While this article makes many claims to being an exhaustive coverage of the topic, it fails utterly to mention anything about Aboriginal land ownership and territories.
Canberra is Ngunnawal Country, and for this quite entertaining and thorough article to be not a total white-wash, he should talk to Ngunnawal people and find out from them what their kin and therefore territory relationships are with the coastal Yuin people.
What was the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)? It is unclear from the Acts discussed within this blog; however, it is referred to in a number of websites as mentioned seemingly as early as 1911.
Interestingly, the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1924 provides for a Commission. Its remit explicitly names and includes both the seat of government territory (the current ACT) and Jervis Bay Territory. Although not stated in the Act, it was called the Federal Capital Commission (Chairman of Commissioners was John Butters). The extent of its powers, its name and its remit to include operating in Jervis Bay may have lead people to think the FCT included Jervis Bay. Of course, this cannot be the case, as Jervis Bay Territory had already existed since 1915. Therefore FCT=ACT, and Jervis Bay Territory was never part of either.
So it is also difficult to see that the Beecroft land was ever part of either FCT or ACT.
There was other discussion around the words grant and surrender. In the 1909 Act, it says the future ACT was to be surrendered by NSW to be a Commonwealth Territory and the wider Jervis Bay area land granted by NSW (but still part of NSW). Later, most of the Jervis Bay land was surrendered by NSW to be a Commonwealth Territory. The remaining Beecroft peninsula land would then seem to still be within NSW, and thus not the equivalent of an "unincorporated Commonwealth area". I think most contributors have also got to this conclusion, by various means.
My reading of the Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 is: Schedule 1 and Sections 4 and 5 and Schedule 2 define land to be surrendered which is for the seat of government (and in 1938 adds a name to the Territory - the Australian Capital Territory, the ACT). The land becomes a Commonwealth Territory, thus no longer part of NSW. (This seems to acquire the name Federal Capital Territory [see later, not through these Acts] and is the same land as the ACT.)
Schedule 1 also describes Jervis Bay area land to be granted by NSW and accepted by the Commonwealth. (This land would remain part of NSW at this stage.)
Both of the above commenced on 1 January 2011 - see commencement dates at the end of the Act, and see Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910.
The Jervis Bay Territory is then created in 1915. So, if I am correct, it moves from being Commonwealth land within NSW to being a Commonwealth Territory.
This leaves the 1909 Beecroft Peninsula land. Based on the above, it would seem to be land within NSW owned by the Commonwealth to this day.
From the maps, it appears that the Point Perpendicular lighthouse at the southern tip of the Beecroft Peninsula remains an exclave of New South Wales surrounded by the unincorporated federal land. Yes?
The whole Beecroft Peninsula is within NSW (i.e. NSW laws apply), even though most of the land there is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia - Just like Sydney Airport - which is within NSW, and the land is owned by the C of A. 'unincorporated federal land' is not really a thing in Australia.
I am all here for the nerdpicking. I've been talking to another mate about the "surrender" vs "grant" language we kind of skipped past and will definitely have to do a followup post that will get even further into the weeds about. Will be after the next post that's about Boundary Islet though
Have been going down a few more rabitholes, trying to work out what you meant by the FCT being split into ACT/JBT (and thus possibly creating some ambiguity about the bit on the Beecroft peninsula).
My current views are
1) JBT was as you say, created in 1915, and has from that time always been a seperate territory, although subject to "the area now known as the ACT" laws.
2) I cant find any official definition of "Federal Capital Territory" - it's not anywhere in the 1909 "seat of governement acceptance" legislation and the 1938 act that creates the name "Australian Capital Territory" (https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/a/1938-25/19380908-47768/PDF/1938-25.PDF) says that the new name is replacing the "Territory for the Seat of Government for the Commonwealth of Australa". So was FCT ever a real legal construct or just an informal name to use in place of the unweildy official term?
3) There doesn't seem to be anything that ever changed the borders of original "Territory for the Seat of Government for the Commonwealth of Australia", now "Australian Capital Territory" - the currently in force version of the 'Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909' ( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004C00608 ) uses the new name (Australian Capital Territory) and also still includes the land on beecroft peninsula.
So...what am I missing that would mean there is any ambiguity as to whether the land on beecroft peninsula is still (as it always has been) part of the former "Territory for the Seat of Government for the Commonwealth of Australia", now "Australian Capital Territory" ?
OK after further review of the 1909 "Seat Of Government Acceptance Act" I can see the land on the beecroft peninsula was listed in schedule 1 as being part of what was transferred from NSW, but is NOT part of the area defined in schedule 2 as what we now call "Australian Capital Territory". So while I remain convinced the "FCT" thing is a furphy, I understand now why that section of land would be unincorporated federal land.
And have now noticed that the little block in question was not "accepted" in either the 1909 or 1915 acceptance acts. So I am now quite keen to see what is the significance of "grant" vs "surrender". I also noticed that sixmaps treats that particular portion as if it was in NSW, not JBT, and has it as part of the Shoalhaven LGA.
Oooh I hadn't spotted that sixmaps does that, thanks! Yes, "grant" v "surrender" is quite complicated, and I suspect I may have to annoy one or more lawyers to make sure a future writeup tries to get that right.
possibly relevant is S111 and S125 s of the Australian consitution, which use 'surrender/accept' and 'grant'
111 States may surrender territory
The Parliament of a State may surrender any part of the State to the Commonwealth; and upon such surrender, and the acceptance thereof by the Commonwealth, such part of the State shall become subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.
125 Seat of Government
The seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth, and shall be vested in and belong to the Commonwealth, and shall be in the State of New South Wales, and be distant not less than one hundred miles from Sydney.
Such territory shall contain an area of not less than one hundred square miles, and such portion thereof as shall consist of Crown lands shall be granted to the Commonwealth without any payment therefor.
The Parliament shall sit at Melbourne until it meet at the seat of Government.
While this article makes many claims to being an exhaustive coverage of the topic, it fails utterly to mention anything about Aboriginal land ownership and territories.
Canberra is Ngunnawal Country, and for this quite entertaining and thorough article to be not a total white-wash, he should talk to Ngunnawal people and find out from them what their kin and therefore territory relationships are with the coastal Yuin people.
Other incidental matters.
What was the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)? It is unclear from the Acts discussed within this blog; however, it is referred to in a number of websites as mentioned seemingly as early as 1911.
A 1934 map at https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/203091 clearly shows FCT as the current ACT, and Jervis Bay Territory is separate (and is without the Beecroft Peninsula land).
Interestingly, the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1924 provides for a Commission. Its remit explicitly names and includes both the seat of government territory (the current ACT) and Jervis Bay Territory. Although not stated in the Act, it was called the Federal Capital Commission (Chairman of Commissioners was John Butters). The extent of its powers, its name and its remit to include operating in Jervis Bay may have lead people to think the FCT included Jervis Bay. Of course, this cannot be the case, as Jervis Bay Territory had already existed since 1915. Therefore FCT=ACT, and Jervis Bay Territory was never part of either.
So it is also difficult to see that the Beecroft land was ever part of either FCT or ACT.
There was other discussion around the words grant and surrender. In the 1909 Act, it says the future ACT was to be surrendered by NSW to be a Commonwealth Territory and the wider Jervis Bay area land granted by NSW (but still part of NSW). Later, most of the Jervis Bay land was surrendered by NSW to be a Commonwealth Territory. The remaining Beecroft peninsula land would then seem to still be within NSW, and thus not the equivalent of an "unincorporated Commonwealth area". I think most contributors have also got to this conclusion, by various means.
I will add a thought or two.
My reading of the Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 is: Schedule 1 and Sections 4 and 5 and Schedule 2 define land to be surrendered which is for the seat of government (and in 1938 adds a name to the Territory - the Australian Capital Territory, the ACT). The land becomes a Commonwealth Territory, thus no longer part of NSW. (This seems to acquire the name Federal Capital Territory [see later, not through these Acts] and is the same land as the ACT.)
Schedule 1 also describes Jervis Bay area land to be granted by NSW and accepted by the Commonwealth. (This land would remain part of NSW at this stage.)
Both of the above commenced on 1 January 2011 - see commencement dates at the end of the Act, and see Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910.
The Jervis Bay Territory is then created in 1915. So, if I am correct, it moves from being Commonwealth land within NSW to being a Commonwealth Territory.
This leaves the 1909 Beecroft Peninsula land. Based on the above, it would seem to be land within NSW owned by the Commonwealth to this day.
From the maps, it appears that the Point Perpendicular lighthouse at the southern tip of the Beecroft Peninsula remains an exclave of New South Wales surrounded by the unincorporated federal land. Yes?
The whole Beecroft Peninsula is within NSW (i.e. NSW laws apply), even though most of the land there is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia - Just like Sydney Airport - which is within NSW, and the land is owned by the C of A. 'unincorporated federal land' is not really a thing in Australia.
Shouldn't ignore Christmas Island and the other Australian islands, although a side note.
Great post, and I am pleased to be the first to be able to nerdpick :-) while JBT is administered according to the laws of the ACT, it is not administered by the ACT but by the federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/territories-regions-cities/territories/jervis-bay-territory
I am all here for the nerdpicking. I've been talking to another mate about the "surrender" vs "grant" language we kind of skipped past and will definitely have to do a followup post that will get even further into the weeds about. Will be after the next post that's about Boundary Islet though
Have been going down a few more rabitholes, trying to work out what you meant by the FCT being split into ACT/JBT (and thus possibly creating some ambiguity about the bit on the Beecroft peninsula).
My current views are
1) JBT was as you say, created in 1915, and has from that time always been a seperate territory, although subject to "the area now known as the ACT" laws.
2) I cant find any official definition of "Federal Capital Territory" - it's not anywhere in the 1909 "seat of governement acceptance" legislation and the 1938 act that creates the name "Australian Capital Territory" (https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/a/1938-25/19380908-47768/PDF/1938-25.PDF) says that the new name is replacing the "Territory for the Seat of Government for the Commonwealth of Australa". So was FCT ever a real legal construct or just an informal name to use in place of the unweildy official term?
3) There doesn't seem to be anything that ever changed the borders of original "Territory for the Seat of Government for the Commonwealth of Australia", now "Australian Capital Territory" - the currently in force version of the 'Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909' ( https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004C00608 ) uses the new name (Australian Capital Territory) and also still includes the land on beecroft peninsula.
So...what am I missing that would mean there is any ambiguity as to whether the land on beecroft peninsula is still (as it always has been) part of the former "Territory for the Seat of Government for the Commonwealth of Australia", now "Australian Capital Territory" ?
OK after further review of the 1909 "Seat Of Government Acceptance Act" I can see the land on the beecroft peninsula was listed in schedule 1 as being part of what was transferred from NSW, but is NOT part of the area defined in schedule 2 as what we now call "Australian Capital Territory". So while I remain convinced the "FCT" thing is a furphy, I understand now why that section of land would be unincorporated federal land.
here's a fact sheet from NAA that mentions it was called the FCT until it was renamed in 1938.
https://www.naa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/fs-35-Administration-of-the-Australian-Capital-Territory.pdf
And have now noticed that the little block in question was not "accepted" in either the 1909 or 1915 acceptance acts. So I am now quite keen to see what is the significance of "grant" vs "surrender". I also noticed that sixmaps treats that particular portion as if it was in NSW, not JBT, and has it as part of the Shoalhaven LGA.
Oooh I hadn't spotted that sixmaps does that, thanks! Yes, "grant" v "surrender" is quite complicated, and I suspect I may have to annoy one or more lawyers to make sure a future writeup tries to get that right.
possibly relevant is S111 and S125 s of the Australian consitution, which use 'surrender/accept' and 'grant'
111 States may surrender territory
The Parliament of a State may surrender any part of the State to the Commonwealth; and upon such surrender, and the acceptance thereof by the Commonwealth, such part of the State shall become subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.
125 Seat of Government
The seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth, and shall be vested in and belong to the Commonwealth, and shall be in the State of New South Wales, and be distant not less than one hundred miles from Sydney.
Such territory shall contain an area of not less than one hundred square miles, and such portion thereof as shall consist of Crown lands shall be granted to the Commonwealth without any payment therefor.
The Parliament shall sit at Melbourne until it meet at the seat of Government.