Sentences with phrase «title claim group»

The proper identification of the native title claim group is the central or focal issue of a native title determination application.

It is the native title claim group which provides the authorisation under s 251B [requiring the group to authorise those bringing the native title claim], and it is the group on whose behalf the claim is then pursued and, if successful, in whose favour a determination of native title is then made.2

That the Native Title Act be amended to allow corporations, whose membership consists only of the native title claim group, to be an applicant in native title proceedings.

An example of establishing governance structures early in the native title process is demonstrated by requiring a native title claim group to have an incorporated body or PBC that accurately reflects the group as a threshold requirement to access funding from the service to enter negotiations.

His Honour considered the meaning of «traditional», as discussed in Yorta Yorta and «society» as discussed in Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Islanders of the Regional Seas Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 2)[2010] FCA 643 and Croft on behalf of the Barngarla Native Title Claim Group v State of South Australia [2015] FCA 9.

Nevertheless, it does not appear that any attempt has been made to limit the notification of tenements to those falling within any one native title claim group's country.

Any one proposed mining tenement area may cover an area in respect of which more than one native title claim group exists.

This principle is implemented at the policy level by creating an agreement that can be adopted by any native title claim group that consents to the application of the terms of the ILUA over its native title claim area.

For these reasons, aspects of the existing law, prevent some Indigenous entities from satisfying the requirement that charitable trusts be «not - for - profit» as if the entity was wound up, the remaining benefits must be distributed to the native title claim group members, not to another like minded entity.

This is because the Native Title Act may require that the members of the organisation, and those that benefit from it, are all of, and only, members of the native title claim group.

(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application.

(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application

(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at sovereignty

The Native Title Report 2003 emphasises the need to shift the focus of native title negotiations and agreements towards the economic and social development goals of the native title claim group.

This positive outcome for the Quandamooka Peoples does not reflect the long and at times, difficult process that has been experienced by the native title claim group.

This process includes representatives from each of the families who are in the native title claim group.

A native title claimant application that does not meet the conditions of the registration test creates an opportunity for non-Indigenous people and other community groups to question the legitimacy of the native title claim group.

(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group

For example, if a person is included as a member of a native title claim group, they may be considered a legitimate person to speak for country, cultural heritage and native title.

Our acceptance or denial into a native title claim group not only impacts on our identity but also can flow on to other areas of our lives.

The review recommended that the tribunal be given power to «conduct a review of material provided by the applicant (or any other party) to establish whether the native title claim group has, by its traditional laws and customs, connection to the land or waters claimed».56

Despite the status of the registration process as an administrative test only, these conditions require the Native Title Registrar to make an assessment of the factual basis for claimed native title [113] and to be satisfied that at least one member of the native title claim group «currently has or previously had a traditional physical connection with any part of the land or waters covered by the application».

Nor does the government explore the potential of native title agreement - making to establish the parameters of a partnership arrangement in which the development of the native title claim group is a mutual objective.

The registration test status quo was maintained for many claims (ie they were not on the Register when the decision was made, and so the native title claim group did not lose procedural rights).

It is important to remember that the persons who are authorised by a native title claim group to make an application are not authorised merely to make the application, but also to «deal with matters arising in relation to» the application.

Another legislative tool directed at limiting extinguishment from historic tenures (other than freehold land or reserved land) is s47B of the NTA which excludes their extinguishing effect where the land is currently vacant Crown land and the native title claim group occupy the area.

[16] For the sake of accuracy and consistency, it should be noted that a «native title claim group» is never a party to a native title application proceeding.

As discussed in detail in Chapter 3 the Commonwealth government has failed to provide adequate funding to NTRBs nor indeed any funding to PBCs, even though these institutions are the primary vehicles for achieving the development objectives of the native title claim group.

The applicant, not the native title claim group, is a party (see s. 84 of the Act).

Native title provides a platform for latent conflict to develop into lateral violence because completing a native title claimant application requires families, communities and organisations to meet to decide fundamental questions about their identity and where they fit within the native title claim group.

In contrast, if a person who is the applicant (and / or their family) is perceived to be unfairly benefiting from their role or excluding individuals / families from the native title process, then this can create divisions between the persons who are the applicant and / or the applicant and the native title claim group, and instigate lateral violence within the community.

Because of the dominance of a litigation model in native title negotiations, the relationship between the State and the native title claim group begins with the filing of a native title claim and tends to end with the resolution of that claim either through litigation or by agreement of the parties.

The applicant in a native title claim can be either a single person or a number of people who are members of the native title claim group.

Understandably, a native title claim group that needs to resolve these fundamentally different and emotionally difficult positions is likely to find negotiating an ILUA escalates lateral violence in their community as they attempt to manage this complex and controversial process.

the amended application is accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the new applicant stating that the new applicant is authorised by the other persons in the native title claim group to deal with matters arising in relation to the application and stating the basis on which the new applicant is so authorised (see ss64 (5) and 190C (4)-RRB-[of the NTA].

Since the first native title claimant application was lodged by the Quandamooka Peoples in 1995, the process of resolving their native title required the claim group to decide who are the people in the native title claim group, who are the person or people that are the applicant, and negotiate with multiple parties about their native title rights and interests over North Stradbroke Island and some of the surrounding islands and waters of Morton Bay.

those policies and programs that require further discussion and consideration for a variety of reasons including future budget allocation uncertainties, the need for the support of third parties, and the general capacity of a local government and the native title claim group to undertake projects.

Members of the native title claim group also must authorise the applicant to make the native title determination application and «to deal with matters arising in relation to it» on behalf of the group.

A native title claim group can be described in a native title claimant application either by naming all the persons who are in the claim group or by describing the persons who are in the claim group.

The person or people who are the applicant usually assume a leadership role within the native title claim group.

If we seek to have our relationships to more than one ancestor recognised and be part of more than one native title claim group, we may be accused of «claiming».

Disagreement about an ILUA between the persons who are the applicant may not prevent the registration of an ILUA (area agreement), but as I discuss later in the section on negotiating ILUAs, these divisions are likely to reflect a broader dispute within the native title claim group.

Describing a native title claim group as descendants of named ancestors can have the following consequences for our communities:

The applicant must be authorised by the native title claim group to make the application and «deal with matters arising in relation to it» on behalf of the claim group.

As indicated in my discussion of State and Territory policies (96) a preference for negotiation over litigation provides an invaluable opportunity for governments and traditional owner groups to ensure that native title agreements respond to policies directed to the economic and social development of the native title claim group rather than to the demands of the legal system.

In South Australia negotiation threshold issues are directed to ensuring that the negotiation process between the native title claim group and the government is productive rather than ensuring that the legal criteria for establishing native title is met.

The question of who is and who is not included in a native title claim group can raise fundamental questions about our identity in relation to our family histories.

Secondly, there is a willingness in many States to negotiate agreements which complement consent determinations in order to ensure more effective outcomes for the native title claim group.

For example, if a native title claim group believes that the applicant is not representing their views and interests, then they may seek to remove and change the applicant in accordance with the Native Title Act.

Contending with these issues around our identity can be extremely divisive for our communities; we use tactics such as bullying, fighting, gossiping and intimidation to assert authority within our native title claim group and to ensure we have access to any benefits that flow from membership in the claim group.