Skip to main content

Wharton on behalf of the Kooma People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2021] FCA 191

Year
2021
Jurisdiction
Queensland
Forum
Federal Court
Legislation considered
s 84C Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
s 61 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
83a
s 64 Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)
Summary

Rangiah J

This matter concerned a compensation claim, and an application to amend the claim (under s 83A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA)), brought by the Kooma People. Both were opposed by the State of Queensland. The amending application was dismissed and the matter itself was struck out for failing to identify any particular compensable acts. The applicant was ordered to bear the State’s costs. 

Background

The compensation application was filed and heard with with the compensation claim in Saunders on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2021] FCA 190, and hence Rangiah J read the cases together. Both the Kooma and Bigambul compensation claims were filed in December 2019, over the land and waters within their respective determined native title areas in southern Queensland. The Kooma people had native title recognised in Weatherall on behalf of the Kooma People (No 4) Part A v State of Queensland [2014] FCA 662, and sought compensation from the State over an area approximately 27,811 km2 in size. 

The original claim did not specify any particular compensable acts, stating that further information would be provided at a later date after seeking expert evidence. In March 2020, the State brought an application to strike out the claim, on the basis that it failed to identify the acts that gave rise to compensation or the area covered by the application as required by the NTA. The applicants sought leave to amend the compensation applications to identify the acts relied on. The State again opposed this on the grounds that this would result in the inclusion of areas not covered by the original application, contrary to s 64(1) of the NTA. 

Decision

Application to Amend 

Agreeing with the State, Rangiah J held that s 64(1) of the NTA prevents amendments which would result in the inclusion of new compensable acts and areas not covered by the original application. Section 83A NTA could also not be relied on for these reasons. The amended interlocutory application was therefore dismissed.

Compensation Application 

The original application, without the proposed amendments, failed to identify any act claimed to have extinguished or affected native title rights and interests, and where this occurred. It therefore did not comply with s 61(5)(c) of the NTA, and Rangiah J struck out the claim pursuant to NTA s 84C(1).