Indigenous Land Use Agreements: Analysis and Alternative Settlements

This essay provides an overview of Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) in Australia, focusing on their role in alternative settlements and the protection of indigenous land rights. It examines the legal framework established by the Native Title Act of 1993, highlighting the significance of ILUAs in fostering amicable relationships between native title groups and others regarding land and water usage. The essay analyzes key concepts, including native title recognition, the National Native Title Tribunal, and the impact of landmark cases like Mabo v Queensland (No. 2). It discusses the different types of ILUAs, the influence of international legal precedents, and the role of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods in resolving land title disputes. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of ILUAs in championing the rights of indigenous peoples in Australia.

Property Law

Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................3
Analysis of Indigenous Land Use Agreements..........................................................................3
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................5
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................7

Introduction
In the recent past, there has been a huge support for alternative settlements with regard to the
rights of the indigenous groups of Australia. There have been various forms of activism with
regard to the championing the cause of the people belonging to various kinds of indigenous
groups of Australia, most notably since the twentieth century. The indigenous groups of
Australia have been treated as second class citizens as a result of the arrival and settlement of
Europeans in Australia. They have also been displaced from their lands to a huge extent.
Various kinds of referendums have also taken place in Australia for the purpose of the
emancipation of the rights of the indigenous groups of Australia. Various cases have also
been filed and heard before the courts of competent jurisdiction in Australia with regard to
the justice for the indigenous groups of Australia in the interest of equality and fairness as far
as the matters pertaining to land title is concerned. The main purpose of the essay is to
present an overview concerning alternative settlements in relation to the Indigenous Land Use
Agreements. As a result, the appropriate goals and objectives would be determined
accordingly.
Analysis of Indigenous Land Use Agreements
The main objective of an Indigenous Land Use Agreement is to establish an amicable
relationship between the between a native title group and others with regard to the usage of
land and waters respectively. By the virtue of such kinds of Indigenous Land Use
Agreements, people are enabled to indulge in negotiations as far as the suitability of their
situations is concerned. It also allows the native title holders to agree into the aspects as far as
development in the future is concerned. The recognition pertaining to native title is governed
by the Native Title Act of 1993. It also provides a platform for the system pertaining to land
management in a proper and appropriate manner as far as the welfare and rights of the native
groups are concerned. It was passed as a result of the decision made in the case of Mabo v
Queensland (No.2). In this case, it was held by the High Court of Australia that there is
concept of native title as far as the common law of England and Wales is concerned. It was
also asserted by the High Court of Australia the native title was based on the traditions and
customs of the area concerned which could be set aside by the government provided that
there is a justified reason for the same1. The concept related to terra nullius was also
1 Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1988) 175 CLR 1

vehemently opposed in this case. This case proved to be landmark judgment with regard to
native titles as far as the rights of indigenous groups of Australia is concerned. It established
the foundation pertaining to native title as far as indigenous groups of Australia are
concerned. Additionally, this case also led to the establishment of the National Native Title
Tribunal, apart from the passing of the Native Title Act of 1993. In this case the decision
made by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in the case of Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty
Ltd was set aside by the High Court of Australia. In this case, the Supreme Court of the
Northern Territory held that the indigenous groups of Australia are a bunch of uncouth people
staying in a primitive age by inhabiting deserted land. Such a perception came into place as a
result of the British colonization of Australia to a massive level.
The main aim of the National Native Title Tribunal is to protect the rights of the indigenous
groups of Australia. It is in collaboration with the Federal Court of Australia with regard to
the aiding of the indigenous groups of Australia as far as the achievements of the desired
outcomes are concerned. It is governed by the Native Title Act of 19932. It is also entrusted
with the maintenance and upkeep of records pertaining to the Indigenous Land Use
Agreements to a huge level and also help in the aspects pertaining to negotiation with regard
to native titles as far as the Indigenous Land Use Agreements are concerned3. To a massive
extent, the Indigenous Land Use Agreements play an important role with regard to the
protection of the rights pertaining to land as far as native titles are concerned. They have off
late played an extremely important role with regard to the upliftment of the various kinds of
indigenous groups of Australia, such as the Aboriginals and the Torres Islanders. As a result,
it has lead to the non-discriminatory aspect of the policies made towards the various kinds of
indigenous groups of Australia.
In the case of Mabo v Queensland (No.1), it was asserted by the plaintiffs in their averment
that the Queensland Coasts Islands Declaratory Act of 1985 which was objected to the
extinguishing of native titles was to be in contrast of the Racial Discrimination Act of 19754.
In this case it was held by the High Court of Australia that the Queensland Coasts Islands
Declaratory Act of 1985 is in blatant violation of the Racial Discrimination Act of 19755. The
2 Native Title Act 1993
3 Irene Watson,. "The future is our past: We once were sovereign and we still are." (2012) 8 Indigenous L. Bull
12.
4 Racial Discrimination Act 1975
5 Deirdre Howard-Wagner, "Scrutinising ILUAS in the context of agreement making as a Panacea for Poverty
and Welfare Dependency in Indigenous Communities." (2010) 14.2 Australian Indigenous Law Review 110.

High Court of Australia further asserted that the Queensland Coasts Islands Declaratory Act
of 1985 unfair treatment to the native title holders6.
As a result of the amendment of the Native Title Act of 1993, the concepts pertaining to the
formation of the Indigenous Land Use Agreements came into being. There are three such
kinds of agreements as stipulated by the amendment of 1998 to the Native Title Act of 1993.
Such kinds of agreements primarily include the Body Corporate Agreements, Area
Agreements and Alternative Procedure Agreements. As a result, it is imperative that the
aspect related to alternative settlements pertaining to Indigenous Land Use Agreements can
be sought after as far as the comprehensive solution pertaining to the indigenous groups is
concerned.
The rights of the indigenous groups of Australia pertaining to native title draw its aspect
taking account of the American case of Johnson v Macintosh. In this case, one of the early
judges of the Supreme Court of the United States of America brought a land from a native
group of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. A patent pertaining to land
rights was subsequently procured by the defendant William Macintosh7. The plaintiffs in their
claim asserted that the land purchased contained a superior chain of title in terms of value. In
this case, it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States of America that citizens in a
private manner are not eligible to purchase lands from Native Americans. At the global level,
it forms one of the landmark judicial decisions as far as the rights of the natives pertaining to
land titles are concerned. Such a decision has subsequently been followed in Australia apart
from Canada and New Zealand as far as referring by courts of competent jurisdiction is
concerned in order to provide a comprehensive solution to the aboriginal groups accordingly.
As a result, aboriginal title is to be valued in a proper and appropriate manner.
It is implied that the alternative settlement with regard to the native titles under the ambit of
the Indigenous Land Use Agreements would play an important role in the enhancement of the
causes of the indigenous groups. Such a move has not only been recommended by the
indigenous leaders but also by the ministers in government8. The negotiations pertaining to
alternative settlements would primarily involve mediations supervised by the Federal Court
of Australia since the National Native Title Tribunal closely works with the Court of
6 Mabo v Queensland (No. 1) (1988) 166 CLR 186
7 Danielle Campbell and Janet Eileen Hunt. "Achieving broader benefits from Indigenous land use agreements:
community development in Central Australia." (2012) 48.2 Community Development Journal 200.
8 L. Y Behrendt and N. I. C. O. L. E. Watson. "Shifting ground: Why land rights and Native Title have not
delivered social justice." (2007) Journal of Indigenous Policy .

Australia as far as the addressing of the issues pertaining to the rights of the indigenous
groups of Australia are concerned, most notably, the native titles. Such an aspect pertaining
to mediation is purported to play an extremely important role with regard to the resolution of
disputes for the indigenous groups of Australia in a proper and appropriate manner as far as
the avoidance pertaining to the complexities involved in the concept of traditional litigation
in courts as far as the procedures are concerned. As a result, it would lead to the providing of
comprehensive solution to the native title holders in a timely manner. Additionally, the
aspects pertaining to arbitration and conciliation may also be explored accordingly as far as
the alternative forms pertaining to the resolution of disputes are concerned.
Conclusion
It can be concluded by stating that the aspect of alternative settlement with regard to the
Indigenous Land Use Agreements is justified and appropriate. As aforesaid, the aspect related
to the alternatives in the forms of mediation to be supervised by the Federal Court of
Australia has also been highlighted accordingly as far as the settlement of disputes pertaining
to land titles for the indigenous people in Australia. The relevant case laws have also been
cited accordingly in order to imply the rights of the indigenous people in Australia in
Australia in an effective and efficient manner. The aspect of Indigenous Land Use
Agreements under the ambit of the Native Title Act of 1993 has also been taken into
consideration accordingly with regard to the providing of an amicable solution as far as the
native titles are concerned. It is imperative that the Indigenous Land Use Agreements would
facilitate the ease of the concept alternative forms of resolution of disputes in an effective and
efficient manner. In a nutshell, the utilization of the aspect pertaining to alternative settlement
with regard to the Indigenous Land Use Agreements would play an extremely important role
pertaining to the championing of the causes of the indigenous people in Australia as far as
native title is concerned.

Bibliography
Danielle Campbell and Janet Eileen Hunt. "Achieving broader benefits from Indigenous land
use agreements: community development in Central Australia." (2012) 48.2 Community
Development Journal 200.
Deirdre Howard-Wagner, "Scrutinising ILUAS in the context of agreement making as a
Panacea for Poverty and Welfare Dependency in Indigenous Communities." (2010) 14.2
Australian Indigenous Law Review 110.
Irene Watson,. "The future is our past: We once were sovereign and we still are." (2012) 8
Indigenous L. Bull 12.
L. Y Behrendt and N. I. C. O. L. E. Watson. "Shifting ground: Why land rights and Native
Title have not delivered social justice." (2007) Journal of Indigenous Policy .
Mabo v Queensland (No. 1) (1988) 166 CLR 186
Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1988) 175 CLR 1
Native Title Act 1993
Racial Discrimination Act 1975