Justice Reeves’ decision in QGC Pty Limited v Bygrave FCA 1457 creates more questions than it answers for proponents seeking to use Indigenous land use agreements (ILUAs) to provide native title certainty for their projects.
In so doing, his Honour’s decision would appear to present a major problem for project proponents seeking native title certainty for their projects in areas with no registered native title claim.
The role of ILUAs
All project proponents need to consider if the “future act” provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) apply to their projects.
Future acts, for example, the grant of mining and petroleum tenements over areas where native title has not been extinguished, to the extent that they affect native title, will be valid if done in accordance with applicable future act procedures set out in the NTA.
However, even where such procedures are unavailable (or have not been followed), future acts will be validly undertaken if the parties to an ILUA consent to them being done, provided the ILUA has been registered by the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT).
ILUAs are a key tool by which project proponents can achieve certainty that the native title impacts of their projects have been appropriately managed. They are particularly useful for major projects involving multiple approvals or where permissions are required with respect to native title interests, as is the case under the pipeline licence and petroleum facility licence provisions of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld).
Authorisation – a fundamental requirement and now a new approach
The NNTT can only register an ILUA if satisfied that the ILUA was properly authorised (or the local representative body has first certified the ILUA as being so authorised). In relation to area ILUAs (the most common type, used where there has not been a determination of native title in relation to all of the ILUA area), this requires the NNTT to be satisfied that:
step 1: all reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that all persons who hold or may hold native title in relation to the relevant area have been identified; and
step 2: all of the persons so identified have authorised the making of the agreement.
It has long been accepted that step 1 generally involves some or all of publicly advertising, consulting with the NNTT and the local representative body and making other reasonable inquiries to identify (in addition to all determined native title holders for the area) everybody who:
- has a registered native title claim over the area (class 1); and
- otherwise asserts native title over the area (and can demonstrate a prima facie basis to that assertion, that is, whose assertion is not “merely colourable”) (class 2).
A proponent would then negotiate the ILUA with representatives of the people identified in classes 1 and 2 (native title parties).
For step 2, upon agreement being reached with such representatives, the ILUA would then be authorised by the native title parties themselves, usually at a meeting convened through public advertising (and written notification, where contact details are known) to try to ensure attendance by as many members of the native title parties as practicable.
Following authorisation, an application could then be made to the NNTT for the ILUA to be registered. Once registered, the ILUA would become binding on the native title parties generally and operate to validate any future acts for the project.
Until the 16 December 2011 decision of Justice Reeves in Bygrave, it was commonly understood that, where the native title parties comprised more than one distinct group, all such groups would have to authorise the ILUA, and would have to do so separately. In practice, this meant any people identified in class 1 and all identified members of other distinct class 2 groups having to (separately) authorise the ILUA.
In Bygrave, Justice Reeves interpreted the requirements of step 2 in a fundamentally different way. He found (given the way in which “authorise” is defined in the NTA) that, while step 1 still requires all native title parties to be identified (although his Honour appears to have moved away from the accepted “prima facie” test as outlined above), under step 2, the only people who are required (in fact, who are entitled) to authorise an ILUA are those who hold or may hold the common or group rights comprising the native title in the ILUA area. Critically, Justice Reeves held that the people who hold or may hold the common or group rights comprising the native title in an ILUA area are those in class 1. That is, the only people capable of authorising an area ILUA are the native title claim group for a registered native title claim over the area.
What does this mean?
Where an ILUA area overlaps the area of a registered native title claim, Justice Reeves’ approach actually simplifies and clarifies the landscape for proponents in the sense that only class 1 native title parties will be required to authorise the ILUA.
The problem for project proponents with his Honour’s approach arises where there is no registered native title claim in the ILUA area. While his Honour did not deal specifically with this situation, his reasoning would seem to lead to the conclusion that, in the absence of a registered native title claim:
- while there may be people in class 2 that are identified, there will be nobody capable of authorising the ILUA; and
- as an ILUA cannot be registered without first having been authorised, proponents would be unable to use ILUAs to ensure native title protection for their projects.
The NNTT may decide, going forward:
- to regard Justice Reeves’ decision as being confined to the situation with which he was dealing, that is, where a registered native title claim does exist, and having no application to ILUAs in areas with no registered claim; or
- where an ILUA relates to an area that is currently unclaimed but in respect of which there previously have been one or more registered claims, to recognise the native title claim group(s) for the previously registered claim(s) as being the people who hold or may hold the common or group rights comprising the native title in the ILUA area (and so are able to authorise the ILUA).
Unless the NNTT chooses to adopt either of these positions (or there has never been a registered native title claim for the ILUA area), Justice Reeves’ decision would appear to present a major problem for project proponents seeking native title certainty for their projects in areas with no registered native title claim.
Where there are no other applicable validation measures available, proponents in these circumstances could be left with the unsavoury reality that compulsory acquisition of the native title in the ILUA area or other statutory mechanisms (if available) are the only solutions that will allow their project to proceed.
This article was first published in the NSW Law Society Journal, April 2012
 We do not discuss in this article the authorisation procedures to be adopted where there has been an approved determination of native title in relation to all or part of a proposed ILUA area.[back]
 Murray v Registrar of the Native Title Tribunal  FCA 1598; Kemp v Native Title Registrar  FCA 939. [back]
 See Kemp v Native Title Registrar, above n.2. In Bygrave, Justice Reeves emphasised that he was not overruling Kemp, however, it is difficult to reconcile both judgments. See also Fesl v The Delegate of the Native Title Registrar  FCA 1469. [back]
 In our view, the issue is more subtle. Section 251A does not provide, as his Honour found, that only the people who hold or may hold the common or group rights comprising the native title in the area may authorise an ILUA. Rather, the provision states that people authorising an ILUA must do so according to a traditional decision-making process binding on, or a decision-making process agreed and adopted by, the people who hold or may hold the common or group rights comprising the native title in the ILUA area. [back]