Stare Decisis and Constitutional Guarantees: <i>Commonwealth v Yunupingu</i>

In Commonwealth v Yunupingu, the High Court of Australia will consider, inter alia, whether the requirement in s 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution that acquisitions of property must be on just terms applies to a Commonwealth law that is supported by the territories power in s 122 and no other head of power in s 51. Whether the just terms requirement applies to laws made under the territories power is a question of enormous significance. This question is in part answered by whether either Wurridjal v Commonwealth or Teori Tau v Commonwealth is good law, and whether either or both of those cases should be reopened and overruled. This column analyses this question in light of novel insights into the Court’s current approach to stare decisis in the constitutional setting drawn from the Court’s recent application of the doctrine in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Vanderstock v Victoria and Vunilagi v The Queen.