As part of its celebrations for Garma’s 25th anniversary, the Yothu Yindi Foundation highlights the history of native title and the difficult journey that Yolŋu have experienced over many years. We pay respect to the many Aboriginal and Islander leaders and their communities who have fought to have our pre-existing and never-ceded rights to ancestral lands and waters recognised in Australian law.
The events, images, and people depicted represent a window into the advocacy and struggle of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders across the nation who, during the short history of modern Australia have tirelessly sought the full and proper recognition of our people’s rights.
A.
The stars of Gumatj artist Gulumbu Yunupiŋu (dec) grace the Garma Knowledge Centre at Gulkula. Yolŋu art often depicts stars, not just as celestial objects, but as part of ancestral connections and integral to the Yolŋu worldview. Gulumbu’s stars confirm that Yolŋu are bound by ancient connections to the universe.
B. Artwork indicating Yothu Yindi, mother and child, symbolises balance and harmony in the Yolŋu world. Artist – Darryl Yatjany,Wobulkarra Manydjikay clan. Supplied by Milingimbi Art Centre.
C.
Galarrwuy Yunupiŋu, Roy Daydayŋa Marika and Daymbalipu Munuŋgurr outside the Supreme Court in Canberra in 1970. Source: Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA).
Also known as the Gove Land Rights Case, Millirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd was the first major legal bid for Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia, as Yolŋu clan leaders contested the granting of a lease to mine bauxite on their land.
Justice Blackburn rejected the notion of native title, and found that the “the doctrine of communal native title contended for by the natives did not form, and never had formed, part of the law of any part of Australia. Such a doctrine has no place in a settled colony except under express statutory provisions”.
D.
Bauxite pebbles run through the veins of this year’s cover, reflecting the inter-connectedness of the earth with Yolŋu society. From the bauxite rich earth comes many things including the sacred food of Ganbulapula, but from that soil also comes the pure bauxite that is refined into alumina and then smelted to aluminium, a major ingredient of life in the modern world.
E.
Dave Passi, Eddie Mabo, barrister Bryan Keon-Cohen and James Rice outside the Queensland Supreme Court, 1989. Image courtesy of Trevor Graham & Yarra Bank Films; photo by Jim McEwan, from the film Land Bilong Islanders 1990. (Approved by Gail Mabo). The Mabo decision was a defining moment in Australian legal history, with the High Court overturning the concept of terra nullius and recognising that native title arose from legal systems separate to the English common law, which have their own laws and traditions. The 10-year case was championed by Eddie Mabo on behalf of the Meriam people, and the court’s decision led to the passage of the Native Title Act 1993 by the Keating Government. It’s included here not just for its own significance, but as a testament to the hard work done by Indigenous leaders throughout the nation to advance the cause of land rights for Aboriginal and Islander people.
F.
he judgment from Millirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd and Commonwealth of Australia, 1971. Justice Blackburn presided over the matter in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory where he heard evidence from Yolŋu clan leaders about their ownership of land and their law. His Honour observed “a subtle and elaborate system highly adapted to the country in which the people led their lives, which provided a stable order of society and was remarkably free from the vagaries of personal whim or influence. If ever a system could be called ‘a government of laws, and not of men’, it is that shown in the evidence before me”. Despite this, he found that terra nullius was the law of the land and denied the claim. His decision approved the Commonwealth Government’s grant of mining leases to Nabalco which authorised the exploitation and destruction of Yolŋu country.
G.
The Yirrkala Bark Petition is one of the most significant political documents in Australian history. It is first and foremost an assertion of Yolŋu land ownership presented to the Federal Parliament. Written in Yolŋu Matha with an English translation, the text was framed by bark paintings, painted and signed by Yolŋu. Two petitions – one on bark, the other on paper – were tabled in the House of Representatives in Canberra on 14 August, 1963 – the first such documents to be received by Parliament.
H.
The Barunga Statement in 1988 was adorned with the sacred symbols and motifs of northern and central Australia. A profound and powerful text, the Statement called for Aboriginal self-management, a national system of land rights, compensation for loss of lands, respect for Aboriginal identity, and an end to discrimination. It sought the grant of full civil, economic, social and cultural rights to Indigenous people. It still hangs in Parliament House, though it was rejected by the government after initial support from Prime Minister Hawke at Barunga.
I.
The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 was the Commonwealth’s reaction to the incongruity of Blackburn J’s decision in the Gove Land Rights case. An important moment in Australian parliamentary history the Act was the first ‘land rights’ legislation in Australia. Though a seminal act establishing Land Councils and Land Trusts it only granted lands that were then Reserve lands or vacant crown land. Towns and pastoral leases were all excluded from grant. Past grants of rights by government to mining companies were validated and Part IV of the Act was enacted with a view to enabling continued access to Aboriginal land for mining.
J.
Commonwealth of Australia v Yunupiŋu on behalf of the Gumatj Clan [2025] HCA 6. On 12 March 2025 the High Court unanimously affirmed the Full Federal Court’s decision of 22 May 2023 holding that the Australian Constitution’s Section 51(31) ‘just terms’ provisions applied to the Northern Territory and that native title was property. The court found native title had its basis in a separate legal system with its own legal norms that was recognised by the Australian common law.
The Gumatj claim is both a claim for recognition of native title and a claim for compensation. In that way, it seeks redress for past wrongs and revisits the same Commonwealth actions that gave rise to the Yirrkala Bark Petitions and the Gove Land Rights Case. In the High Court the Gumatj were supported by the Rirratjingu clan and the Northern Land Council in relying on the principles established by Mabo (No .2). The High Court found in favour of the Gumatj despite the Commonwealth’s attempt to argue that native title was not property for the purposes of the Australian constitution, as it was ‘inherently defeasible’. Dr G Yunupiŋu AC did not live to see the High Court decide what he had fought for his whole life, first as an assistant to his father at the time of the Bark Petition, then as an interpreter in the Gove Land Rights Case, a colleague of Mr Lingiari’s, as Chairman of the Northern Land Council for 25 years, as a painter and co-author of the Barunga Statement; as the author of the 2008 Yirrkala Petition for Constitutional Recognition, and as a Dalkarra and Djirrikay in Yolŋu society. His family received the judgment on his behalf.
K.
This image has been approved for use by the Yunupiŋu family as we pay respects and honour the late Mr B Yunupiŋu, seen here on the right alongside his brother Djawa on 12 March 2025. The image was taken moments after the High Court’s landmark ruling. Djawa is the Gumatj fire, and Mr B Yunupiŋu the eternal Gumatj rock.
Image courtesy of James Morgan.
