Metropolitan native title claims – Melbourne's Wurundjeri Woi-Wurrong claim in the context of other capital city claims
Native title year in review 2025-2026
What you need to know
- On 30 October 2025, the Wurundjeri Woi-Wurrong People filed a native title claim over Melbourne and the surrounding region, which is now registered. This is the fifth capital city claim, and the first since the Perth determination in 2021.
- Past capital city claims have produced three outcomes: a determination at trial that native title does not exist (Darwin and Brisbane); a consent determination of native title over parts of the claim area (Adelaide); and a consent determination of no native title as part of a broader settlement (Perth).
- Victoria's settlement framework under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic) (TOS Act) and the November 2026 Victorian election may shape the outcome.
What you need to do
- Consider how the future act regime under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) applies to dealings on public land now the claim is registered.
- While the notification period is over, the claim is in its early stages. Consider whether you might be affected by the outcome such that joinder as a respondent would be useful.
- Watch the result of the Victorian election on 28 November 2026 and any change in the government's approach to settling native title claims.
- Draft agreements and plan projects in the claim area to account for the full range of possible outcomes.
On 30 October 2025, the Wurundjeri Woi-Wurrong People filed a native title claim (VID1466/2025) over Melbourne and the surrounding region. The claim is registered and has been publicly notified. The Federal Court held the first case management hearing on 11 February 2026.
There have been native title claims over four other Australian capital cities – Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and Brisbane – and the last of those was determined in 2021. Though some time has passed since then, the claims shed some light on the range of potential outcomes in the Wurundjeri Woi-Wurrong claim, as well as changing attitudes to native title as a co-existing interest.
Refresher: how do native title claims work?
Native title is a bundle of rights and interests held by First Nations People in respect of land and waters, based on continued observance of traditional laws and customs since sovereignty.
Broadly speaking, there are typically two phases to a native title claim:
Phase one: Connection – claimants must first establish that they are a continuing society that has maintained traditional laws and customs through successive generations from sovereignty to the present day.
If the State accepts there is a connection, or the Federal Court determines connection exists at trial, the claim moves to phase two.
Phase two: Tenure – once connection has been established, the claim proceeds to the tenure phase. In this phase, the State (and other respondents) identifies whether native title has been extinguished by grants of freehold and other inconsistent tenure or public works.
Outcomes in past capital city claims
A review of past capital city native title claims indicates three different outcomes:
- at trial, determination that native title does not exist because connection was not satisfied;
- a consent determination that there is native title in parts of the claim area; or
- a consent determination that native title does not exist as part of a broader settlement agreement.
|
Adelaide Agius v State of South Australia (No 6) [2018] FCA 358 |
Outcome: consent determination that there is native title in parts of the claim area. Case summary: the Kaurna People filed a claim over Adelaide and surrounds in October 2000, and a determination by consent was made in March 2018. As part of the determination, the State accepted the Kaurna People had a continuing connection to the claim area. The State and the Kaurna People agreed not to undertake a comprehensive tenure history analysis, instead conducting a targeted assessment of land where native title was unlikely to have been extinguished. Native title was determined to exist over 17 Crown land parcels agreed between the State and Kaurna People. |
|
Perth Bennell v State of Western Australia [2021] FCA 1508 |
Outcome: consent determination that native title does not exist as part of a broader settlement agreement. Case summary: eleven separate claims by the Noongar Peoples in south-west WA (including the Whadjuk group, whose traditional lands cover Perth) were addressed as part of the South West Native Title Settlement reached between the Noongar Peoples and the WA State Government. The agreement provides a package of benefits to the Noongar Peoples, and in exchange the parties agreed to seek determination by consent that no native title exists over the settlement agreement area. This determination was made on 1 December 2021. |
|
Darwin Risk on behalf of the Larrakia v Northern Territory of Australia [2006] FCA 404 Risk v Northern Territory of Australia [2007] FCAFC 46; (2007) 240 ALR 75 |
Outcome: at trial, determination that native title does not exist because connection was not satisfied. Case summary: eighteen claims by the Larrakia People and the Danggalaba and Kulumbiringin Clans over Darwin, Palmerston and surrounds were filed between 1994 and 2001. Those claims were consolidated, and on 13 April 2006 Mansfield J held that native title did not exist over the claim area because there was not continuous practice of traditional rights and observance of traditional customs. These findings were upheld on appeal. |
|
Brisbane Sandy on behalf of the Yugara People v State of Queensland (No 2) [2015] FCA 15; (2015) 325 ALR 583 Sandy on behalf of the Yugara People v State of Queensland (No 3) [2015] FCA 210; (2015) 325 ALR 668 Sandy on behalf of the Yugara People v State of Queensland [2017] FCAFC 108; (2017) 254 FCR 107 |
Outcome: at trial, determination that native title does not exist because connection was not satisfied. Case summary: the Turrbal People made an application for native title over Brisbane and surrounds in September 1998, and the Yugara / Yugarapul People made an overlapping application for native title in December 2011. The claims were heard together and proceeded to trial on connection. On 27 January 2015, Jessup J held that native title did not exist over the claim area for both the Yugara / Yugarapul and Turrbal Peoples, because the connection requirement was not satisfied. His Honour found that there was insufficient evidence that, despite physical displacement of the original inhabitants, their descendants continued to acknowledge the laws and customs giving rise to rights and interests in land and waters from which those inhabitants had been displaced. These findings were upheld on appeal. |
How does the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic) impact outcomes?
The TOS Act provides the framework for Recognition and Settlement Agreements (RSAs) between the State of Victoria and a Traditional Owner group. RSAs recognise Traditional Owners' rights over land and often form part of a wider package that may grant rights to use natural resources for traditional, non-commercial purposes, grant Aboriginal title over public land for joint management with the State, regulate land use activities or provide funding. It was originally conceived as a means of recognising Traditional Ownership without the burden and complexity of native title claim litigation. In this context, it is interesting that the Wurundjeri Woi-Wurrong chose to seek recognition as native title holders rather than as a Traditional Owner group through the TOS Act. With the claim a long way from resolution, those pathways may yet intertwine.
The Victorian election
On Saturday 28 November 2026, Victorians will go to the polls and decide whether to retain the current Labor Government or vote in a new Liberal-National (and potentially One Nation) Coalition as Government. Both the Coalition and One Nation have committed to repealing Victoria's Statewide Treaty Act 2025 (Vic) and abolishing Gellung Warl, Victoria's permanent representative and deliberative body for First Peoples in Victoria. For more on Treaty, see our Native Title Year in Review 2025-2026 article, "Treaty update – Victoria's Treaty and other jurisdictions". This attitude may impact the future government's approach to settling ongoing native title claims.
Where to from here?
At a case management hearing on 28 July 2026, the Wurundjeri Woi-Wurrong claimants indicated they were pursuing a consent determination with the Victorian and Commonwealth Governments. The case is still in its early stages, and we will watch the claim closely to see how it progresses.
Want to know more?
- Treaty update – Victoria's Treaty and other jurisdictions (30 october 2026)
Authors: Clare Lawrence, Partner and Alison Kemp, Graduate.
