Editing Native title in Australia (section)

===Cases after the 1998 amendment===
====1998–2002 – Yorta Yorta====
{{main|Yorta Yorta v Victoria}}
''Yorta Yorta v Victoria'',<ref name="Yorta Yorta HCA">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|58|2002|litigants=[[Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria]] |parallelcite=(2002) 214 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 422}} {{cite web|url=http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2002/hca58-2002-12-12.pdf |title=Judgment Summary |publisher=[[High Court of Australia|High Court]] |date=12 December 2002}}</ref> addressed a native title claim by the [[Yorta Yorta people|Yorta Yorta]] Aboriginal people of north central [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]], which was dismissed by Justice Olney of the Federal Court in 1998.<ref name="Yorta Yorta trial">{{Cite AustLII|FCA|1606|1998|litigants=[[Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria]] |date=18 December 1998 |courtname=[[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court]]}}.</ref> Appeals to the Full Bench of the Federal Court in 2001,<ref name="Yorta Yorta Full Court">{{Cite AustLII|FCA|45|2001|litigants=Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v State of Victoria |date=8 February 2001 |courtname=[[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court (Full Court)]]}}.</ref> and the High Court in 2002 were also dismissed.<ref name="Yorta Yorta HCA"/>

The determination by Justice Olney in 1998 ruled that the 'tide of history' had 'washed away' any real acknowledgement of traditional laws and any real observance of traditional customs by the applicants.<ref name="Yorta Yorta trial"/> The 2002 High Court decision adopted strict requirements of continuity of traditional laws and customs for native title claims to succeed.<ref name="Yorta Yorta HCA"/>

==== 1998–2003 – Miriuwung Gajerrong ====
''Ward v Western Australia'' (1998) addressed an application made on behalf of the Miriuwung and Gajerrong people of the east Kimberly, over land in [[Western Australia]] and the Northern Territory. Justice [[Malcolm Lee (judge)|Malcolm Lee]] of the Federal Court ruled in their favour in recognition of the native title.<ref name="Ward trial">{{Cite AustLII|FCA|1478|1998|litigants=Ward v Western Australia |date=24 November 1998 |courtname=[[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court]]}}.</ref> Western Australia appealed the decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court,<ref name="Ward Full Court">{{Cite AustLII|FCA|191|2000|litigants=Western Australia v Ward |date=3 March 2000 |courtname=[[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court (Full Court)]]}}.</ref> then to the High Court.<ref name="Ward HCA">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|28|2002|litigants=Western Australia v Ward |parallelcite=(2002) 213 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 1 |courtname=[[High Court of Australia|High Court]] |date=8 August 2002}}</ref>

The High Court held in ''[[Western Australia v Ward]]'' that native title is a [[bundle of rights]], which may be extinguished one by one, for example, by a mining lease.<ref name="Ward HCA"/> In this case, the lease did not confer 'exclusive possession', because the claimants could pass over the land and do various things. But some parts of native title rights were extinguished, including the rights to control access and make use of the land.<ref name="Ward HCA"/>

The claim was remitted to the Full Court of the Federal Court to determine in accordance with the decision of the High Court. The claimants reached an agreement about the claim area and a determination was made in 2003.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCAFC|283|2003|litigants=Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v Ward |date=9 December 2003 |courtname=[[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court (Full Court)]]}}.</ref> "Exclusive possession native title was recognised over [[Lacrosse Island]], Kanggurru Island, Aboriginal reserves within the Kununurra townsite, Glen Hill pastoral lease and Hagan Island. Non-exclusive rights were recognised over a number of areas including islands in Lake Argyle."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dpc.wa.gov.au/LANTU/WHATISNATIVETITLE/Pages/KeyLegalEvents.aspx|title=Land, Approvals and Native Title Unit - Key Legal Events|website=dpc.wa.gov.au|language=en|access-date=2017-06-20}}</ref>

====2001 – Yarmirr====
{{main|Yarmirr v Northern Territory}}
''Yarmirr v Northern Territory'' (2001),<ref name="Yarmirr HCA">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|56|2001|litigants=[[Commonwealth v Yarmirr]] |parallelcite=(2001) 208 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 1 |date=11 October 2001 |courtname=[[High Court of Australia|High Court]]}}</ref> addressed an application made on behalf of a number of [[clan]] groups of Aboriginal people to an area of seas and sea-beds surrounding [[Croker Island]] in the Northern Territory. It was the first judgment by the High Court of native title over waters. The judge, Olney J, determined that members of the Croker Island community have a native title right to have free access to the sea and sea-bed of the claimed area for a number of purposes. The case established that traditional owners do have native title of the sea and sea-bed; however common law rights of fishing and navigation mean that only non-exclusive native title can exist over the sea.<ref name="Yarmirr FCA">{{cite AustLII|FCA|771|1998|litigants=Yarmirr v Northern Territory [No 2] |link=Yarmirr v Northern Territory#Determination |parallelcite=(1998) 82 [[Federal Court Reports|FCR]] 533 |courtname=[[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court]]}}.</ref> The decision paved the way for other native title applications involving waters to proceed.<ref>National Native Title Tribunal, ''Talking Native Title'', Issue 1, National Native Title Tribunal, December 2001.</ref>

====2002 & 2004 – Nangkiriny====
{{further|Bidyadanga Community, Western Australia}}
''Nangkiriny v State of Western Australia'' (2002 & 2004), in which [[John Dudu Nangkiriny]] and others were plaintiffs,<ref>{{cite web | title=Nangkiriny v State of Western Australia [2002] FCA 660 (12 February 2002) | website=Agreements, Treaties and Negotiated Settlements | url=https://www.atns.net.au/agreement?EntityID=1161 | access-date=23 August 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Nangkiriny v State of Western Australia [2004] FCA 1156 (8 September 2004) | website=Agreements, Treaties and Negotiated Settlements | url=https://www.atns.net.au/agreement?EntityID=2364 | access-date=23 August 2023}}</ref> were cases addressing the claims of the [[Karajarri]] people in the [[Kimberley (Western Australia)|Kimberley]] region, south of [[Broome, Western Australia|Broome]]. Land rights were recognised over {{convert|31000|km2|mi2}} of land (half the size of Tasmania) via an ILUA on 5 July 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=	https://www.atns.net.au/agreement?EntityID=5479 |website=ATNS|title=Bidyadanga Initial Works Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) |first1=Evgenia |last1=Bourova |date=	5 July 2011|first2=Nuwan|last2=Dias|edition=28 October 2011|access-date=8 December 2019}}</ref>

====2004 – Maralinga====
{{main|Maralinga}}

In May 2004, following the passage of special legislation, South Australian Premier [[Mike Rann]] handed back title to 21,000 square kilometres of land to the Maralinga Tjarutja and [[Pila Nguru]] people. The land, {{convert|1000|km|mi}} north-west of [[Adelaide]] and abutting the [[Western Australia]] border, was then called the Unnamed Conservation Park. It is now known as [[Mamungari Conservation Park]]. It includes the [[Serpentine Lakes]], and was the largest land return since 1984. At the 2004 ceremony Rann said the return of the land fulfilled a promise he made to Archie Barton in 1991 when he was Aboriginal Affairs Minister, after he passed legislation to return lands including the sacred [[Ooldea]] area (which also included the site of [[Daisy Bates (author)|Daisy Bates]]' mission camp) to the Maralinga Tjarutja people.<ref>The Age 25 August 2004, "Maralinga Handover Prompts Celebration"</ref> The Maralinga Tjarutja lands now total 102,863 square kilometres.

====2005 – Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa, Jadawadjali, Wergaia and Jupagalk====
{{main|Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa, Jadawadjali, Wergaia and Jupagulk Peoples v Victoria}}
The Aboriginal peoples of the [[Wimmera]] region of Western Victoria won recognition of their native title on 13 December 2005 after a ten-year legal process commenced in 1995 when they filed an application for a determination of native title in respect of certain land and waters in Western Victoria. It was the first successful native title claim in south-eastern Australia and in Victoria, determined by Justice [[Ron Merkel]] involving Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa, [[Jardwadjali|Jadawadjali]], [[Wergaia]] and Jupagalk people.<ref>Fergus Shiel, ''[http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/past-gives-aborigines-strength/2005/12/13/1134236064303.html Past gives us strength, Aborigines say]'', [[The Age]], 14 December 2005. Accessed 10 September 2011</ref><ref name="FCA1795">{{cite AustLII|FCA|1795|2005|litigants=Clarke on behalf of the Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa, Jadawadjali, Wergaia and Jupagulk Peoples v Victoria |link=Wotjobaluk, Jaadwa, Jadawadjali, Wergaia and Jupagulk Peoples v Victoria |courtname=[[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court]] |date=13 December 2005}}.</ref> In his reasons for judgment Justice Merkel explained the significance of his orders:

::"The orders I propose to make are of special significance as they constitute the first recognition and protection of native title resulting in the ongoing enjoyment of native title in the State of Victoria and, it would appear, on the South-Eastern seaboard of Australia. These are areas in which the Aboriginal peoples suffered severe and extensive dispossession, degradation and devastation as a consequence of the establishment of British sovereignty over their lands and waters during the 19th century."<ref name="FCA1795" />

====2005 – Noongar====
In 2005 the Federal Court brought down a judgment recognising the native title of the [[Noongar]] people over the [[Perth, Western Australia|Perth]] metropolitan area.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCA|1243|2006|litigants=Bennell v State of Western Australia |courtname=[[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court]]}}.</ref> [[Murray Wilcox|Justice Wilcox]] found that native title continues to exist within an area in and around Perth. It was the first judgment recognising native title over a capital city and its surroundings. The claim area itself is part of a much larger area included in the "Single Noongar Claim", covering the south-western corner of Western Australia. An appeal was subsequently lodged and in 2008 the Full Court of the Federal Court upheld parts of the appeal by the Western Australian and Commonwealth governments against Justice Wilcox's judgment.<ref name="Noongar Full Court">{{Cite AustLII|FCAFC|63|2008|litigants=Bodney v Bennell |date=23 April 2000 |courtname=[[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court (Full Court)]]}}.</ref>

====2008 – Blue Mud Bay sea rights====
The 2008 decision by the High Court decided the ''[[Blue Mud Bay sea rights case]]'', establishing a precedent for sea rights over an [[intertidal zone]] for the first time. The [[Yolŋu|Yolngu]] people of [[Baniyala]] were involved in this case, which involved Blue Mud Bay in [[East Arnhem Land]].<ref name=travel>{{cite web | title=Baniyala | website=East Arnhem Land | url=https://www.eastarnhemland.com.au/places-to-go/homelands/baniyala | access-date=6 February 2021}}</ref><ref name="Cite Case">{{Cite AustLII| litigants=Northern Territory of Australia v Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust|link= |source=HCA|num=29 |year=2008|pinpoint= |parallelcite=|date=30 July 2008|courtname=[[High Court of Australia|High Court]]| juris=}}</ref><ref name="bmbc">{{cite web |url= http://ntgfia.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/precis-high-court-decision-blue-mud-bay-11-february-2009.pdf |title=The High Court's decision in the Blue Mud Bay case: a summary |publisher=Northern Territory Government |date=2009-02-11}}</ref>