A-G for the NT v Chaffey & Anor; Santos v Chaffey & Anor

The High Court of Australia considered appeals from a decision of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in two related matters, *A-G for the NT v Chaffey & Anor* and *Santos v Chaffey & Anor*. The dispute concerned the validity of certain provisions of the *Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989* (NT) and the *Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976* (Cth), particularly in relation to the protection of Aboriginal sacred sites and the rights of traditional owners. The proceedings involved the Attorney-General for the Northern Territory and Santos Limited as appellants, and the respondents were Mr Chaffey and others, representing traditional Aboriginal owners.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Northern Territory Act, in its application to the protection of sacred sites, was inconsistent with the Commonwealth Act, and if so, whether the inconsistency attracted the operation of s 109 of the Constitution. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the provisions of the Northern Territory Act that allowed for the Minister to grant an authorisation to enter or interfere with a sacred site, even if the traditional owners had not consented, were valid in light of the protections afforded by the Commonwealth Act. The Court also considered the scope of the rights and interests of traditional owners under the Commonwealth Act and whether the Northern Territory legislation impermissibly encroached upon those rights.

The High Court, by majority, held that the provisions of the *Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act 1989* (NT) were inconsistent with the *Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976* (Cth) and therefore invalid to the extent of the inconsistency by operation of s 109 of the Constitution. The majority reasoned that the Commonwealth Act conferred significant rights and protections upon traditional Aboriginal owners concerning their land and sacred sites, including a right to prevent unauthorised entry or interference. They found that the Northern Territory Act, by empowering the Minister to authorise actions that would otherwise be prohibited and potentially infringe upon these rights, undermined the comprehensive scheme established by the Commonwealth legislation for the protection of Aboriginal sacred sites. The Court emphasised that the Commonwealth Act's provisions were intended to provide a paramount and exclusive regime for the protection of sacred sites on Aboriginal land.

The appeals were dismissed.