A LANDMARK case before the High Court about the validity of alcohol restrictions for indigenous people on Palm Island could have broader implications for programs that target only Aboriginal people.
On Tuesday, the High Court in Canberra began hearing an appeal from indigenous woman Joan Monica Maloney who was convicted of alcohol possession on Palm Island in 2010.
Ms Maloney is challenging the Queensland law that restricts alcohol on Palm Island on the basis that it contravenes the Racial Discrimination Act and constitution.
The alcohol restrictions are considered "special measures" under racial discrimination laws.
The High Court accepted an application from the peak indigenous body, the National Congress of Australia's First People, to make submissions as a friend of the court.
Congress spokeswoman Jody Broun said "special measures" were used across Australia to enact laws for the "advancement" of indigenous people without any yardstick for their effectiveness, duration or community support and acceptance.
"The legal principles, rather than the details of this case, provide the opportunity for a watershed moment in Australian history," she said in a statement.
Ms Broun said the case went to the heart of the nation's conversation on constitutional reform, in light of moves to recognise Aboriginal people in the constitution and scrap race-based sections.
"Is there any place in a modern Australia for race-based laws which do not treat everyone equally under the law," she asked.
The Palm Island alcohol management plan has attracted controversy since it was introduced in 2006.
The Townsville Bulletin reported last year, that one-third of the island's adult population was in court for breaching the alcohol restrictions on a single day in September 2010.
The Human Rights Law Centre is assisting the Congress on a pro-bono basis.
"If the government is genuinely committed to making a positive difference for Aboriginal communities, it must respect and empower those communities, not impose predetermined solutions," law centre spokesman Ben Schokman said.
AAP understand that, if successful, Ms Maloney's case could potentially have broader implications including for the ten year extension of the Northern Territory Intervention, depending on how the High Court defines special measures, advancement and consultations.
In its submissions to the court, the Congress argues special measures must be designed and implemented on the basis of prior consultation and active participation of the communities affected.
The Federal Attorney General and state counterparts from Western Australia and South Australia have filed submissions to intervene in the case.
Lawyers for the Federal Attorney General have argued in submissions that the appellant's reliance on the UN declaration of the rights of indigenous people concerning "free, prior and informed consent" is flawed.
The submission notes there is a lack of international consensus about meaning of this term.
Although Australia supports the declaration, it is not binding, the submission says.
The High Court is likely to hand down a decision on the case early next year.
