CAVEAT
From the outset, it is important to put on record that this article is not intended to distinguish or to discriminate in any way between any of the Aboriginal families or groups with connections under their traditional laws and customs to the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Surrounds. The Author respects the fact that Aboriginal peoples know their culture, country and community, as they have for thousands of years before the colonisers/invaders arrived in the district in the 1820s.
The Author respects the fact that all Aboriginal peoples have a right to determine their own identity and the extent of their ancestral lands and waters, consistent with the rights to self-determination and self-governance in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2007).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The Author is an urban and regional planner, geographer, policy analyst and academic with experience across government and private sectors, non-government organisations and peak bodies. The Author is an Associate and Special Adviser at SGS Economics and Planning, and also holds both research and teaching positions at UNSW in Kensington. And, until recently, the Author had various affiliations with the ANU for over 50 years.
The Author’s expertise stretches across many different fields including land administration, strategic and statutory land use planning and development assessment, statutory Aboriginal land rights, water rights and interests, native title rights and interests, cultural heritage, natural resource management, environmental management and impact assessment, economic development and employment, the renewable energy transition and local governance. The Author has an extensive publication record and specialises in researching the intersection of Indigenous peoples land and water rights and interests (however defined by them) with Australia’s land planning and management systems. The Author’s doctoral dissertation focused on ‘Land Justice for Indigenous Australians and how two systems of land ownership, use and tenure can coexist with mutual respect based on parity and justice’ (Wensing, 2019).
While the Author has lived in Canberra all his life, he has had the privilege of working extensively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities in every jurisdiction in Australia for the past 30 years on a wide range of matters, including native title rights and interests, water rights, statutory land rights, natural and cultural heritage protection and management, land use planning (statutory and strategic), environmental research, environmental planning and management, natural resource management, economic development, the renewable energy transition, human rights and institutional governance reforms.
The views expressed in this paper are his own.
The Author has not received any funding to undertake this research.
ABOUT THIS RESEARCH
My research into the unfinished business of Aboriginal land rights and native title in the ACT was prompted by prodding from my principal PhD supervisor, Professor Mick Dodson AO. Mick used to say to me quite often during my PhD studies from 2013 until I graduated in 2019, that the local Aboriginal peoples of the ACT would benefit from my expertise. Mick Dodson was very concerned that there is no statutory Aboriginal land rights scheme in the ACT (similar to those in most other jurisdictions in Australia (Wensing, 2016)) and there has been no material progress on native title matters in the ACT (Wensing, 2021a), despite the fact that the Aboriginal Tent Embassy on the lawns outside Old Parliament House is the longest continuing protest site in the world. When I graduated in 2019, Mick reminded me of a commitment that I had made to him to assist the local Aboriginal peoples of the ACT and Surrounds to undertake research into these outstanding matters.
I was also prompted into this research by Jon Stanhope’s (2018)[1] article in the City News on 23 May 2018 and a subsequent conversation with him about the fact that the ACT Government had declared 28 May 2018 as the inaugural Reconciliation Day Public Holiday. Jon Stanhope questioned why the ACT Government was doing so when the statistics about Aboriginal peoples’ wellbeing are appalling and that the questions of Aboriginal land rights and native title rights and interests in the ACT remained unresolved.
My research into these matters was published as a Discussion Paper by The Australia Institute in March 2021, titled: Unfinished business: Truth-telling about Aboriginal land rights and native title in the ACT (Wensing, 2021a). That paper can be accessed here: https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/P1053-Unfinished-Business-in-the-ACT-Web.pdf
My Discussion Paper highlights a myriad of reasons why there has been no material progress on statutory land rights and native title matters over the last 30 or more years.
As far as I am aware, no one has put pen to paper to respond or critique my findings and conclusions in that Discussion Paper.
The week after my Discussion Paper was published, I was invited by the Secretariat of the United Ngunnawal Elders Council (UNEC) to give a presentation to UNEC. I met with UNEC for the whole day on 31 March 2021. For that presentation, I turned the contents of my Discussion Paper into 13 one-page Fact Sheets. I presented each Fact Sheet in turn, allowing ample time for UNEC members to discuss the content and to ask questions. The most telling remark made by a UNEC member at the end of the day was that no-one had ever bothered to give them the history and contextual information that I had just presented and in a way they could understand.
I also offered to assist UNEC (pro bono) on addressing land rights and native title matters, but that offer was not taken up.
I was later approached by Paul Girrawah House and Aunty Dr Matilda House-Williams OAM to assist them on land rights and native title matters. I have been assisting them (pro bono) on those matters, but always on the basis that I recognise all Aboriginal peoples have the same rights to self-determination and self-governance, as stated in the Caveat above.
PURPOSE
This paper is NOT about who the Traditional Owners of the ACT are or who they may be.
That is a matter for the various Traditional Owner groups to resolve in their own time and in accordance with their traditional laws and customs.
The three governments (Commonwealth, ACT and NSW) could assist by providing adequate resourcing either through the native title system or independently of the native title system through truth telling and Treaty making, as suggested in the Uluru Statement from the Heart and in the Referendum Council’s final report (Referendum Council, 2017; The Uluru Statement, 2017).
But there are no hard and steadfast rules that there can or should only be one group of Traditional Owners for the whole of the ACT, or that all the Traditional Owners in the ACT should all belong to one group. That is nothing but a fallacy conceived by the colonisers to suit its conveniences and world views. Based on my experience of working with Aboriginal peoples all over Australia, that’s not the way they view the world around them.
The purpose of this paper is to hold truth to power.
Not just to governments, but to all the people and institutions involved in the polity and governance of the ACT and Surrounds. And that includes governments and oppositions of all persuasions (Cth, ACT and NSW), all government departments and agencies, the Courts, all Traditional Owners and Traditional Owner groups, all the surrounding local Councils, all media organisations (radio, TV, print and electronic forms), non-government organisations, peak bodies, businesses and the corporate sector, universities, technical colleges, schools, churches and church groups of all denominations, the community sector, community service organisations, sporting groups and clubs, and all the citizens and residents of the ACT and Surrounds.
QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS
For almost three decades, the Territory Government has chosen to recognise only one group by name as the only ‘Traditional Custodians’ in the ACT. There may well be several reasons why the Territory Government has persisted in doing this, and that’s a matter for the Territory Government to reflect upon.
However, the time has now come to ask: Why?
As I have previously written, the term ‘Traditional Custodians’ is not defined in Australian law (Wensing, 2021a). While the ACT Executive may have powers under s.37 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) to make policy decisions, the ACT’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) in Mundy & the Chief Minister of the ACT & Ors had found that insisting only one Aboriginal group are the ‘Traditional Custodians’ of the ACT imposes a position that is ‘an entirely gratuitous executive undertaking’ and that the ACT Executive ‘did not have to limit its recognition to one tribe only, it chose to do so’… ‘to the exclusion of other tribes’.
This 2011 decision by ACAT raises the following question: What criteria were used to arrive at such a hard and steadfast position about the recognition of only one particular group of Traditional Custodians or Owners within the ACT?
The term ‘Traditional Owner’ is defined in Australian law by the Commonwealth and some of the States. For example, in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth), which does not apply to the ACT.[2]
While the term ‘Traditional Owner’ holds particular meaning in some legal contexts, it is used in this paper to recognise the connections under the traditional laws and customs to Country and culture of the Aboriginal peoples of the ACT and Surrounds and that their land rights and interests pre-date first white settlement in the district in the early 1820s.
A great deal more historical, genealogical, anthropological and primary source information has come to light since the early 2000s which casts serious doubt over the Territory Government’s assertion that there should only be one group worthy of recognition as Traditional Owners of the lands that now comprise the ACT. More new information has emerged over the last 25 years which shows that there are at least three or four different groups of Aboriginal peoples, possibly five, with connections under their traditional laws and customs to the ACT and Surrounds and that warrant recognition as Traditional Owners. This includes the following groups (listed alphabetically) Gundungurra, the Ngambri (Kamberri), the Ngarigo, the Ngunawal/Ngunnawal, and the Walgalu).
Until the High Court of Australia’s landmark decision in Mabo v State of Queensland (No. 2), Australian law did not officially recognise the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples concerning their ancestral land or waters. Native title was the term used by the High Court to recognise the communal, group or individual rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to their pre-existing and continuing connection with land and/or waters according to their traditional laws and customs (emphasis added).
By comparison with other common law countries such as New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America, Australia is a relative newcomer to dealing with the native title rights and interests of its Indigenous peoples. However, unlike other common law countries, Australia has opted for a legislative response rather than leaving it to the common law to continue to evolve in a way which would be capable of recognising native title rights and interests.
The Commonwealth’s Native Title Act 1993 was enacted in 1994 to recognise and protect Aboriginal peoples’ and Torres Strait Islanders’ common law native title rights and interests. It is important to understand that the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) does not create native title rights and interests it merely establishes processes for dealing with native title matters.
Native title is defined in s223(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) as:
“The communal, group or individual rights and interests of Aboriginal people or Torres Strait Islanders in relation to land or waters where:
· the rights and interests are possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged, and the traditional customs observed, by the Aboriginal people or Torres Strait Islanders; and
· the Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders, by those laws and customs, have a connection with the land and waters; and
· the rights and interests are recognised by the common law of Australia.”
At common law, the content of native title is based on traditional laws and customs, which vary from place to place and from group to group. The content of native title will vary from one place to another and between different groups of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
It is worth noting that the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) is silent on whether a claim should be named in a particular way and that it should have a defined hard and fixed boundary. What is required for proof of native title however, is that the claimants have rights and interests under traditional laws and customs, that under those laws and customs they have a connection with the lands and waters, that despite the disruptions and forced relocations brought about by colonisation the people still follow their laws and customs, and that the claimants are descendants from the people who were on country at the time of first sovereignty in 1788 or effective sovereignty after 1788. What is more important is what the people want from recognition of their native title rights and interests in today’s world and what it means to them.
The reasons why this context is relevant is because the Federal and High Courts of Australia are easing the burden of proving native title by taking a more nuanced approach to interpreting the requirements of s.223(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (Wensing, 2026:33-35).[3] While others (McLean, 2020; Synot, 2025) working in the native title system are arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the intertwining nature of traditional reciprocities, interdependencies and responsibilities that local groups have to each other and a better appreciation of the fact that ‘each local group is dependent on multiple others to maintain both land and society in a fully vital condition’ (McLean, 2020:18).
Taking a ‘frozen in time’ approach to these matters is not appropriate, and both the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of Australia are making that very clear in several recent native title judgements.
Why the Territory Government persists in recognising only one Traditional Owner group by name, remains unclear. But one thing is very clear: it is prejudicial and detrimental to each of the other groups with connections under their traditional laws and customs. It may also be discriminatory under the ACT’s Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).
Two individual members of one Traditional Owner group have taken the Territory Government to the ACT Supreme Court for breaches of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) alleging that the Territory Government has breached a Deed of Settlement that was signed in April 2023 and the that the Territory has breached the Plaintiff’s human rights. That case was heard from 9-11 June 2026, and Justice David Mossop has reserved his judgement to a later date.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
The following questions are directed at everyone involved in the polity and governance of the ACT (and Surrounds) and in our dealings with the Traditional Owners of the ACT and Surrounds. The ‘We’ in the following questions refers to the list in the final para above the heading ‘Questionable Assumptions’.
1. Why are we so unwilling or unable to recognise and protect the human rights of all the distinctly different Aboriginal peoples with connections under their traditional laws and customs to the ACT and Surrounds, equally, respectfully and inclusively? That should not be such a difficult question to answer, unless it’s a mixture of ignorance, inexperience, incompetence, ineptitude, intolerance and inertia that keeps standing in the way of a more reasonable contextual understanding of what we are dealing with. Not only by governments of all persuasions, but also by the wider community. The following questions may help to unpack the ‘baggage’ we may be carrying.
2. Why are we obsessed with recognising only one Traditional Owner group for the whole of the ACT? Who said there is or should be only one group with connections under their traditional laws and customs to an area? And that all the Traditional Owners of the ACT should all belong to the same group? Noting that most native title determinations around Australia are of non-exclusive possession determination, meaning that there is more than one group with traditional connections to an area. Maybe the ACT and Surrounds was and still is shared Country between neighbouring groups.
Why should there be a ‘hard and steadfast’ boundary between the different groups with connections under their traditional laws and customs to the ACT and Surrounds? The notion of a ‘hard and steadfast’ boundary between Aboriginal groups is a ‘white fella’ concept. Aboriginal people know their Country, and they move around Country for cultural or seasonal purposes, as they have for thousands of years. Where necessary, they will share Country with neighbours according to their laws and customs. Sometimes amicably, sometimes not. The facts of history bear that out in just about every native title claim around the country.
Were the Aboriginal peoples of the ACT and surrounds consulted when the three statutes[4] identifying and establishing the Seat of Government for the Commonwealth would be in the Yass-Canberra district in New South Wales were passed by the federal Parliament between 1908 and 1910? No. They were not consulted.
Since when did the ACT/NSW border ‘coincide’ with the ‘boundaries’ between the different Aboriginal groups of the ACT and surrounds? This assertion is simply not true, and it never will be. Primarily because none of the local Aboriginal peoples were involved or consulted in determining the site for the Australia’s capital city. The Commonwealth’s historical records about this omission are very clear.
What is the threshold we are applying to establish recognition of ‘Traditional Custodianship’ of the lands and waters within the ACT? This is an important question because nonrecognition or misrecognition can also inflict harm and can be a form of oppression, a denial of legitimacy and leaving no space for dialogue (O’Sullivan, 2022). Misrecognition is not about distorted identity or impaired subjectivity, but rather about the exclusion from participation as an equal in public life (Fraser, 2003:30). Taylor (1994:25) takes this interpretation further, and argues:
“identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence, often by the misrecognition of others, and so a person or a group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back to them a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves. Nonrecognition or misrecognition can inflict harm, can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being.”
While recognition may not guarantee justice, recognising the legitimacy of the other’s presence is a necessary pre-requisite to working out each other’s polity and ongoing relationship (O’Sullivan, 2022:48).
Why are we continuing to hold one Aboriginal group to ransom because they attended a particular community meeting in 2002 and agreed at that time to be a part of the United Ngunnawal Elders Council (UNEC)? The United Ngunnawal Elders Council was formed at the whim of the government of the day. It was not formed at the behest of the local Aboriginal peoples. It was never established as an entity; it was only established as an advisory body to government. Aboriginal peoples have the right to determine their identity in accordance with Article 33 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to self-governance over their affairs in accordance with Articles 33-37 of the Declaration.[5] Anybody has the right to walk away from these arrangements if they feel it is no longer working for them or for the purposes for which it was established.
For a variety of reasons, UNEC has not worked. It should therefore be formally abolished.
Are we applying the same level of scrutiny and rigorous proof to every Aboriginal group that has connections to the ACT and Surrounds under their traditional laws and customs if they are to be recognised by governments as Traditional Owners of the ACT and Surrounds? It is a matter of fact that different standards are being applied to different groups of Aboriginal peoples in order to be recognised as Traditional Owners in the ACT. The process is not transparent, and it is not fair or equitable to subject one group to a much higher threshold than the other. It is beyond unacceptable. It is discriminatory.
Why do we persist in recognising only one group by name when it is not a matter for governments to decide a Traditional Owner group’s identity and the content of their traditional laws and customs? Governments have no business interfering with Aboriginal peoples’ identity because Aboriginal peoples are accountable to their Elders and their community under their traditional laws and customs. The Territory Government’s ongoing persistence that only one group is worthy of recognition by name as the only Traditional Owners in the ACT is based on the wrong premise and is inconsistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Under the Declaration, Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity and to govern their own affairs (Articles 2-5 and 33-37).
Why are we acquiescing to the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body for advice on Traditional Owner matters? The Elected Body is a non-Traditional Owner body established by ACT statute to represent the wider Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community who reside in the ACT. It is not a representative body for the Traditional Owners of the ACT. As a general rule, Aboriginal peoples who are not Traditional Owners of the Country they may be living on do not have a right to make decisions about the identity and provenance of the Traditional Owners of that Country, unless they are married into a Traditional Owner family or have been adopted into a Traditional Owner family and have been given permission to speak for Country. None of the members of the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body have been given permission to speak on behalf of the Traditional Owners, as far as the public record is concerned.
11. Why have we been led to believe that the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) has no application in the ACT? The assertion that the Crown-to-Crown grant by New South Wales to the Commonwealth in 1911 extinguished all native title in the ACT is not correct (Wensing, 2021a:21-28). At common law, Crown-to-Crown grants (i.e. from government to government) do not extinguish native title. In 1911 the Commonwealth became the outright owner of approximately 101,313 ha of Crown lands, which is about 44% of the total ACT land area (excluding Jervis Bay). Further questions which must also be asked include: What has happened to that Crown land from 1911 through to the present? How much of that land is still Crown land? And, how much of that land is included in Namadgi National Park or gazetted as conservation reserves? Because national parks and conservation reserves could be the subject of a s.47C agreement between native title claimants and governments (Wensing, 2021a:34-35).[6]
The answers to these questions are not only a matter for the Territory Government, the Territory Opposition and the cross-bench Members of the Legislative Assembly of the ACT, they are also a matter for the wider ACT community and surrounding governments and communities to consider.
THIS IS ABOUT EQUAL, RESPECTFUL AND INCLUSIVE RECOGNITION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES’ HUMAN RIGHTS
The matter currently before the ACT Supreme Court is NOT about land rights or native title. It never was.
The matter currently before the ACT Supreme Court is NOT about one Traditional Owner group versus another Traditional Owner group. It never was.
It is about the recognition and protection of Aboriginal peoples’ human rights in the ACT. Equally. Respectfully. Inclusively.
In the words of s.27 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT):
27 Cultural and other rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other minorities
(1) Anyone who belongs to an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority must not be denied the right, with other members of the minority, to enjoy their culture, to declare and practise their religion, or to use their language.
(2) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples hold distinct cultural rights and must not be denied the right—
(a) to maintain, control, protect and develop their—
(i) cultural heritage and distinctive spiritual practices, observances, beliefs and teachings; and
(ii) languages and knowledge; and
(iii) kinship ties; and
(b) to have their material and economic relationships with the land and waters and other resources with which they have a connection under traditional laws and customs recognised and valued.
S.27 does not give rise to Aboriginal peoples’ human rights, but it does give rise to their protection from discrimination. These protections apply to the human rights of each distinct group of Aboriginal peoples in the ACT, regardless of how they identify and organise their affairs.
A footnote to S.27(2) in the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) states that the primary source of the rights in this sub-section of the Act is Articles 25 and 31 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Article 25 states:
Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.
Article 31 states:
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.
2. In conjunction with Indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.
Governments, courts and third parties are not at liberty to pick and choose which Articles they will apply or ignore. The Declaration comes as a whole and it must be read and applied in full (Wensing, 2019; and 2021b).
While the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples may not be a direct source of law (UN 2013:16), it nevertheless carries considerable normative weight and legitimacy for several reasons:
· It was adopted by the UN General Assembly;[7]
· It was compiled in consultation with, and with the support of, Indigenous peoples worldwide;[8] and
· It reflects “an important level of consensus at the global level about the content of Indigenous peoples’ rights” (UN 2013:16).
The Declaration also “reflects the needs and aspirations of Indigenous peoples” (Eide 2006:157) as well as the concerns of States (Wensing, 2021b:102).
The Declaration expresses rights and, in so doing, explains how Indigenous peoples want nation-states (and others) to conduct themselves in relation to matters that affect Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests (Wensing, 2019). The 46 articles that constitute UNDRIP are legally grounded entitlements that must be applied in full. The Declaration is therefore the high-water mark of legal recognition of Indigenous autonomy (Short, 2014:388).
In other words, the footnote to s.27(2) in the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) cannot be used to read down the application of the UN Declaration.
TRUTH TELLING AND TRUTH LISTENING
What is required is a level playing field.
It is time for everyone to realise and accept that we are making a serious mistake by recognising only one group as the Traditional Owners of the whole of the ACT by name. The current recognition of only one group as the ‘Traditional Custodians’ is driving an unnecessary wedge into the community and for little, if any, positive returns.
What is required of everyone is a recognition and acceptance that there is more than one Aboriginal group with legitimate connections under their traditional laws and customs to the ACT and Surrounds and that they each deserve equal, respectful and inclusive recognition from this day onwards. The discrimination must cease immediately.
It is time to get on with the task of repairing our relations with each of the different Aboriginal Traditional Owner groups by inclusive, respectful and non-discriminatory treatment in all our dealings with each of the different groups.
The announcement by the Territory Government of $754,000 over two years in the current Budget for the ACT to go towards the initial process of designing a truth-telling commission for the ACT is welcome news (Tindale, 2026). However, it will be a test of the Territory Government’s commitment to truth telling because the Yoorrook Justice Commission in Victoria sets the minimum benchmark for truth telling processes in Australia at the present time.
The Yoorrook Justice Commission was established under Section 5 of the Inquiries Act 2014 (Vic), which gave it the same powers as a Royal Commission. Given the current shambolic state of Aboriginal affairs in the ACT, I firmly believe that a Board of Inquiry should be established under s. 5 of the Inquiries Act 1991 (ACT) with very similar terms of reference to those that were issued to the Yoorrook Justice Commission (2026).
Perhaps more importantly than Truth Telling is Truth Listening. Aboriginal leaders are calling for a process of Truth Listening if Truth Telling is going to be meaningful and to drive change, rather than just being merely performative (Bedford, 2026:298).
As Blake Cansdale, the Director of ANTAR said in the annual David Hunter Memorial Lecture in 2025, we need to ‘dwell in the discomfort’ and ‘resist the desire to look away, and … allow the truth to move us’ (Cansdale, 2025).
Reconciliation Australia has recently produced several resources about Truth Telling and Truth Listening. These are worth exploring, and can be accessed here: https://www.reconciliation.org.au/our-work/truth-telling/ [9]
I trust that we can all rise above these challenges and embrace a better future for all through a process of Truth Listening as well as Truth Telling. And that applies to everyone.
As one of my dear friends says to me quite often: ‘It doesn’t hurt to be respectful and inclusive!’ From today onwards.
REFERENCES
Cases
Mabo v State of Queensland (No. 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1
Mundy & the Chief Minister of the ACT & Ors (Discrimination Act 2011 (ACT)), ACAT 86: page 23, para 48
Legislation
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth)
Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth)
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
Inquiries Act 2014 (Vic)
Inquiries Act 1991 (ACT)
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
Seat of Government Act 1908 (Cth)
Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 (Cth)
Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 (Cth)
Books, Reports, Book Chapters, Journal Articles, Etc.
Anaya, S.J. and Rodriguez-Pinero, L. (2018) The Making of UNDRIP. Chapter 2 in J. Hohmann and M. Weller (eds) (2018) The UN Declaration on The Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Bedford, N. (2026) Truth Listening and the Role of Memory Holders. In Appleby, G. and Davis, M. (2026) The Failure of the Referendum and the Future of Australian Democracy. Anthem Press.
Cansdale, B.A. (2025) Truth-listening: readying Australia for truth. ANTaR Newsletter, May. https://antar.org.au/blog/truth-listening-readying-australia-for-truth
Daes, E.I. (2008) An overview of the history of indigenous peoples: Self-determination and the United Nations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21 (1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570701828386
Edelman, D. (2009) Broader Native title settlements and the meaning of the term ‘Traditional Owners’. Paper delivered to the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Native Title Conference, Melbourne, 4 June. Accessed 21 April 2011.
Eide, A. (2006) ‘Rights of indigenous peoples – achievements in international law during the last quarter of a century’. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. Volume 37, December, pp 155-212.
Fraser, N. (2003) Rethinking recognition: Overcoming displacement and reification in cultural politics. In B. Hobson (ed) Recognition struggles and social movements: Contested identities, agency and power (pp. 21-32), Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
McLean, A. (2020) ‘Native Title – A New Wave of Dispossession’. ab-Original: Journal of Indigenous Studies and First Nations and First Peoples’ Cultures, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. DOI: 10.5325/aboriginal.3.2.0212.
O’Sullivan, D. (2022) Sharing the Sovereign: Indigenous Peoples, Recognition, Treaties and the State. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.
Referendum Council (RC) (2017) Final Report of the Referendum Council and Uluru Statement from the Heart. https://nationalunitygovernment.org/pdf/2020/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf
Short, L. (2014) Tradition versus power: when indigenous customs and state laws conflict. Chicago Journal of International Law, 15(1), 376-408.
Synot, E. (2025) ‘Counter narrative about native title’. LinkedIn, June. https://www.linkedin.com/in/edward-synot-844865291/recent-activity/all/
Taylor, C. (1994). Multiculturalism and the politics of recognition. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
The Uluru Statement (2017) The Uluru Statement from the Heart. https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/
Tindale, L. (2026) ‘Canberra to begin its own truth-telling process with First Nations people.’ The Canberra Times, 29 May. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9256026/canberra-to-begin-its-own-truth-telling-process-with-first-nations-people/?utm_id=c63bc676-8898-4870-b01c-a8acb716543d
United Nations (2007) Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. General Assembly Resolution 61/295. United Nations. http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/ga_61-295/ga_61-295_ph_e.pdf
United Nations (2013) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. General Assembly Sixty-eighth session, A/68/317. United Nations. http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/docs/annual/2013-ga-annual-report-en.pdf
Wensing, E. (2016) The Commonwealth’s Indigenous land tenure reform agenda: Whose aspirations, and for what outcomes? Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Research Publications, Canberra. Accessed 15 December 2016.
Wensing, E. (2019) Land Justice for Indigenous Australians: How can the two systems of land ownership, use and tenure co-exist with mutual respect based on parity and justice? PhD Thesis, ANU. http://hdl.handle.net/1885/157200
Wensing, E. (2021a) Unfinished Business: Truth-telling about Aboriginal land rights and native title in the ACT Discussion Paper 1053, The Australia Institute, March. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.16608.61440. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/P1053-Unfinished-Business-in-the-ACT-Wensing-2021.pdf
Wensing, E. (2021b) ‘Indigenous peoples’ human rights, self-determination and local governance’ – Part 1. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance. 24: 98-123.
Wensing, E. (2026) Treaty and Native Title Developments in Victoria: Implications for Land Planning and Management. SGS Economics and Planning. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33332.62086. https://sgs-assets.spicyweb.net.au/main/SGS-Economics-and-Planning_Vic-Treaty-Native-Title-Developments.pdf
Yoorrook Justice Commission (YJC) (2026) Resources. https://www.yoorrook.org.au/resources/all-yoorrook-documents
[1] Jon Stanhope was the ACT Chief Minister from 2001 to 2011.
[2] The term ‘Traditional Owner’ came into common usage in the mid-1970s following the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth), which established mechanisms through which Aboriginal people could claim unalientated Crown Land in the Northern Territory on the basis that they are the ‘traditional Aboriginal owners’ of the land (Edelman, 2009). The term has been replicated, in full or in part, in other statutes in the other jurisdictions around the country ever since. An examination of various statutes reveals that the definition of ‘traditional owners’ or ‘Aboriginal owners’ varies significantly, depending on the legislative context. Invariably, the term does encompass ownership of land via either statutory land rights grants/transfer schemes or Trust arrangements, or via recognition as native title holders of native title rights and interests under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
[3] S.223(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) sets out the three conditions for proof by claimants for a positive native title determination of exclusive or non-exclusive possession native title rights and interests.
[4] The Seat of Government Act 1908 (Cth), the Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 (Cth), the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 (Cth), and the Seat of Government Surrender Act 1909 (NSW).
[5] The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples had been around in draft form for more than a decade before it was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 2007 (Anaya and Rodriguez-Pinero, 2018). Australia endorsed the Declaration in 2009.
[6] The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) was amended in 2021 to insert s.47C, which enables historical extinguishment of native title to be disregarded over areas set aside for the preservation of the natural environment (national, state and territory) park or reservation areas, by agreement between the native title party and the relevant government (Commonwealth, state or territory).
[7] The UN General Assembly has a long history of adopting declarations on various human rights issues, dating back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Such Declarations are adopted under Article 13(1)(b) of the UN Charter and are generally reserved by the UN “for standard-setting resolutions of profound significance” (UN 2013:16).
[8] Erica-Irene Daes was Chairperson of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations and Special Rapporteur of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights from 1984 to 2001 and was instrumental in the preparation of UNDRIP. Daes (2008:24) maintains that “no other UN instrument has been elaborated with such an active participation of all parties concerned”.
[9] Full disclosure: I was a participant in the research project undertaken by Anne Maree Payne and Heidi Norman from the Indigenous Land and Justice Research Group in the School of Humanities & Languages at UTS, titled ‘Coming to terms with the past? Identifying barriers and enablers to truth-telling and strategies to promote historical acceptance’.