Ngambri custodians have filed a claim in the ACT Supreme Court under the territory's human rights laws, saying the government has violated their human rights by failing to recognise them as traditional owners of the Canberra area.
Paul Girrawah House said he and other members of the Ngambri had launched the court action to stop the ACT government's "blatant" discrimination and hypocrisy.
"We have irrefutable evidence of our ancestry and connection to Canberra and [the] surrounding region that can be traced back to the time of the first European settlement in the 1820s," Mr House said in a statement.
"But the ACT government refuses to accept this evidence and consistently acknowledges only the Ngunnawal. The fact remains that the name Canberra is derived from the name of our people and country: the Ngambri."
Mr House said he and his mother, Dr Matilda House, had been trying to meet with ACT government representatives over the past two years to have their Ngambri identity and ancestry recognised but the government had not changed its recognition protocol.
"We believe it is time for the ACT government to come to its senses in an atmosphere of mutual respect and recognise our Ancestors and our right to determine our identity," he said.
"We look forward to reaching amicable outcomes about our special place in the pre- and post-history of the Canberra region."
Mr House said he firmly believed the ACT government's "one-tribe policy" of recognising just the Ngunnawal as traditional owners went against provisions of the territory's Human Rights Act.
The government's policy to only recognise the Ngunnawal also contravened the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, he said.
The ACT Human Rights Act says "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples hold distinct cultural rights" and these peoples must not be denied the right to "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".
The United Nations declaration in part says Indigenous peoples have the right to "maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions" and "in conjunction with Indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognise and protect the exercise of these rights".
The ACT government formally recognised the Ngunnawal people as the traditional owners of the Canberra area in August 2009, following a request from the United Ngunnawal Elders Council.
"The ACT government's adoption of the use of the term 'Ngunnawal' to identify the traditional custodians of the ACT was based on advice from a special meeting of Ngunnawal community members in May 2002," the protocol adopted at the time said.
The government then advised its ministers and agencies of the policy in light of "one family group renam[ing] itself from 'Ngunnawal' to 'Ngambri'" since the 2002 meeting without providing "evidence to support the claim that it is the sole traditional custodian group in the ACT".
"In light of a lack of evidence to the contrary, the ACT government continues to recognise the Ngunnawal as the traditional custodians of the ACT and surrounding region and does not formally recognise any other groups," the advice said.
But Mr House's court claim will in part rely on work prepared by Ann Jackson-Nakano, a researcher who compiled histories of Indigenous people in the Canberra area beginning in the early 1990s, who found Ngambri people could demonstrate their connections to the land where Canberra is now.
An expert witness report prepared by Dr Ed Wensing, filed as part of the claim, endorsed the conclusions reached by Ms Jackson-Nakano, who died in 2021.
Dr Wensing, an honorary research fellow at the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University who has worked extensively in areas including planning and native title, wrote that he agreed with Ms Jackson-Nakano's conclusions based on an assessment of her research material held by the National Library.
"The Ngambri can demonstrate their ancestral connections to the Aboriginal people that were occupying the lands that now comprise the ACT at the time when the first Europeans arrived in the 1820s and are the real and original traditional owners of the ACT and surrounds," Dr Wensing wrote in the report, seen by the Sunday Canberra Times.
The Supreme Court may grant relief it considers appropriate in claims under the Human Rights Act but is unable to award damages.
Other bodies in the ACT already recognise the Ngambri people as traditional owners. The federal parliament's acknowledgement of country includes both the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, and Mr House delivered the welcome to country at the opening of the 47th parliament on Tuesday.
ACT government acknowledgements of country do not recognise the Ngambri people.
A draft 2013 consultant's report commissioned by the ACT government, released under freedom of information laws in 2017, said: "The use of the Kamberri/Ngambri name as a group identifier with application to the entire ACT region seems unlikely. ... the name was probably used by white settlers, by extension, to refer to the Aboriginal people that came there, at times in impressive numbers."
The report noted at least four different groups were converging on Canberra at the time of European settlement: the Ngunawal, the Ngarigo, the Walgalu and the Ngambri, but did not make any conclusions, a caveat brief to then chief minister Katy Gallagher said at the time.
The Supreme Court action follows a separate First Nations group - the Ngunawal Nation Traditional Owners Network Group - announcing in June they would pursue a new native title claim on the whole ACT.
A research process would inform a claim, said a spokeswoman for the group, which represents more than 300 family members of traditional owners.
Under the Commonwealth Native Title Act, traditional owners can apply to the Federal Court for a determination of native title.
While native title claims have been in the ACT previously, none have been considered by the Federal Court.
Clauses imposed on the Aboriginal parties which signed a 2001 agreement on the management of Namadgi National Park with the ACT government have prevented preparing new native title claims, a paper from the Australia Institute, a progressive think tank, said.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith earlier this month apologised for the hurt caused by a treaty consultation process between the territory and traditional owners, which did not consult as broadly as intended.
"We understand that everyone who potentially has a stake in treaty must be engaged in the process and that this process will take time. We do not have a fixed timeline and we know that processes in other jurisdictions have taken many years," Ms Stephen-Smith said.
Send us a letter to the editor
We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.
