Snapshot
- The Full Federal Court’s decision in McGlade v Native Title Registrar [2017] FCAFC 10 cast doubt on the validity of more than 100 Indigenous Land Use Agreements (‘ILUAs’) registered since 1998 in circumstances where not all of the registered native title claimants signed the agreement, and there was significant uncertainty and risk with respect to tenures or activities done under the authority of those ILUAs.
- The Federal Government moved quickly to reverse the impact of the Court’s decision, however, and the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Act 2017 (Cth) was enacted on 14 June 2017.
- The Act reverses the impact of McGlade for registered ILUAs and some ILUAs pending registration, and changes the requirements for who must be a party to future ILUAs.
The Federal Government’s Bill to reverse the impact of the Full Federal Court’s decision in McGlade v Registrar National Native Title Tribunal [2017] FCAFC 10 (‘McGlade’) was passed on 14 June 2017.
The McGlade decision cast doubt on the validity of over one hundred Indigenous Land Use Agreements (‘ILUAs’) registered since 1998 in circumstances where not all of the registered native title claimants signed the agreement, which led to significant uncertainty and risk with respect to tenures or activities done under the authority of those ILUAs.
The Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Act 2017 (Cth) (‘Amendment Act’) reverses the impact of McGlade for registered ILUAs and some ILUAs pending registration, and changes the requirements for who must be a party to future ILUAs.
For future ILUAs, the Amendment Act allows the native title claim group to either nominate particular applicants to be a party or decide that the agreement needs to be signed by a majority of the applicants.
The Amendment Act does not address the impact of McGlade on other agreements with native title groups, particularly agreements under the right to negotiate process.
