Reeves J
In this matter, Reeves J dismissed an application seeking to remove applicants of the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) peoples native title claim and replace them with other individuals. The respondent to the application was the State of Queensland. The native title claim covers approximately 30,277 square kilometres of land on the western edge of central Queensland, including the site proposed for the development of Adani Mining Pty Ltd’s (Adani) Carmichael Coal Mine.
On 19 March 2016, certain members of the W&J claim group held a meeting, purporting to remove and replace four individuals of the existing W&J applicant. The meeting was notified by newspaper advertisements and by a notice that was posted on 11 March 2016 to those members of the W&J claim group, who were members of the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation at the time. The resolution to remove and replace the four members of the existing W&J applicant passed at that meeting. The replacement applicant relied upon the resolution to submit that the four members of the existing W&J applicant were no longer authorised by the W&J claim group to make the application and to deal with the matters arising in relation to it.
Reeves J found that although the meeting had been headed as an ‘authorisation meeting’, it was in actuality a meeting of those members of the W&J claim group who held the same concerns as those calling the meeting in relation to the Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) negotiations with Adani. His Honour noted that there was no mention in the notice of the meeting of members having concerns relating to the primary function of an authorised applicant under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA). Reeves J considered that the notice was predominantly to do with the ILUA negotiations and the concerns of members of the W&J claim group about the continuation of those negotiations. As such the notice was not a notice directed to all members of the W&J claim group notifying them that an authorisation meeting had been convened to consider the authority of its authorised applicant for the purposes of s66B and s251B of the NTA.
Reeves J held that the meeting as conducted could not be a fair representation of the views of the whole of the W&J claim group concerning the membership of the W&J applicant. His Honour ruled that the application to replace the applicants did not meet the requirement of conditions 3 (s 66B(1)(a)(iii)) and 5 (s 66B(1)(b)) of French’s test set out in Daniel v Western Australia [2002] FCA 1147.