Mansfield J
A native title application had been brought on behalf of the Kaurna Peoples for a determination of native title rights and interests over extensive areas of the Adelaide Plains and associated areas. Milan Millison and Linda Millison (the Millisons) owned a property adjacent to part of the native title claim area and were interested in aquiring part of a lot of land within the claim area.
The Court had previously refused an application by the Millisons in relation to the lot and ordered their removal as parties unless the Millisons served notice of their intention to remain as parties. See Related Content.
In this matter, the Millions sought to establish their status as a party to the application on the basis of some other interest in the claim area.
Basis of Claim
The Millisons claimed that they had ‘ongoing concerns revolving around home security and the peaceful amenity of the residence that can potentially deteriorate from the outcome of the native title application’ and ‘if they were parties to the application, they would be in a better position to negotiate and seek agreements under the Act with both the Kaurna Peoples and the state of South Australia to ameliorate our concerns’ and provided a letter from Kaurna Yerta Aboriginal Corporation supporting their continued usage of the lot for the purpose of native revegetation as evidence of the need to remain involved in the Application.
Reasoning
The Court did not consider the concerns of the Millisons about Lot 51 justified them remaining as parties to the application as:
the Millisons concerns regarding home security and peaceful amenity is an ‘interest’ that will be unaffected by any determination of native title. A native title determination recognises the existence of native title from the time of settlement. It does not create native title rights and interests. If the application is successful, the rights and interests of the Kaurna Peoples will simply be recognised. There will be no change in the status of the Millisons’ home security. Nor was there any evidence which suggested that the Millisons’ concern about their home security or the peaceful amenity of their residence is an element which distinguishes them from the ordinary members of the public. Consequently, the Court did not consider that those concerns were properly elevated into ‘interests’ of the kind contemplated by s 84(5) of the Act.
There was no foundation for thinking that the desire of the Millisons to negotiate with the State and to seek agreements with the Kaurna People and the State in relation to the use of Lot 51 constitutes an interest. The Millisons can conduct negotiations with the Kaurna People and the State as are appropriate and their status in that regard will not be enhanced if they were parties to the application.
There was no evidence which would convert their interest in supporting native revegetation of the area sufficient to grant them party status as this ‘interest’ was no more than their desire as good citizens to restore native vegetation to what was apparently unoccupied land. It is not based on any claimed especial right to undertake that project, different from that of other right-minded citizens.
Orders
Milan Millison and Linda Millison be removed as parties to the application.