Editing Native title in Australia (section)

==History==
{{see also|Indigenous land rights in Australia#History}}

===Pre-Mabo===
====1971 – Milirrpum====
{{main|Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd}}
Australia did not experience litigation involving Aboriginal native title until the 1970s, though several earlier cases tangentially involved issues of native title.<ref name="A-G v Brown">''Attorney-General v Brown'' [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLeggeSC/1847/2.pdf (1847) 1 Legge 312]; 2 SCR (NSW) App 30.</ref><ref>{{cite CommonLII|litigants=Cooper v Stuart |year=1889 |court=UKLawRpAC |num=7 |parallelcite=(1889) 14 [[Appeal Cases Law Reports|App Cas]] 286 |date=3 April 1889 |courtname=[[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council|Privy Council]] (on appeal from NSW)}}.</ref><ref name="Williams v A-G">{{cite AustLII|HCA|33|1913|litigants=Williams v Attorney General (NSW) |parallelcite=[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/Cth/HCA/1913/33.pdf (1913) 16 {{abbr|CLR|Commonwealth Law Reports}} 404] |courtname=auto}}.</ref><ref name="Randwick v Rutledge">{{cite AustLII|HCA|63|1959|litigants=Randwick Corporation v Rutledge |parallelcite=(1959) 102 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 54 |courtname=auto}}.</ref><ref name="Wade v NSW">{{cite AustLII|HCA|28|1969|litigants=Wade v New South Wales Rutile Mining Co Pty Ltd |parallelcite=(1969) 121 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 177 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> In 1835, John Batman purported to sign [[Batman's Treaty]] with Aboriginal elders in the [[Port Phillip District]]. Governor Bourke declared Batman's Treaty was "void and of no effect as against the rights of the Crown" and declared any person on "vacant land of the Crown" without authorization from the Crown to be trespassing.<ref name="foundingdocs.gov.au">National Archives of Australia, ''[http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=42&aID=8&pID=73 Governor Bourke's Proclamation 1835 (UK)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080725170033/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=42&aID=8&pID=73 |date=25 July 2008 }}'' Accessed 3 November 2008</ref> The proclamation was approved by the Colonial Office. The official objection to the Treaty was that Batman had attempted to negotiate directly with the Aboriginal people, whom the British did not recognise as having any claim to any lands in Australia.

In 1971, in ''[[Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd]]'' (the "Gove land rights case") in the [[Supreme Court of the Northern Territory]], [[Richard Blackburn|Justice Richard Blackburn]] explicitly rejected the concept of native title, ruling against the claimants on a number of issues of law and fact.<ref name="Milirrpum">''Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd'' (1971) 17 [[Federal Law Reports|FLR]] 141 (27 April 1971) [[Supreme Court of the Northern Territory|Supreme Court]] (NT).</ref>

====1972–1976: ''Aboriginal Land Rights Act'' ====
In the wake of ''Milirrpum'' and the election of the [[Whitlam government]] in 1972, the [[Aboriginal Land Rights Commission]] (also known as the Woodward Royal Commission) was established in 1973 to inquire into appropriate ways to recognise Aboriginal land rights in the [[Northern Territory]]. Prime Minister [[Gough Whitlam]] introduced a new policy of Aboriginal [[self-determination]], and initiatives such as the Aboriginal Land Fund and the [[National Aboriginal Consultative Committee]] was set up. The latter consisted of elected Aboriginal representatives, who would advise the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The Whitlam government introduced legislation later passed by the [[Fraser government]] as the ''Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976'',<ref name=Brock>{{cite book|title=Colonialism and its Aftermath: A history of Aboriginal South Australia|url=https://www.wakefieldpress.com.au/product.php?productid=1385|publisher=[[Wakefield Press (Australia)|Wakefield Press]]|isbn= 9781743054994|date=2017|editor1-first=Peggy|editor1-last=Brock|editor2-first=Tom|editor2-last=Gara|chapter=3. From segregation to self-determination in the twentieth century|first1=Peggy|last1=Brock|first2=Tom|last2=Gara|page=57}}</ref><ref name="Aboriginal Land Rights Act">{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|alrta1976444|Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976}}.</ref> which established a procedure to transfer almost 50 per cent of land in the Northern Territory (around 600,000 km2) to collective Aboriginal ownership.<ref name="dfat.gov.au">{{cite web|website=[[Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia)]]|url=http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/indigenous_land_rights.html|title= Aboriginal land rights and native title|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120126061620/http://dfat.gov.au/facts/indigenous_land_rights.html |archive-date=26 January 2012|access-date= 30 January 2012}}</ref> The Fraser government continued to implement many of the previous government's initiatives, under the description "self-management" rather than self-determination.<ref name=Brock/>

====1979 – ''Coe v Commonwealth''====
In 1979, [[Paul Coe]], a [[Wiradjuri]] man from [[Cowra, New South Wales]], commenced an action in the [[High Court of Australia]] arguing that Aboriginal people retained rights to land as an Aboriginal nation or nations existed pre-settlement and continues to exist, and that their land had been taken by conquest rather than by settlement.<ref name="Coe v Cth">{{cite AustLII|HCA|68|1979|litigants=[[Coe v Commonwealth]] |parallelcite=(1979) 24 [[Australian Law Reports|ALR]] 118; (1979) 53 [[Australian Law Journal Reports|ALJR]] 403 |courtname=auto |date=5 April 1979}}.</ref> The court held in ''Coe v Commonwealth'' (1979) that no [[Australian Indigenous sovereignty|Aboriginal nation holds any kind of sovereignty]], distinguishing the US case of [[Cherokee Nation v. Georgia|Cherokee Nation v Georgia (1831)]].<ref>{{cite AustLII|litigants=Coe v Commonwealth|court=HCA|num=68|year=1979|pinpoint=[12]|parallelcite=(1979) 53 ALJR 403|courtname=auto}}</ref> However, the substantive issue of continuing land rights was not heard due to the lack of precision, vagueness and other serious deficiencies with the statement of claim presented to the court.<ref>{{citation |last=Kelly |first=G M |title=Constitutional Confusion in the Cocos Islands: The Strange Deliverance of Lim Keng}} [https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/1983/2.html (1982-1983) 13(3) Federal Law Review 229].</ref> [[Harry Gibbs|Justice Gibbs]] said, at paragraph 21, 'The question what rights the aboriginal people of this country have, or ought to have, in the lands of Australia is one which has become a matter of heated controversy. If there are serious legal questions to be decided as to the existence or nature of such rights, no doubt the sooner they are decided the better, but the resolution of such questions by the courts will not be assisted by imprecise, emotional or intemperate claims. In this, as in any other litigation, the claimants will be best served if their claims are put before the court dispassionately, lucidly and in proper form'.<ref name="Coe v Cth"/>

====1981 – ''Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act''====
{{main|Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981}}
The [[South Australia]]n ''Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981''<ref name="APY Act">{{cite Legislation AU|SA|act|apylra1981489|Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981}}.</ref> was introduced by Premier [[Don Dunstan]] in November 1978, several months prior to his resignation from Parliament. An amended bill, following extensive consultation, was passed by the [[David Tonkin|Tonkin Liberal government]] in March 1981. This legislation gave significant rights well in advance of any other to date in Australia.<ref>{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070711065123/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=46 |title=Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 (SA)|archive-date=11 July 2007|url=http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=46|website=Documenting a Democracy|access-date=21 June 2019}}</ref> In 1981, SA Premier Tonkin returned {{convert|102650|km2|mi2}} of land (10.2% of the state's land area) to the [[Pitjantjara]] and [[Yankunytjatjara]] people. However, it did not give the people the power of veto over mining activities; any disputes would need to be resolved by an independent arbitrator.<ref name=Brock/>

In 1984 Premier [[John Bannon]]'s Labor government passed legislation to return lands to the [[Maralinga Tjarutja]] people. The legislation was proclaimed in January 1985 and was followed by a ceremony in the desert attended by Maralinga Tjarutja leader [[Archie Barton]], John Bannon and Aboriginal Affairs Minister [[Greg Crafter]].<ref>Sydney Morning Herald, 3 Dec 2008, "Hero of the Maralinga People"</ref> This granted rights over {{convert|75000|km2|mi2}} of land in the [[Great Victoria Desert]], including the land contaminated by the [[British nuclear tests at Maralinga|British nuclear weapons testing at Maralinga]].<ref name=Brock/>

===Mabo and the ''Native Title Act''===
====1988–1992 – Mabo====
{{main|Mabo v Queensland (No 1)|Mabo v Queensland (No 2)}}

''[[Mabo v Queensland (No 2)]]'' (1992) was the foundational case for native title in Australia.<ref>{{cite book|last=Russel|first=Peter|title=Recognizing Aboriginal title: the Mabo case and Aboriginal resistance to English-settler colonialism|year=2005|publisher=University of Toronto Press}}</ref> In 1992 the rejection of native title in ''Milirrpum v Nabalco'' was overruled by the High Court in ''Mabo v Queensland (No 2)'',<ref name="Mabo #2 HCA">{{cite AustLII|HCA|23|1992|litigants=[[Mabo v Queensland (No 2)]] |parallelcite=(1992) 175 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 1 |date=3 June 1992 |courtname=[[High Court of Australia|High Court]]}}.</ref> which recognised the [[Meriam people]] of [[Murray Island, Queensland|Murray Island]] (Mer) in the [[Torres Strait Islands|Torres Strait]] as native title holders over part of their traditional lands. The Court rejected the notion that all Indigenous rights to land were abolished upon acquisition of sovereignty over Australia. The Court held that native title rights continued to exist, and that these rights existed by virtue of the continuing connection of Indigenous People to land, independent from a grant from the Crown. Native title would continue to exist as long as traditional laws and customs continue to be observed, unless the rights were otherwise extinguished by an incompatible grant by the Crown. Justice [[Gerard Brennan]] in this landmark decision stated:

<blockquote>However, when the tide of history has washed away any real acknowledgment of traditional law and any real observance of traditional customs, the foundation of native title has disappeared.<ref name="Mabo #2 HCA"/> Thus although over some parts of Australia native title has been lost, in large areas of the nation's interior, native title could be recognised.</blockquote>

As Justice Brennan stated in ''Mabo (No. 2)'', "native title has its origin and is given its content by the traditional laws acknowledged by and the customs observed by the Aboriginal inhabitants of a territory".<ref name="Mabo #2 HCA"/>

====1993 – ''Native Title Act 1993''====
{{main|Native Title Act 1993}}
One year after the recognition of the legal concept of native title in ''Mabo'', the [[Keating government]] formalised the recognition by legislation with the enactment by the [[Australian Parliament]] of the ''[[Native Title Act 1993]]''.<ref name="Native Title Act">{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|nta1993147|Native Title Act}}.</ref> The Act attempted to clarify the legal position of landholders and the processes to be followed for native title to be claimed, protected and recognised through the courts. The Act also established the [[National Native Title Tribunal]].

===Wik and 1998 amendment===
====1996 – Wik====
{{main|Wik Peoples v Queensland}}
After the Mabo decision it was uncertain as to whether the granting of [[pastoral lease]]s would extinguish native title. The [[Wik Decision]] in 1996 clarified the uncertainty. The court found that the statutory pastoral leases (which cover some 40% of the Australian land mass) under consideration by the court did not bestow rights of exclusive possession on the leaseholder. As a result, native title rights could co-exist, depending on the terms and nature of the particular pastoral lease. Where there was a conflict of rights, the rights under the pastoral lease would prevail over native title rights.<ref name="Wik HCA">{{cite AustLII|HCA|40|1996|litigants=Wik Peoples v The State of Queensland |parallelcite=(1996) 187 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 1 |date=23 December 1996 |courtname=[[High Court of Australia|High Court]]}}.</ref>

====1998 – ''Native Title Amendment Act 1998''====
{{main|Native Title Amendment Act 1998}}
The Wik decision led to amendments to the ''Native Title Act'' 1993 by the ''[[Native Title Amendment Act 1998]]''. This Act, also known as the "10 Point Plan", was introduced by the [[Howard government]]. The amendments substantially restricted Native Title by narrowing the right to negotiate and extinguishing Native Title on most pastoral and mining leases granted before 1994.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bartlett |first1=Richard |title=Native Title in Australia |date=1 December 2019 |publisher=LexisNexis Butterworths |location=Australia |isbn=9780409350920 |pages=56–57 |edition=4  |ref=NTIA}}</ref>

===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>

===2007 & 2009 amendments===

In 2007 the Howard government passed the ''[[Native Title Amendment Act 2007]]'',<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|num_act|ntaa2007227|Native Title Amendment Act 2007}}.</ref> and the ''Native Title Amendment (Technical Amendments) Act'' 2007,<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|num_act|ntaaa2007391|Native Title Amendment(Technical Amendments) Act 2007}}.</ref> a package of coordinated measures and technical amendments to improve the performance of the native title system.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/products/monograph/frith-foat-2007amendments.pdf |title=The 2007 Amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth): Technical Amendments or Disturbing the Balance of Rights? |author=Frith, Angus |date=November 2008}}</ref><ref>[http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/200704/30/amendments_to_the_native_title_act_1993-some_improvements_for_the_energy_and_resources_sector.page Clayton Utz – Amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 – some improvements for the energy and resources sector]</ref> These are aimed at making the native title process more efficient and to speed up the determination of whether native title exists on the 580 claims that had been registered but not yet determined.

The ''Native Title Act 1993'' was further amended by the [[Rudd government (2007–10)|Rudd government]] by the ''[[Native Title Amendment Act 2009]]''.<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|num_act|ntaa2009227|Native Title Amendment Act 2009}}.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/indigenous-australians/programs-services/land-native-title/native-title-amendment-act-2009-information-sheet |publisher=Department of Social Security |title=Native Title Amendment Act 2009 – Information sheet}}</ref> It allows the Federal Court to determine who may mediate a claim, whether that be the court itself, the Native Title Tribunal, or otherwise.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://alga.asn.au/site/misc/alga/downloads/indigenous-issues/Native_Title_Amendment_Act_2009_Information_Sheet.pdf|title=Native Title Amendment Act 2009 Information Sheet|author=Australian Local Government Association}}</ref>

===Further significant determinations===
====2008–2019 – Timber Creek====
''[[Northern Territory v Mr Griffiths and Lorraine Jones]]'' was a 2018 [[High Court of Australia]] case, ruled in 2019, regarding land around [[Timber Creek, Northern Territory]], involving a compensation claim by [[Ngaliwurru people|Ngaliwurru]] and [[Nungali]] lands surrounding Timber Creek. It related to various earlier cases since 1997. Described as "the most significant [case]… since [[Mabo v Queensland (No 2)|Mabo]]", the High Court ruled for the first time on compensation for the extinguishment of native title in Australia.<ref>{{cite web | last=Hobbs | first= Harry | title=The Timber Creek Decision | website=ANTAR | date=4 November 2022 | url=https://antar.org.au/resources/the-timber-creek-decision/ | access-date=12 February 2024}} [https://antar.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/The-Timber-Creek-Decision-Factsheet.pdf PDF]</ref> It is considered a "landmark" native title case,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2019/03/19/what-next-after-most-significant-native-title-decision-mabo|title=What Next After 'Most Significant' Native Title Decision Since Mabo|last=National Indigenous Television|date=19 March 2019|access-date=11 May 2019}}</ref> because the clauses contained within the ''Native Title Act 1993'' pertaining to the determination of compensation payable due to the extinguishment of native title had never been heard before in the High Court.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-04/timber-creek-native-title-compensation-high-court/10198442|title=Timber Creek Native Title Compensation Claim Brings High Court to NT for First Time|last=James|first=Felicity|date=5 September 2018|publisher=ABC News|access-date=26 April 2019}}</ref>

====2020 – Yamatji====
{{further|Yamatji#Native Title claims}}
[[Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation]] was involved in a large native title claim from 1996, based on the ''Native Title Act 1993'', resulting in an historic determination in February 2020, involving both native title and an ILUA, covering an area of {{convert|48000|km2}} in Western Australia.<ref name=abc2020>{{cite web| last= Meachim | first= Laura| title='It is your land': Traditional owners granted native title and funding deal in Australian first|publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation | website=ABC News | date=7 February 2020 | url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-07/landmark-yamatji-nation-native-title-declaration-in-wa/11942946 | access-date=8 February 2020}}</ref>

====2020 – Gurindji, Wave Hill Station====
{{further|Wave Hill walk-off}}
A claim was lodged in 2016 by the [[Central Land Council]] on behalf of the [[Gurindji people]]s in the area, as there were mining interests in area covered by [[Wave Hill Station]]'s pastoral lease.<ref name=nitvnt/> On 8 September 2020, the [[Federal Court of Australia]] recognised the native title rights of the Gurindji people to {{convert|5000|km2}} of the Wave Hill Station, allowing them to receive royalties as compensation from resource companies who explore the area. Justice [[Richard Conway White|Richard White]] said that the determination recognised Indigenous involvement (Jamangku, Japuwuny, Parlakuna-Parkinykarni and Yilyilyimawu peoples) with the land "at least since European settlement and probably for millennia".<ref name=nitvnt/><ref>{{cite web| title=Wave Hill walk-off veterans recognised in 'particularly special' native title determination |first=Jane|last=Bardon | website=ABC News|publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation | date=9 September 2020 | url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-09/native-title-recognised-at-wave-hill-walk-off-site/12643598 | access-date=10 September 2020}}</ref> The court sitting took place nearly {{convert|800|km}} south of Darwin, and descendants of [[Vincent Lingiari]] and others involved in the [[Wave Hill walk-off]] celebrated the determination.<ref name=nitvnt>{{cite web| last=Wellington | first=Shahni | title=Native Title rights recognised over famous Wave Hill Station | website=NITV |publisher=[[Special Broadcasting Service]]| date=9 September 2020 | url=https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2020/09/09/native-title-rights-recognised-over-famous-wave-hill-station | access-date=10 September 2020}}</ref> The owners will participate in the mining negotiations and exploration work, from which royalties may flow in the future, but just as important is the right to hunt, gather, teach and perform cultural activities and ceremonies, and allow the young people to connect with their land.<ref name=nitvnt/>

====2023 – Eastern Maar====
In March 2023, 8578.35 kilometres along the coast of the Grey River in Victoria. The case was the first Native Title case heard in the state of Victoria for 10 years. At the Federal Court at Warnambool designated the land as native title rights.<ref>{{cite web| title=First native title ruling in decade returns Victorian land to traditional owners |first=Jack |last=Latimore | website=The Age |publisher=[[The Age]] | date=28 March 2023 | url=https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/first-native-title-ruling-in-decade-returns-victorian-land-to-traditional-owners-20230322-p5cucc.html | access-date=28 March 2023}}</ref>

====2025 – Gove Peninsula====
In 2019, [[Galarrwuy Yunupingu]] brought a native title claim against the [[Australian Government]] on behalf of the [[Gumatj]] peoples of the [[Northern Territory]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pelly |first=Michael |date=4 February 2024 |title=A fight over a bauxite mine may launch a new era for land rights |url=https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/a-fight-over-a-bauxite-mine-may-launch-a-new-era-for-land-rights-20231205-p5ep91 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250303195330/https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/a-fight-over-a-bauxite-mine-may-launch-a-new-era-for-land-rights-20231205-p5ep91 |archive-date=3 March 2025 |access-date=12 March 2025 |website=[[The Australian Financial Review]]}}</ref> He sought financial compensation over the acquisition of land on the [[Gove Peninsula]], which was obtained by the government without the consent of the traditional owners, which were transmuted into [[Bauxite mining in Australia|bauxite mines]]. The Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of the Gumatj people in 2023, finding that their land was not acquired "on just terms" before being leased to mining consortium [[Nabalco]] in 1968.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCAFC|75|2023|litigants=Yunupingu v Commonwealth |courtname=auto |date=22 May 2023}}</ref> This was upheld on appeal by the [[High Court of Australia]] in March 2025.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|6|2025|litigants=Commonwealth v Yunupingu |courtname=auto |date=12 March 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Indigenous leaders celebrate as court rejects appeal in landmark Yunupingu compensation case |website=The Guardian |date=12 March 2025 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/12/indigenous-leaders-celebrate-as-court-rejects-appeal-in-landmark-yunupingu-compensation-case |access-date=12 March 2025}}</ref> The decision potentially makes the Commonwealth liable to claims of compensation for decisions made which extinguished native title claims for territories under its administration.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shanahan |first=Maxim |date=12 March 2025 |title=High Court expands native title rights in historic ruling |url=https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/high-court-expands-native-title-rights-in-historic-ruling-20250310-p5lib0 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250312122835/https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/high-court-expands-native-title-rights-in-historic-ruling-20250310-p5lib0 |archive-date=12 March 2025 |access-date=12 March 2025 |website=[[The Australian Financial Review]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Chrysanthos |first=Natassia |date=12 March 2025 |title=Landmark High Court case paves the way for $700 million native title claim |url=https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/landmark-high-court-case-paves-the-way-for-700-million-native-title-claim-20250311-p5liqr.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250312013000/https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/landmark-high-court-case-paves-the-way-for-700-million-native-title-claim-20250311-p5liqr.html |archive-date=12 March 2025 |access-date=12 March 2025 |website=[[The Age]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Taylor |first=Paige |date=12 March 2025 |title=‘Hugely significant’ High Court ruling finds native title is property in Galarrwuy Yunupingu case |url=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/galarrwuy-yunupingu-posthumously-wins-nt-native-title-case/news-story/3cca4494545feb8761c48436dad54c39 |url-status=live |access-date=12 March 2025 |website=[[The Australian]]}}</ref>