Background The Bandjalang People's native title was first recognised after 17 years of negotiation in Bandjalang People No 1 and No 2 v Attorney-General of New South Wales [2013] FCA 1278. This was the third successful native title claim in NSW, and protects many significant sites such as the Goanna Headlands, and 20 significant archeological sites contained within. In 2016 the Bandjalang People made another application for a determination of native title, and an additional one in 2019. These two applications were dealt with together by the Court in this determination [D]. The determination area here consists of 52 parcels of land, including a culturally significant site at Bora Ridge, located within the external boundary of the claim area determined in the Bandjalang People's 2013 recognition of native title. The 52 parcels were held by different Aboriginal Land Councils under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) (the ALRA). However, because there are differences between the rights under the ALRA, and the rights of native title holders under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), difficult issues arose during the negotiations for the 2013 determination. As a result, those parcels were not included in that determination.
Details of Judgment The parties reached agreement as to the terms of a determination of native title agreeing that native title exists in relation to part of the determination area whilst it had been extinguished in relation to the rest. Justice Rares noted that his power to make orders by consent for a determination occurred pursuant to ss 87 and 94A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), and approved the Applicant's nomination of the Bandjalang Aboriginal Corporation to hold the determined native title in trust for the Bandjalang People. While the determination resulted from an agreement between the parties, Justice Rares emphasised that the Court must still be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to ensure that the making of any determination would be appropriate. While it is not necessary for the parties to tender evidence as if they were contesting a dispute, the Court still needs to be satisfied that a proper basis for the determination exists because "the agreement is rooted in reality" [18]. In this instance, Justice Rares noted that there was sufficient evidence and considered it appropriate to make the consent orders sought by the parties. |