three grounds.
"The High Court's decision has huge implications for the ACT and its Traditional Owners," said Dr Ed Wensing, Honorary Research Fellow at the Centre for Indigenous Policy Research at the Australian National University and long-time contributor to The Australia Institute.
"The nub of the case is about the expansion of the period of liability for compensation for Territory Government granted titles over native title.
"If the High Court decides in favour of Mr Yunupingu and the Gumatj Clan, the ACT's long-held position that all native title rights and interests in the ACT were extinguished by past events simply evaporates.
"Even if the Commonwealth wins, the ACT Government still has an obligation to sit down with the native title holders of the ACT, whoever they may be, and come to an amicable and workable agreement under s.47C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) about the ownership and management of national parks and conservation reserves in the ACT."
"Either way, the ACT Government will have to show some leadership. Such leadership has been sadly lacking up until now.
