Gunditjmara People's Native Title Claim Rejected by Federal Court

• The Federal Court has rejected the Gunditjmara People's native title claim over a disputed stretch of south-western Victoria.
• The court found that the Gunditjmara group failed to provide sufficient evidence of their ongoing traditional connection to the area.
• The decision highlights the importance of providing robust evidence to support native title claims, particularly under s. 223(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
• The case has significant implications for lawyers advising clients on native title claims in Victoria.

The court's role was not to be 'the arbiter of history' but to decide, on the evidence, what was more likely than not.

The Federal Court has dealt a blow to the Gunditjmara People's bid to establish native title over a disputed stretch of south-western Victoria. In a decision handed down on 30 July 2026, the court ruled that the group had failed to provide sufficient evidence of their ongoing traditional connection to the area. The claim, filed in October 2022, was one of two competing claims over the region between the Shaw River and the Hopkins River, which includes Warrnambool and nearby towns.

The court's decision centered on the Gunditjmara People's inability to prove that they had maintained their traditional laws and customs in relation to the disputed area since British settlement. The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) requires claimants to demonstrate a continuous connection to the land, which the Gunditjmara group was unable to do.

The court noted that the claim changed significantly during the case, with the Gunditjmara People eventually accepting that a neighbouring group, the Eastern Maar Peoples, was the appropriate land-holding group for the area. The Gunditjmara then pressed a narrower claim to enter the area and take its resources.

The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) sets out the framework for native title claims in Australia. Section 223(1) of the Act requires claimants to prove that they have maintained their traditional laws and customs in relation to the disputed area since British settlement. This provision is critical in determining whether a group has a valid claim to native title.

In this case, the Gunditjmara People's failure to provide sufficient evidence of their ongoing traditional connection to the area was a key factor in the court's decision. The court's ruling highlights the importance of providing robust evidence to support native title claims.

The decision also underscores the complexities and nuances of native title law in Australia. The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) is designed to balance the rights of indigenous peoples with the interests of other stakeholders, including state governments and private landowners.

The Federal Court's rejection of the Gunditjmara native title claim has significant implications for lawyers advising clients on native title claims in Victoria. The decision highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence of ongoing traditional connection to the disputed area, as required under s. 223(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

The case also underscores the need for claimants to carefully consider their claims and provide robust evidence to support them. The Gunditjmara People's failure to do so ultimately led to the rejection of their claim.

The decision will likely be closely watched by lawyers, policymakers, and indigenous communities across Australia.

Lawyers advising clients on native title claims in Victoria should be aware that the Federal Court's rejection of the Gunditjmara claim highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence of ongoing traditional connection to the disputed area, as required under s. 223(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).

Source: Original reporting via Australasian Lawyer