Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series |
Last Updated: 5 October 2012
Section 51(xxxi) and the Acquisition of Property Under Commonwealth-State Arrangements: The Relevance to Native Title Extinguishment on Just Terms
Sean Brennan, University of New South Wales
This
paper is available for download at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2153600
Citation
This article was published in the Australian
Indigenous Law Review (2011), Vol.15, at 74-86. This paper may also be
referenced as [2012] UNSWLRS 45.
Abstract
While the federal government in Australia must accord
‘just terms’ to a divestee for ‘acquisitions of
property’,
the constitutional situation for sub-national State governments
is different. Under flexible State constitutions, which steer closer
to the
classic Westminster model of parliamentary sovereignty, the States are
understood to have a virtually unlimited power of eminent
domain. However recent
litigation in the High Court of Australia has emphasised that acquisitions
pursuant to Commonwealth-State
intergovernmental arrangements can attract the
just terms guarantee in the federal constitution. This is so even though the
immediate
act of expropriation occurs under State law.
This article
unpacks the four-step process by which the High Court achieves this result in
doctrinal terms. It also points out a basic
‘aggregationist’-‘disaggregationist’ division of opinion
within the High Court, which in turn reflects ambivalence
about how far the
judiciary should go in enforcing the constitutional protection of property
rights. The article then turns to native
title, the pre-existing property right
of Australia’s first peoples, which was initially recognised by the High
Court in the
Mabo decision in 1992. The extinguishment of native title in
Australia mostly occurs through State rather than federal action, whether
by
legislatures or executives. But the federal Native Title Act establishes a
national set of extinguishment principles binding on
the States, backdated to
1975 when an important non-discrimination statute took effect. The States have
enacted complementary legislation
embodying the same extinguishment principles.
The article applies the recent High Court developments reviewed earlier and
concludes that the just terms guarantee can apply to native
title extinguishment
by States under this interlocking arrangement.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLRS/2012/45.html