Background On 1 March 2013, the Arabana People filed a native title application (the Arabana No 2 Application, SAD38/2013) over two separate areas (Part 1 and Part 2 areas). A determination of native title was made by consent over the Part 1 area, near Maree, in Stuart v State of South Australia (No 3) [2021] FCA 230. The Part 2 area concerns Oodnadatta and is subject to consideration in this present determination [2]-[4]. The Walka Wani People, who are comprised of Lower Southern Arrernte and Yankunytjatjara/Luritja People brought two applications, the first on 12 April 2013 (SAD78/2013) and the other on 14 September 2018 [5]. The two Walka Wani applications together overlap exactly the area of the Arabana Part 2 claim [5]. As contested overlapping claims can lead to conflict and tension between claim groups, the Court ordered two mediations by Registrars which were conducted in 2015 and 2018 - neither resulted in a mediated outcome and the parties' positions seemed intractable [10]. Thus, the Court ordered, pursuant to s 67 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) for the Arabana, and the two Walka Wani applications to be dealt with in one proceeding known as the Oodnadatta Common Overlap Proceeding [11]. Details of the Judgment The State of South Australia argued that neither the Arabana nor the Walka Wani had shown their connection to the Overlap Area for the purpose of establishing native title: the Arabana not having maintained connection, and the Walka Wani not having had connection at the time of effective British sovereignty [59]. White J, in assessing the continuity of the use of natural resources, the practice of customs and traditions, and other evidence that the Arabana People relied upon, was not satisfied that the Arabana People had shown their maintenance of connection with the Overlap Area and their claim was dismissed [907]-[916]. White J found that the Walka Wani did have non-exclusive native title rights and interests by virtue of their acknowledgment and observance of traditional law and custom over the Overlap Area at the time of effective sovereignty, subject to the issue of tenure, and the Walka Wani applications succeeded [985]-[986]. The issue of tenure The Overlap Area comprised 156 allotments. The State and the Walka Wani agreed that native title existed over 25 of the allotments and that native title had been extinguished over 72 [988-994]. Whilst the Walka Wani contended that s 47A of the NTA applied to disregard extinguishment in relation to 58 allotments [995], White J concluded that extinguishment could be disregarded over the 42 allotments described in Part 2 of Schedule 3 (attached). Native title had been wholly extinguished over a total of 93 allotments as described in Schedule 6 (attached). |