Native title is the set of rights, recognised byAustralian law, held byAboriginal andTorres Strait Islander groups or individuals to land that derive from their maintenance of their traditional laws and customs. TheseAboriginal title rights were first recognised as a part of Australiancommon law with the decision ofMabo v Queensland (No 2) in 1992. TheNative Title Act 1993 subsequently set out the processes for determining native title.
The Court's determination of native title recognises that a continued beneficial legal interest in land held by an Indigenous claim group over identified land survivedthe Crown's acquisition ofradical title andsovereignty. Native title can co-exist with non-Aboriginal proprietary rights and in some cases different Aboriginal groups can exercise their native title rights over the same land.
The term native title can refer the title held under traditional law and custom, as well as the common law recognition of that right.[1]
An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander group ('claim group') lodges a native title claim over specified land in theFederal Court of Australia. The claim is referred to theNational Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) that applies the "registration test" that determines whether a claim progresses. The relevant state or territory becomes a respondent to the claim, and any other interested parties will also join as respondents.
The Court hears applications for, and makes, native title determinations. Often determinations are resolved by consent between the parties. Appeals against these determinations can be made to a full sitting of the Federal Court and then to theHigh Court of Australia.
The NNTT, established under theNative Title Act 1993, also undertakes future act mediation and arbitral functions.
TheAttorney-General's Department advises theAustralian Government on legal and legal-policy regarding on native title, and assists theAttorney-General to administer theNative Title Act 1993.
According to the Attorney-General's Department:[2]
There are fundamental differences betweenland rights andnative title. Land rights are rights created by theAustralian,state or territory governments. Land rights usually consist of a grant offreehold orperpetual lease title toIndigenous Australians. By contrast, native title arises as a result of the recognition, under Australian common law, of pre-existing Indigenous rights and interests according totraditional laws and customs. Native title is not a grant or right created by governments.
For example, theAboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976 (see below) covers the granting of land to Aboriginal Land Trusts; setting upAboriginal land councils; mineral rights; decision-making processes for dealing with land; dealing with income from land use agreements; and negotiations about leases for development on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. TheNative Title Act 1993 (NTA) gives recognition that "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have rights to land, water and sea, includingexclusive possession in some cases, but does not provide ownership". It allows for negotiations over land, but does not provide for aveto over development, and nor does it grant land, as theAboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act (ALRA) does.[3]
National Native Title Tribunal definition:[4]
[Native title is] the communal, group or individual rights and interests of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to land and waters, possessed under traditional law and custom, by which those people have a connection with an area which is recognised underAustralian law (s 223 NTA).
Commonwealth Government's indigenous.gov.au website:[5]
Native title is the recognition in Australian law, undercommon law and theNative Title Act 1993 (Cth), of Indigenous Australians' rights and interests in land and waters according to their own traditional laws and customs.
Native title has also been described as a "bundle of rights" in land, which may include such rights as camping, performingceremony, etc. This description was found to be misleading in the 2025 High Court decision ofCommonwealth v Yunupingu.[6]
A native title determination relates to specific rights decided on a case-by-case basis.[7]
Australia's first native title case was not decided until 1971. Emblematic of the problems Aboriginal people had in having their land claims recognised, in 1835, John Batman purported to signBatman's Treaty with Aboriginal elders in thePort Phillip District. Governor Bourke declared Batman's Treaty was "void and of no effect as against the rights of the Crown" and declared any person on "vacant land of the Crown" without authorization from the Crown to be trespassing.[8] The proclamation was approved by the Colonial Office. The official objection to the Treaty was that Batman had attempted to negotiate directly with the Aboriginal people, whom the British did not recognise as having any claim to any lands in Australia.
In 1971, inMilirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd (the "Gove Land Rights Case") in theSupreme Court of the Northern Territory,Justice Richard Blackburn explicitly rejected the concept of native title, ruling against the claimants on a number of issues of law and fact.[9]
In the wake ofMilirrpum and the election of theWhitlam government in 1972, theAboriginal Land Rights Commission (also known as the Woodward Royal Commission) was established in 1973 to inquire into appropriate ways to recognise Aboriginal land rights in theNorthern Territory. Prime MinisterGough Whitlam introduced a new policy of Aboriginalself-determination, and initiatives such as the Aboriginal Land Fund and theNational Aboriginal Consultative Committee was set up. The latter consisted of elected Aboriginal representatives, who would advise the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The Whitlam government introduced legislation later passed by theFraser government as theAboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976,[10][11] which established a procedure to transfer almost 50 per cent of land in the Northern Territory (around 600,000 km2) to collective Aboriginal ownership.[12] The Fraser government continued to implement many of the previous government's initiatives, under the description "self-management" rather than self-determination.[10]
In 1979,Paul Coe, aWiradjuri man fromCowra, New South Wales, commenced an action in theHigh Court of Australia arguing that Aboriginal people retained rights to land as an Aboriginal nation or nations existed pre-settlement and continues to exist, and that their land had been taken by conquest rather than by settlement.[13] The court held inCoe v Commonwealth (1979) that noAboriginal nation holds any kind of sovereignty, distinguishing the US case ofCherokee Nation v Georgia (1831).[14] However, the substantive issue of continuing land rights was not heard due to the lack of precision, vagueness and other serious deficiencies with the statement of claim presented to the court.[15]Justice Gibbs said, at paragraph 21, 'The question what rights the aboriginal people of this country have, or ought to have, in the lands of Australia is one which has become a matter of heated controversy. If there are serious legal questions to be decided as to the existence or nature of such rights, no doubt the sooner they are decided the better, but the resolution of such questions by the courts will not be assisted by imprecise, emotional or intemperate claims. In this, as in any other litigation, the claimants will be best served if their claims are put before the court dispassionately, lucidly and in proper form'.[13]
TheSouth AustralianAnangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981[16] was introduced by PremierDon Dunstan in November 1978, several months prior to his resignation from Parliament. An amended bill, following extensive consultation, was passed by theTonkin Liberal government in March 1981. This legislation gave significant rights well in advance of any other to date in Australia.[17] In 1981, SA Premier Tonkin returned 102,650 square kilometres (39,630 sq mi) of land (10.2% of the state's land area) to thePitjantjara andYankunytjatjara people. However, it did not give the people the power of veto over mining activities; any disputes would need to be resolved by an independent arbitrator.[10]
In 1984 PremierJohn Bannon's Labor government passed legislation to return lands to theMaralinga Tjarutja people. The legislation was proclaimed in January 1985 and was followed by a ceremony in the desert attended by Maralinga Tjarutja leaderArchie Barton, John Bannon and Aboriginal Affairs MinisterGreg Crafter.[18] This granted rights over 75,000 square kilometres (29,000 sq mi) of land in theGreat Victoria Desert, including the land contaminated by theBritish nuclear weapons testing at Maralinga.[10]
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) established the foundation for native title in Australia.[19] In 1992 the rejection of native title inMilirrpum v Nabalco was overruled by the High Court inMabo v Queensland (No 2),[20] which recognised theMeriam people ofMurray Island (Mer) in theTorres Strait as native title holders over part of their traditional lands. The Court rejected the notion that all Indigenous rights to land were abolished upon acquisition of sovereignty over Australia. The Court held that native title rights continued to exist, and that these rights existed by virtue of the continuing connection of Indigenous People to land, independent from a grant from the Crown. Native title would continue to exist as long as traditional laws and customs continue to be observed, unless the rights were otherwise extinguished by an incompatible grant by the Crown. JusticeGerard Brennan delivered the lead judgment in this landmark decision, stating:
However, when the tide of history has washed away any real acknowledgment of traditional law and any real observance of traditional customs, the foundation of native title has disappeared.[20] Thus although over some parts of Australia native title has been lost, in large areas of the nation's interior, native title could be recognised.
As Justice Brennan stated inMabo (No. 2), "native title has its origin and is given its content by the traditional laws acknowledged by and the customs observed by the Aboriginal inhabitants of a territory".[20]
One year after the recognition of the legal concept of native title inMabo (No 2), theKeating government formalised the recognition by legislation with the enactment by theAustralian Parliament of theNative Title Act 1993.[21] The Act attempted to clarify the legal position of landholders and the processes to be followed for native title to be claimed, protected and recognised through the courts. The Act also established theNational Native Title Tribunal.
After the Mabo decision it was uncertain as to whether the granting ofpastoral leases would extinguish native title. TheWik Decision in 1996 clarified the uncertainty. The court found that the statutory pastoral leases (which cover some 40% of the Australian land mass) under consideration by the court did not bestow rights of exclusive possession on the leaseholder. As a result, native title rights could co-exist, depending on the terms and nature of the particular pastoral lease. Where there was a conflict of rights, the rights under the pastoral lease would prevail over native title rights.[22]
The Wik decision led to amendments to theNative Title Act 1993 by theNative Title Amendment Act 1998. This Act contained then Prime Minister John Howard's "10 Point Plan" to counter the effects of the Wik Decision. The amending Act was introduced by theHoward government. The amendments substantially restricted native title by narrowing the right to negotiate and extinguishing native title on most pastoral and mining leases granted before 1994.[23]
Yorta Yorta v Victoria,[24] dismissed a native title claim by theYorta Yorta Aboriginal people of north centralVictoria, on appeal from a decision of Justice Olney of the Federal Court in 1998.[25] An appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court in 2001,[26] had also been dismissed.
The determination by Justice Olney in 1998 ruled that the 'tide of history' had 'washed away' any real acknowledgement of traditional laws and any real observance of traditional customs by the applicants.[25] The 2002 High Court decision adopted strict requirements of continuity of traditional laws and customs for native title claims to succeed.[24]
Ward v Western Australia (1998) addressed an application made on behalf of the Miriuwung and Gajerrong people of the east Kimberly, over land inWestern Australia and the Northern Territory. JusticeMalcolm Lee of the Federal Court ruled in their favour in recognition of the native title.[27] Western Australia appealed the decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court,[28] then to the High Court.[29]
The High Court held inWestern Australia v Ward that native title is abundle of rights, which may be extinguished one by one, for example, by a mining lease.[29] In this case, the lease did not confer 'exclusive possession', because the claimants could pass over the land and do various things. But some parts of native title rights were extinguished, including the rights to control access and make use of the land.[29]
The claim was remitted to the Full Court of the Federal Court to determine in accordance with the decision of the High Court. The claimants reached an agreement about the claim area and a determination was made in 2003.[30] "Exclusive possession native title was recognised overLacrosse Island, Kanggurru Island, Aboriginal reserves within the Kununurra townsite, Glen Hill pastoral lease and Hagan Island. Non-exclusive rights were recognised over a number of areas including islands in Lake Argyle."[31]
Yarmirr v Northern Territory (2001),[32] addressed an application made on behalf of a number ofclan groups of Aboriginal people to an area of seas and sea-beds surroundingCroker Island in the Northern Territory. It was the first judgment by the High Court of native title over waters. The judge, Olney J, determined that members of the Croker Island community have a native title right to have free access to the sea and sea-bed of the claimed area for a number of purposes. The case established that traditional owners do have native title of the sea and sea-bed; however common law rights of fishing and navigation mean that only non-exclusive native title can exist over the sea.[33] The decision paved the way for other native title applications involving waters to proceed.[34]
Nangkiriny v State of Western Australia (2002 & 2004), in whichJohn Dudu Nangkiriny and others were plaintiffs,[35][36] were cases addressing the claims of theKarajarri people in theKimberley region, south ofBroome. Land rights were recognised over 31,000 square kilometres (12,000 sq mi) of land (half the size of Tasmania) via an ILUA on 5 July 2011.[37]
In May 2004, following the passage of special legislation, South Australian PremierMike Rann handed back title to 21,000 square kilometres of land to the Maralinga Tjarutja andPila Nguru people. The land, 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) north-west ofAdelaide and abutting theWestern Australia border, was then called the Unnamed Conservation Park. It is now known asMamungari Conservation Park. It includes theSerpentine Lakes, and was the largest land return since 1984. At the 2004 ceremony Rann said the return of the land fulfilled a promise he made to Archie Barton in 1991 when he was Aboriginal Affairs Minister, after he passed legislation to return lands including the sacredOoldea area (which also included the site ofDaisy Bates' mission camp) to the Maralinga Tjarutja people.[38] The Maralinga Tjarutja lands now total 102,863 square kilometres.
The Aboriginal peoples of theWimmera region of Western Victoria won recognition of their native title on 13 December 2005 after a ten-year legal process commenced in 1995 when they filed an application for a determination of native title in respect of certain land and waters in Western Victoria. It was the first successful native title claim in south-eastern Australia and in Victoria, determined by JusticeRon Merkel involving Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa,Jadawadjali,Wergaia and Jupagalk people.[39][40] In his reasons for judgment Justice Merkel explained the significance of his orders:
In 2005 the Federal Court brought down a judgment recognising the native title of theNoongar people over thePerth metropolitan area.[41]Justice Wilcox found that native title continues to exist within an area in and around Perth. It was the first judgment recognising native title over a capital city and its surroundings. The claim area itself is part of a much larger area included in the "Single Noongar Claim", covering the south-western corner of Western Australia. An appeal was subsequently lodged and in 2008 the Full Court of the Federal Court upheld parts of the appeal by the Western Australian and Commonwealth governments against Justice Wilcox's judgment.[42]
The 2008 decision by the High Court decided theBlue Mud Bay sea rights case, establishing a precedent for sea rights over anintertidal zone for the first time. TheYolngu people ofBaniyala were involved in this case, which involved Blue Mud Bay inEast Arnhem Land.[43][44][45]
In 2007 the Howard government passed theNative Title Amendment Act 2007,[46] and theNative Title Amendment (Technical Amendments) Act 2007,[47] a package of coordinated measures and technical amendments to improve the performance of the native title system.[48][49] These are aimed at making the native title process more efficient and to speed up the determination of whether native title exists on the 580 claims that had been registered but not yet determined.
TheNative Title Act 1993 was further amended by theRudd government by theNative Title Amendment Act 2009.[50][51] It allows the Federal Court to determine who may mediate a claim, whether that be the court itself, the Native Title Tribunal, or otherwise.[52]
Northern Territory v Mr Griffiths and Lorraine Jones was a 2018High Court of Australia case, ruled in 2019, regarding land aroundTimber Creek, Northern Territory, involving a compensation claim byNgaliwurru andNungali lands surrounding Timber Creek. It related to various earlier cases since 1997. Described as "the most significant [case]… sinceMabo", the High Court ruled for the first time on compensation for the extinguishment of native title in Australia.[53] It is considered a "landmark" native title case,[54] because the clauses contained within theNative Title Act 1993 pertaining to the determination of compensation payable due to the extinguishment of native title had never been heard before in the High Court.[55]
Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation was involved in a large native title claim from 1996, based on theNative Title Act 1993, resulting in an historic determination in February 2020, involving both native title and an ILUA, covering an area of 48,000 square kilometres (19,000 sq mi) in Western Australia.[56]
A claim was lodged in 2016 by theCentral Land Council on behalf of theGurindji peoples in the area, as there were mining interests in area covered byWave Hill Station's pastoral lease.[57] On 8 September 2020, theFederal Court of Australia recognised the native title rights of the Gurindji people to 5,000 square kilometres (1,900 sq mi) of the Wave Hill Station, allowing them to receive royalties as compensation from resource companies who explore the area. JusticeRichard White said that the determination recognised Indigenous involvement (Jamangku, Japuwuny, Parlakuna-Parkinykarni and Yilyilyimawu peoples) with the land "at least since European settlement and probably for millennia".[57][58] The court sitting took place nearly 800 kilometres (500 mi) south of Darwin, and descendants ofVincent Lingiari and others involved in theWave Hill walk-off celebrated the determination.[57] The owners will participate in the mining negotiations and exploration work, from which royalties may flow in the future, but just as important is the right to hunt, gather, teach and perform cultural activities and ceremonies, and allow the young people to connect with their land.[57]
In March 2023, 8578.35 kilometres along the coast of the Grey River in Victoria. The case was the first Native Title case heard in the state of Victoria for 10 years. At the Federal Court at Warnambool designated the land as native title rights.[59]
In 2019,Galarrwuy Yunupingu brought a native title claim against theAustralian Government on behalf of theGumatj peoples of theNorthern Territory.[60] He sought financial compensation over the acquisition of land on theGove Peninsula, which was obtained by the government without the consent of the traditional owners, which were transmuted intobauxite mines. The Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of the Gumatj people in 2023, finding that their land was not acquired "on just terms" before being leased to mining consortiumNabalco in 1968.[61] This wasupheld on appeal by theHigh Court of Australia in March 2025.[62][63] The decision potentially makes the Commonwealth liable to claims of compensation for decisions made which extinguished native title claims for territories under its administration.[64][65][66]
Native title concerns the interaction of two systems of law:[67][68]
Native title is the term adopted in Australian law to describe the rights to land and waters possessed by Indigenous Australians under their customary laws that are recognised by the Australian legal system. Native title is able to be possessed by a community or individual depending on the content of the traditional laws and customs; it is inalienable other than by surrender to the Crown; and rights over the land may range from access and usage rights to rights of exclusive possession. Native title rights and interests are based on laws and customs that pre-date the British acquisition of sovereignty; they are distinct from the rights granted by government such as statutory land rights of the kind found in theLand Rights Act. Native title rights and interests may exist over land and waters to the extent that they are consistent with other rights established over the land by law or executive action.[12]
According to the National Native Title Tribunal (2013): "The native title rights and interests held by particular Aboriginal people will depend on both their traditional laws and customs and what interests are held by others in the area concerned. Generally speaking, native title must give way to the rights held by others. The capacity of Australian law to recognise the rights and interests held under traditional law and custom will also be a factor... The source of native title is the system of traditional laws and customs of the native title holders themselves." Native title rights and interests may include the right to live in an area or to access it for traditional purposes; to visit and protect sacred sites; to hunt, fish or gather resources; or to teach law and custom. Exclusive possession can only be recognised over certain parts of Australia, such as vacantCrown land, or areas already held by Indigenous Australians.[70]
A 2015 review of theNative Title Act by theAustralian Law Reform Commission reported that "Courts have indicated that native title is not to be understood in terms equivalent to common law property interests, but they often still tend to draw on these concepts... The prevailing view of the nature and content of native title is hybrid, drawing on traditional laws and customs for content, but also at times idiosyncratically adopting common law terms to describe the nature or character of the rights". It is a complex area of law.[71] The Act continues to be reviewed and amended.[72]
The National Native Title Register (NNTR), maintained by the NNTT, is aregister of approved native title determinations. A determination can be that native title does or does not exist. As part of the determination of native title, native title groups are required to nominate aNative Title Prescribed Body Corporate to hold (as trustee) or manage (as agent) their native title. Following a determination, Prescribed Bodies Corporate are entered onto the NNTR. At this point, the corporation becomes a Registered Native Title Body Corporate (RNTBC).[73]
On 1 July 2011, the 160 registered determinations of native title covered some 1,228,373 km2 (474,277 sq mi) (approximately 16 per cent) of the land mass of Australia; and registeredIndigenous land use agreements (ILUAs) covered about 1,234,129 km2 (476,500 sq mi) (about 16 per cent) of the land mass, as well as about 5,435 km2 (2,098 sq mi) of sea.[74]
Native title in Australia frequently involves mediation between native title parties and other groups with an interest in native title, such as the Australian Government, state and territory governments, miners and pastoralists.[12] Amendments to the NTA made in 2012 meant that the NNTT would henceforth only conduct native title claim mediation by referral from the Federal Court, which may also order mediation by other agencies or persons.[75] The purpose of mediation is to assist parties to clarify the issues in dispute, to explore options for settlement and to reach agreement.[76] Mediation is a structured process, with the intention of a mutually agreed outcome rather than having a decision imposed by a judge.[77]
Alternative settlements (also termed "broader settlements"[78]) may be negotiated out of court, often being resolved more quickly and efficiently than via the court process under theNative Title Act. They can give traditional owner group recognition in areas where native title rights have been extinguished, or where it is difficult for a group to prove that it persists. Such agreements are resolved through negotiation, and recognition of traditional ownership and various other land rights in land may be achieved without an actual native title determination. Examples of such arrangements are the Indigenous land use agreement or, in Victoria, a settlement under theTraditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (TOSA).[79]
Alternative settlements agreements can be made alongside theNative Title Act, but usually the traditional owners are required to withdraw any existing native title claims. Such settlements can include any matters agreed to by all parties, which may included recognition of traditional owner rights, grants of freehold for specified purposes, or the right to be consulted and participate innatural resource management.[79]
AnIndigenous land use agreement (ILUA) is a voluntary agreement between a native title group and others about the use of land and waters,[80] provided for under the Act. They must be about native title matters, but can include other matters.[81] They enable people to negotiate flexible and pragmatic agreements to suit their particular circumstances.[80]
An ILUA may exist over areas where native title has, or has not yet, been determined; may be entered into regardless of whether there is a native title claim over the area or not; and may be part of a native title determination, or settled separately from a native title claim.[80] An ILUA is binding between a native title group orRegistered Native Title Body Corporate/s (RNTBC) and other parties, and bind all persons holding native title in the area of the ILUA, regardless of whether they are parties or not.[81]
ILUAs are an alternative to making an application for native title determination, generally processed within less than six months, and may deal with a wide range of issues, including such topics as:[81][80]
There are three types of ILUAs: Body Corporate Agreements, Area Agreements and Alternative Procedure Agreements.[81]
TheTraditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (TOSA) "provides for an out-of-court settlement of native title. The Act allows the Victorian Government to recognise traditional owners and certain rights in Crown land. In return for entering into a settlement, traditional owners must agree to withdraw any native title claim, pursuant to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and not to make any future native title claims".[82]
Alternative agreements require that the claimants demonstrate that they are the "traditional owners" (or "traditional custodians") of the country in question. However, this term has sometimes proved problematic in law: it is not mentioned in the NTA, but Indigenous Land Use Agreements (see below), which are provided for under the Act, require that the Indigenous group or groups party to the agreement assert "traditional ownership" of the area.[83][78]
The definition of the term "traditional owner" varies among jurisdictions. According to theAboriginal Land Rights Act 1976, the term refers to "a local descent group of Aboriginals who: (a) have common spiritual affiliations to a site on the land, being affiliations that place the group under a primary spiritual responsibility for that site and for the land; and (b) are entitled by Aboriginal tradition to forage as of right over that land".[5] A similar definition was incorporated in theEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC), but legislation differed in various states, such as the South Australian legislation referring to an "Aboriginal person who has, in accordance with Aboriginal tradition, social, economic and spiritual affiliations with, and responsibilities for, the lands or any part of them".[78]
A further complexity is introduced in a form of ranking of rights, for example in New South Wales, a traditional owner must be both born in the country and have a cultural association with the land.Peter Sutton distinguishes between "core" and "contingent" rights, which he says are recognised among most Aboriginal peoples. So there are sometimes challenges in finding "the right people for the right country", complicated by the fact that there are cases where both primary and secondary rights holders are described by the term. Distinguishing between "historical people" and others who have been custodians of the land for many generations add to the complexity. In the case of some agreements, historical people may be recognised as parties even when they don't have "traditional" associations with the land.[78]
The termTraditional Owner Corporation (TOC) is used to refer to various types of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations. Such a corporation is usually the negotiating body when determining native title outcomes.[79] (A TOC is distinct from theRegistered Native Title Body Corporate (RNTBC), which manages the land after a native title determination has been made.[84][4])
In Victoria, a "traditional owner group" is defined in theTraditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 to include those people recognised by the Attorney-General as traditional owners, based on their traditional and cultural associations with the land, and there are government guidelines detailing what these terms mean. They state thattraditional "Denotes linkages with the past that are actively kept alive by the traditional owner group members. It is not restricted to features or activities understood to be fully continuous with, and identical to, such activities or features in pre-contact Aboriginal society".[85]
Apart from the legal definitions, the terms traditional owners ortraditional custodians of the land are included inAcknowledgment of Country wording which is used to pay respects to the people of that Country.[86][87]
No native title claim has ever been determined in the ACT, because of the lack of historical records enabling such a determination to be made.[90]
An Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) was agreed with the Kaurna Yerta Aboriginal Corporation (KYAC) and effected on 19 November 2018.[89] The agreement was among the South Australian government, the federal government and the Kaurna people, with formal recognition coming after the Federal Court judgment, 18 years after lodgement. This was the first claim for a first land use agreement to be agreed to in any Australian capital city. The rights cover Adelaide's whole metropolitan area and includes "17 parcels of undeveloped land not under freehold". Some of the land is Crown land, some belongs to the state government and some is private land owned by corporations. JusticeDebra Mortimer said it would be "the first time in Australia that there [had] been a positive outcome within the area of (native title) determination".[91][92]
As of 2020[update], four native title claims have been determined in Victoria; three of them resulted in the recognition of native title by agreement via a consent determination in the Federal Court. InYorta Yorta v Victoria (see above) in 2003, native title was determined not to exist by the Federal Court. The native title determinations are:[93]
Although the Yorta Yorta people's claim did not meet the legal standard for native title under the Act, in 2004 theVictorian Government entered into a Cooperative Management Agreement with theYorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation, which was the first Victorian agreement reached outside the native title process, and applies to designated areas of Crown land in north central Victoria, with direct engagement between Yorta Yorta,Parks Victoria and theDepartment of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). In October 2010, the State entered into a Traditional Owner Land Management Agreement with the Yorta Yorta, which established the Yorta Yorta Traditional Owner Land Management Board to jointly manageBarmah National Park (a TOSA settlement, under theTraditional Owner Settlement Act 2010[94]).
An alternative settlement, the South West Native Title Settlement for Noongar people in Western Australia, aims to resolve native title claims in exchange for statutory recognition of the Noongar people as the traditional owners of south-Western Australia.[79] As of 2020[update] it is the largest native title settlement in Australian history, affecting about 30,000 Noongar people and encompassing around 200,000 km2 (77,000 sq mi) in south-western Western Australia. It has been described as "Australia's first treaty".[88]
TheNoongar (Koorah, Nitja, Boordahwan) (Past, Present, Future) Recognition Act 2016 recognises Noongar ownership, and the settlement includes six individual Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs).[88] On 19 December 2019, the Federal Court upheld the Native Title Registrar’s decision to register the six ILUAs, and settlement is expected to begin in the second half of 2020.[95]
TheNational Native Title Council (NNTC) is anot-for-profit organisation whose website states that it is the "peak body for the native title sector". Its members include regional Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRBs), Native Title Service Providers (NTSPs), localPrescribed Body Corporates (PBCs) and Traditional Owner Corporations (TOCs).[96]
As of 2025[update], Jamie Lowe isCEO of the council. He is also inaugural co-chair of the board of theMabo Centre, established inPerth in March 2025.[97][98]
Under theNative Title Act 1993, theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner was required to prepare an annual report to theAttorney-General on the operation of the NTA and its effect on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and to report on other matters as and when requested by the Attorney-General.[99]
The objectives of the Commissioner were to provide and promote ahuman rights perspective on native title; to assist in developing more efficient native title processes; and to advocate for the co-existence between Indigenous and non-Indigenous interests in land based on compatible land use.[99] All of the reports from 1994 to 2016 have been published online.[100] Changes brought about by theHuman Rights Legislation Amendment Act 2017 removed the statutory obligation for an annual Social Justice and Native Title Report such as those produced up to and including 2016.[101]
Text was copied from this source, which is available under anAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (as perthis page). Text was copied from this source, which is available under aAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (as perthis page). Text was copied from this source, which is available under aAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (as perthis page). Text was copied from this source, which is available under aAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (as perthis page). Text was copied from this source, which is available under aAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Text was copied from this source, which is available under aAttribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY 3.0 AU) licence. Text was copied from this source, which is available under aAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. (Statedhere.) Text was copied from this source, which is available under aAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. (Statedhere.) Text was copied from this source, which is available under aAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. (Statementhere.)