Sentences with phrase «previous exclusive possession»

Similarly, sub-section 9C of NTA s23B provides that if a vesting in relation to land or waters is to or in the Crown in any capacity or statutory authority, that act is not a previous exclusive possession act, unless apart from the NTA, it extinguishes native title.

[14] Under this section a «previous exclusive possession act» which wholly extinguishes native title covers a range of acts.

Section 23B (9A) provides that a vesting which involves the establishment of an area, such as a national, State or Territory park, for the purpose of preserving the natural environment of the area is not a previous exclusive possession act.

In those amendments, specific leases granted under s23 of the WLA and granted for the purpose of «agriculture, or any similar purpose; agriculture (or any similar purpose) and grazing combined; mixed farming or any similar purpose other than grazing» were scheduled as a previous exclusive possession act under NTA s23B (2)(c)(i) with the effect that native title was extinguished in these areas.

The Court noted this exclusion but found that the perpetual grazing lease was an exclusive lease and thus a previous exclusive possession act under NTA s23B (2)(c)(iv) or (viii) which also extinguished native title.

Sub-section 9A of NTA s23B allows that if a previous exclusive possession act is the grant or vesting for the establishment of a national, state or territory park for the purpose of preserving the natural environment of the area, then the vesting would not be a previous exclusive possession act.

The confirmation provisions prescribe the effect of a «previous exclusive possession act» is to extinguish native title completely and the effect of a previous non-exclusive possession act is to extinguish native title to the extent of any inconsistency.

The NTA provides a fairly comprehensive codification of what past government actions extinguish native title.145 It classifies various interests in the past, often distant past, as «previous exclusive possession acts» which deems them to have permanently extinguished native title.146 The NTA also provides that «previous non-exclusive possession acts» 147 will extinguish native title to the extent of any inconsistency.148 The NTA also validates acts of government that took place before the High Court's decision in Wik which may be invalid because of the existence of native title (generally, due to the Constitutional requirement that «just terms» be paid where property is acquired, 149 or the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).150 This aspect of the NTA has been repeatedly criticised by CERD.