Daniel is considered to be a decision that manifests the multiple failings ofthe native title regimein place in Australia. Those procedures, as ordained by the Native Title Act have taken nine yearsand enormous expense to produce very little other than a "paper declaration" offrozen rights overa Sinall area oftraditional land. The limited rights granted do not seem likely to secure any degreeof acceptance and commitment by claimants. And yet the limited rights left Inay be enough toraise substantial procedural obstacles for resource developers. jv!oreover it is far from clear thatthe litigation has established the precise relationship between native title rights and interests andthe grant ofmining tenements. The result as to that relationship may not be final. The result andthe process do not compare favourably to that fol101'ved in the region of agreement the Bun'upPeninsula. It is concluded by the author, yet again, that other jurisdictions vvith significantresource b"ased industries have relied on the common law and a policy and process ofagreementto settle native title in a significantly more efficient, effective andjust manner.
|Journal||Australian Resources and Energy Law Journal|
|Publication status||Published - 2003|