Skip to main content

Hill on behalf of the Yirendali People v State of Queensland [2017] FCA 273

Year
2017
Jurisdiction
Queensland
Forum
Federal Court
Legislation considered
s 87 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
s 225 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
Summary

Reeves J

In this matter, Reeves J decided it was appropriate to make a negative native title determination in relation to an area located in central Queensland. The first applicant was James Hill on behalf of the Yirendali people and the first respondent was the State of Queensland.

A native title claim was lodged in 2006. In 2014, the State advised the applicant that it did not accept that the Yirendali claim group would be able to establish the necessary connection with the claim area under the relevant provisions of the Native Title Act, based on the expert anthropological evidence compiled in relation to the claim. Consequently, the application was set down for trial commencing in June 2015. Prior to this date, the State made an offer to the applicant to enter into negotiations for the settlement of the matter.

Thereafter, the applicant and the State held negotiations directed to settling the terms of an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) to resolve the claim. An ILUA was subsequently authorised by the Yirendali claim group, executed and entered on to the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements. The ILUA provided for the surrender of native title in relation to the whole of the claim area, in exchange for certain benefits including land exchange and revenue sharing. In December 2016, the applicant filed an agreement under s 87 of the NTA, duly executed by all the parties to the proceeding, together with a set of submissions in support of its application for a consent determination in the terms of that agreement.

In considering whether a negative determination was appropriate, Reeves J referred to the discretionary considerations outlined in CG v Western Australia (2016) 240 FCR 466. Reeves J found those considerations to be satisfied and acknowledged that the existence of the ILUA was highly relevant in exercising his Honour’s discretion to order a negative determination. In making the determination of no native title, Reeves J affirmed that conformity with s 225(a) to (e) of the NTA was only required for a positive determination.