- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 9,177
- 0
- 6
The High Court of Australia rejected the Commonwealth of Australia’s appeal in a historic case concerning native title compensation claim, ruling in favor of the Indigenous Gumatj Clan on Wednesday.
The High Court delivered its decision in the Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu (on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group) & Ors. case, dismissing the Commonwealth’s appeal of the earlier decision delivered by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The High Court held that the Full Court was right in accepting the Gumatj Clan’s two main propositions. Rejection of the Commonwealth’s appeal means the Commonwealth may be held liable for compensation per the Full Court’s finding.
Initiated in 2019, Dr Yunupingu, the late Gumatj Clan leader, filed a native title compensation claim against the Commonwealth on behalf of the Gumatj Clan, seeking up to $700 million for the mining and exploitation of resources on the Gove Peninsula. Situated in North East Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory of Australia, land on the Gove Peninsula was acquired with a mining lease granted to Swiss mining company Nabalco in the early 1960s.
Dr Yunupingu claimed the Commonwealth has an obligation “to compensate Yolngu peoples for the extinguishment or impairment of their traditional title to land on the Gove Peninsula in North East Arnhem Land” under the Native Title Act 1993. Native title compensation is payable for acts that occurred after the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 came into effect. Notably, Dr Yunupingu’s claim for compensation encompassed acts before the commencement of this act.
In the present case, the court considered three questions in its decision. The first question was whether the constitutional power the Commonwealth Parliament has in making laws for the government of a territory “extends to making a law with respect to the acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms,” (specified in s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution). The second question considered whether the extinguishment of native title rights and interests before the commencement of the Native Title Act “constituted an acquisition of property within the meaning of s 51(xxxi).” The third question was more specific, concerning the Governor of South Australia’s grant of a pastoral lease in 1903 and its implications.
Section 51(xxxi) of the constitution concerns the acquisition of property on ‘just terms’. The Gumatj Clan’s first proposition noted that the constitutional power of the Commonwealth Parliament “does not extend and has never extended to making a law with respect to the acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms.” The High Court, in upholding the Full Court’s decision, rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that the ‘just terms’ clause excludes the territories. The Commonwealth’s main argument regarding the second question asserted that under ‘just terms’, the acquisition of native title rights and interests could not be considered an acquisition of property as these rights and interests were not property. The second accepted proposition noted that by the ‘just terms’ clause and before the commencement of the Native Title Act, native title rights and interests could constitute an acquisition of property.
The post Australia High Court rejects Commonwealth Parliament appeal in native title land compensation claim appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
The High Court delivered its decision in the Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupingu (on behalf of the Gumatj Clan or Estate Group) & Ors. case, dismissing the Commonwealth’s appeal of the earlier decision delivered by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The High Court held that the Full Court was right in accepting the Gumatj Clan’s two main propositions. Rejection of the Commonwealth’s appeal means the Commonwealth may be held liable for compensation per the Full Court’s finding.
Initiated in 2019, Dr Yunupingu, the late Gumatj Clan leader, filed a native title compensation claim against the Commonwealth on behalf of the Gumatj Clan, seeking up to $700 million for the mining and exploitation of resources on the Gove Peninsula. Situated in North East Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory of Australia, land on the Gove Peninsula was acquired with a mining lease granted to Swiss mining company Nabalco in the early 1960s.
Dr Yunupingu claimed the Commonwealth has an obligation “to compensate Yolngu peoples for the extinguishment or impairment of their traditional title to land on the Gove Peninsula in North East Arnhem Land” under the Native Title Act 1993. Native title compensation is payable for acts that occurred after the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 came into effect. Notably, Dr Yunupingu’s claim for compensation encompassed acts before the commencement of this act.
In the present case, the court considered three questions in its decision. The first question was whether the constitutional power the Commonwealth Parliament has in making laws for the government of a territory “extends to making a law with respect to the acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms,” (specified in s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution). The second question considered whether the extinguishment of native title rights and interests before the commencement of the Native Title Act “constituted an acquisition of property within the meaning of s 51(xxxi).” The third question was more specific, concerning the Governor of South Australia’s grant of a pastoral lease in 1903 and its implications.
Section 51(xxxi) of the constitution concerns the acquisition of property on ‘just terms’. The Gumatj Clan’s first proposition noted that the constitutional power of the Commonwealth Parliament “does not extend and has never extended to making a law with respect to the acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms.” The High Court, in upholding the Full Court’s decision, rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that the ‘just terms’ clause excludes the territories. The Commonwealth’s main argument regarding the second question asserted that under ‘just terms’, the acquisition of native title rights and interests could not be considered an acquisition of property as these rights and interests were not property. The second accepted proposition noted that by the ‘just terms’ clause and before the commencement of the Native Title Act, native title rights and interests could constitute an acquisition of property.
The post Australia High Court rejects Commonwealth Parliament appeal in native title land compensation claim appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.