404 500 arrow-leftarrow-rightattachbutton-agriculturebutton-businessbutton-interestcalendarcaretclockcommentscrossdew-point external-linkfacebook-footerfacebookfollow hearthumidity linkedin-footerlinkedinmenupagination-leftpagination-right pin-outlinepinrainfall replysearchsharesoil ticktwitter-footertwitterupload weather-clearweather-cloudyweather-drizzleweather-fogweather-hailweather-overcastweather-partly-cloudyweather-rainweather-snowweather-thunderstormweather-windywind

Agribusiness projects at risk following decision on Indigenous Land Agreements

The validity of potentially hundreds of agribusiness deals involving Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUA) may be called into question following the Full Court of the Federal Court's recent decision of McGlade v Native Title Registrar.

The McGlade decision revealed that a number of ILUAs registered over the past six years may be invalid agreements.  As a result, many land use approvals granted on the basis of those ILUAs may also be invalid.

Indigenous Land Use Agreements

Many agribusiness projects, especially those requiring infrastructure or development approvals, are made possible through the negotiation and registration of an ILUA.  Among other things, ILUAs allow for the recognition or surrender of native title rights and the granting of other rights, such as mining, petroleum or development rights in relation to an area of land or waters.

ILUAs, once registered, operate as if they were binding contracts among the parties to the agreement.  However, unless validly registered, ILUAs are not binding on the parties and may not necessarily recognise or surrender native title rights by operation of law.

The decision

In McGlade, the Court found that, before an ILUA can be validly registered, the Native Title Act requires all individuals comprising a registered native title claimant for the relevant area of land or waters to sign the agreement.  This will be problematic.

Prior to McGlade it was thought that the Native Title Act only required one or more individuals comprising a registered native title claimant for the relevant area of land or waters to sign an ILUA before it could be registered.

As a result of the McGlade decision, a number of ILUAs entered into over the past several years may be invalid due to not being signed by each of the individuals comprising a registered native title claimant that was a party to the agreement.

What next?

The Federal Government has stated it is considering amending the Native Title Act to retrospectively validate any ILUAs affected by the McGlade decision.

Agribusinesses that have (or are dealing with entities that have) obtained land use approvals on the basis of an ILUA should enquire into the validity of that ILUA.

MinterEllison is a full service independent law firm which has extensive experience in advising stakeholders operating at every level in the food and agriculture industries (including foreign, private or state owned entities, domestic primary producers, manufacturers and distributors) on all aspects of their business.

MinterEllison has strong agribusiness credentials, read more about our clients here and what we can do for you here.
Authors: Andrew Gill (Partner) and Anna Crowley (Lawyer) at MinterEllison, Canberra.

  • Tags

0 Responses

Talking 2030 visits Victoria and South Australia


Talking 2030 visits Victoria and South Australia

19 May 2018 - National Farmers' Federation

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Greater diversity can only benefit rural industries


Greater diversity can only benefit rural industries

AgriFutures Australia Managing Director, John Harvey says increasing diversity in rural industries i...

19 May 2018 - John Harvey, AgriFutures

  • 0
  • 0
  • 2