Rangiah J
This matter concerned a compensation claim (under ss 50(2) and 61(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA)), and an application to amend this (under s 83A of the NTA), brought by the Bigambul 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 the compensation claim in Wharton on behalf of the Kooma People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2021] FCA 191, 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 native title determination areas in southern Queensland. The Bigambul people had native title recognised in Doctor on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland [2016] FCA 1447; and Doctor on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland [2017] FCA 716. The claim sought compensation from the State over the areas the Bigambul were determined to have non-exclusive native title, covering approximately 19,774 km2.
The compensation claim did not specify any particular compensable acts, but rather specified that further information would be provided after expert evidence was sought. 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 particular acts. 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).