1. In the case of Wik Peoples v The State of Queensland &Ors and Thayorre People v The State of Queensland &Ors [1996] High Court of Australia, the Wik and Thayorre peoples claimed native title over an area included in pastoral leases because they believed their title could exist at the same time as the pastoral lease. Prior to the enactment of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth), the Wik Peoples made a claim for a determination of their native title rights and interests. The Thayorre People joined the action because they had claimed their native title rights and interests over an area of land which partly overlapped the Wik claim.
2. This case dealt with the question of whether pastoral leases granted in Queensland had the effect of extinguishing native title. The Wik and Thayorre Peoples argued that their native title rights and interests were not extinguished by the grant of leases, but rather coexisted with the interests of the lessees.The High Court of Australia therefore needed to decide whether or not granting a pastoral lease extinguished native title rights. In 1996, the High Court handed down its decision confirming that native title rights and interests may exist over land which is or has been subject to a pastoral lease, and possibly some other forms of leasehold tenure. The High Court held that there was no conflict between the land use in the pastoral leases of the Wik and Thayorre land and the indigenous people’s traditional use of that land. The High Court decided that rights and obligation under a lease depended on the lease’s details, and that native title rights can co-exist with the granting of a pastoral lease. The Native Title Act therefore provides protection for native title into the future by specifying the procedures that governments must follow before native title may be affected
3. The Wik case was decided on legal principles consistent with the Native Title Act and the common law decision in the Mabo Case. The holders of pastoral leases were scared their rights would be undermined by native title claims and native title rights of indigenous people in relation to indigenous land rights.
4. The Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cwlth)
5. The Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cwlth), also commonly referred to as the “10 Point Plan” is an Australian native title law created by the John Howard led Liberal Government in response to the 1996 Wik Decision by the High Court of Australia regarding the native title issue. The Native Title Amendment Act 1998 placed some restrictions on native title claims and made several amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth). The amendments were made in response to the High Court’s decision in the Wik case. The Wikcase confirmed that native title rights and interests may exist over land which is or has been subject to a pastoral lease.
6. Creating Indigenous Land Use Agreements to promote co-existence is one of the 10 points under the 10 point plan. Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUA) are a voluntary agreement between a native title group and others about the use of land and waters. These agreements allow people to negotiate flexible, practical agreements to suit their particular circumstances. An ILUA can be over areas where native title has, or has not yet, been determined; entered into regardless of whether there is a native title claim over the area or not; or part of a native title determination or settled separately from a native title claim.ILUAs can cover both future acts (e.g. exploration or mining activity) and non-future acts (e.g. use and access agreements that regulate co-existing rights). When registered, ILUAs bind all parties and all native title holders to the terms of the agreement.
7. On 16 February 2017, the Senate referred an inquiry into the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 [Provisions] to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 March 2017. This amends the Native Title Act 1993 to respond to the Federal Court’s decision in McGlade v Native Title Registrar [2017] FCAFC 10 by confirming the legal status and enforceability of agreements which have been registered by the Native Title Registrar on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements without the signature of all members of a registered native title claimant; enabling the registration of agreements which have been made but have not yet been registered; and ensuring that area Indigenous Land Use Agreements can be registered without requiring every member of the registered native title claimant to be a party to the agreement.
8. The case McGlade v Native Title Registrar [2017]:Federal Court’s decision in McGlade v Native Title Registrar [2017] FCAFC 10 by confirming the legal status and enforceability of agreements which have been registered by the Native Title Registrar on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements without the signature of all members of a registered native title claimant; enabling the registration of agreements which have been made but have not yet been registered; and ensuring that area Indigenous Land Use Agreements can be registered without requiring every member of the registered native title claimant to be a party to the agreement.
9. “Native title laws and legislation in Australia have developed”. Students respond to statement whether agree with statement or not, discussing and justifying their opinion with reasons.