When the Noongar people took legal action against the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council and the WA Government, they perhaps didn’t envisage the repercussions. Native Title senior barrister, Greg McIntyre SC, explains the implications of the Federal Court’s decision of requiring a simple majority to agree on an Indigenous Land Use Agreement.
By
Rae Johnston, Claudianna Blanco

Source:
The Point
18 Apr 2017 - 8:16 PM  UPDATED 18 Apr 2017 - 11:16 PM

The historic 1.3 billon Noongar legal victory became a precedent for other Native Title determinations around the country.

The agreement reached between the Barnett government and the Noongar groups in June 2015, allowed 320,000 hectares of land to be held for cultural development by the Noongar Boodja Trust.

The Noongar Recognition ACT of 2016 was meant to create a perpetual fund that would have made annual instalments of $50 million for 12 years, as well as establish six new regional corporations and one social services Corporation - all funded by an extra $10 million dollars each year for 12 years.  It also included the refurbishment of 121 homes.

It was a milestone that set a precedent for other claims to follow.

But now, the Federal Court has decided to make changes to the understanding of the last 7 years, and the Native Title claims will go back to how they were dealt with before the Noongar case, requiring a simple majority to agree on an Indigenous Land Use Agreement.

Native Title senior barrister, Greg McIntyre SC, who successfully represented Eddie Mabo in the landmark Mabo v Queensland (1992) case, told NITV’s The Point that the Full Federal Court’s decision has great impact on current and future Native Title claims.

“The impact of that is that there are over 200 agreements that have been proceeding on the basis that they were valid with less than all of the registered claimants signing them, and the Full Court has now suggested that they are not validly registered,” he explained.

“Native Title claimants have been proceeding on the basis that if one member of the registered claimant group signed an Indigenous Land Use Agreement, then it was valid. That’s because a single judge said that in a decision seven years ago.

“The recent decision of the Full Federal Court said, ‘No, the Native Title Act makes it very clear that all of the people who comprise the Registered Native Title claimant must sign an Indigenous Land Use Agreement for it to be able to be registered’,” he added.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Labor cautiously backs native title change
Labor will open talks with the Turnbull government on changes to native title laws, following a Federal Court ruling.
Native title being watered down for big mining, say Traditional Owners
Traditional owners have gathered in Canberra to demand the Government act fairly and allow more time for consideration by Indigenous groups affected by proposed changes to native title law.
Proposed changes to Native Title Act "undermines Aboriginal land rights:" Activist
Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners have asked the Federal Court to strike out an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) with mining giant Adani -

According to Mr McIntyre, the changes will have three major consequences.

First, it will retrospectively validate the 200 or so agreements which have been introduced in the last seven years without all registered claimants signing.

Secondly, “it purports to declare that the Noongar agreements will become valid once the legislation is enacted”.

Finally, it will “create a process for the future, which will allow Native Title groups to meet and to decide which of the registered claimants are to sign any Indigenous Land Use Agreements.”

Some critics of the changes have claimed the amended act has added conditions which may appear to facilitate projects, such as the Adani Carmichael mine project to go ahead.

Warren Mundine responded, saying people using the Noongar precedent are impeding mining development.

Deakin University’s Emeritus Professor Dr Jon Altman disagrees with Mr Mundine’s view, stating, “Warren Mundine is poorly informed about the workings of the Native Title Act. His views run contrary to three Federal Court Judges. He confuses correlation with causation, in other words, just because key Traditional Owners and some ‘greenies’ agree, doesn’t mean one caused the other. It just means they share a similar view on Adani’s Carmichael mine proposal.”

MORE ON ADANI'S CARMICHAEL MINE
Turnbull assures Adani mine bosses Native Title won't be a problem
Malcolm Turnbull has met with executives from the Indian company wanting to build Australia's biggest coal mine with the help of federal funding during his stay in New Delhi.
Indigenous youth join coalition in last ditch effort to stop Adani coal mine
Indigenous Youth Climate Network, Seed, and former Senator Bob Brown have joined forces with 12 other key environmental groups to launch the 'Stop Adani Alliance' campaign to stop the development of the $1.2b coal mine in Queensland.
'Shame on you': Traditional Owners send message to Adani
Townsville has been named as the headquarters for Adani's controversial Carmichael coal mine, amidst ongoing backlash from sections of the Murri community.

Mr McIntyre also believes the amended act would make it easier for such projects to get the green light.

“Yes, it would have that effect because, as I understand it, that project was a subject of a meeting that there was a majority in favour of it, but not all have signed the agreement. That would have to be re-run effectively.

“Essentially, the effect of the legislation would be to validate that agreement, despite the fact that not all registered claimants have signed it.”

As a senior barrister, Mr McIntyre has concerns about the changes to the Act.

“I do and I expressed them to the parliamentary committee which inquired into it … It effectively means that majority rules in all circumstances.

“My view is that there ought to at least be a dispute resolution process which takes into account minority views. There are various ways of taking into account minority views, but the current form of the legislation does not address that issue,” he concluded.  

FURTHER READING
Adani's Carmichael coal mine: The story so far
NITV recaps the major moments in the development of what might become Australia's biggest coal mine.
Juru Traditional Owners release video to help 'Save Our Cultural Heritage'
Juru Traditional Owners from Northern Queensland want the rest of Australia to see their beautiful country 'in case they lose it.'