‘Pooncarie' Barkandji (Paakantyi) People v NSW Minister for Land & Water Conservation

The case of ‘Pooncarie' Barkandji (Paakantyi) People v NSW Minister for Land & Water Conservation involves the Barkandji people, who are seeking to replace the current applicants in their native title determination application. The Barkandji people are a group of indigenous Australians who claim traditional rights and interests in a defined area of land in New South Wales. The dispute centres around the composition of the applicant group and whether the current applicants have the necessary authorisation from the Barkandji people to continue with the native title claim. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which has jurisdiction over native title matters under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether the Barkandji people had properly revoked the authorisation of the current applicants and appointed a new group to represent them in the native title claim. The legal issues included whether the Barkandji people had followed the correct process in making their decisions, whether the current applicants had exceeded their authority, and whether the new group had the necessary authorisation to continue with the claim. The court also needed to consider the impact of the decisions on the standing of the Barkandji people according to traditional law and custom.

The court found that the Barkandji people had followed a proper decision-making process and had revoked the authorisation of the current applicants. The court accepted the evidence that the current applicants, Mr Lawson and Mr Johnson, were aware of the meeting at which the decision was made but chose not to attend. The court also found that the new group, which includes Mr Murray Butcher and Mr Derek Hardman, had been properly authorised by the Barkandji people to continue with the native title claim. The court emphasised that the decision did not reflect adversely on Mr Lawson and Mr Johnson, who would continue to be members of the Barkandji people and could participate in future discussions about the claim.

The court made orders replacing the current applicants with the new group, requiring the applicant to notify the Native Title Registrar of the new members' details, and directing the applicant to circulate a draft amended application to the relevant parties. The matter was stood over for further directions. The court noted that it retains a discretion not to make the orders sought under s 66B of the NTA, as discussed in Ward v Northern Territory and Daniel. The court concluded that the Barkandji people had acted within their rights under the NTA to change the composition of the applicant group.