CONSIDERATION
29 In applying the principles outlined above to the present applications, first, I do not consider I need to determine the construction issue raised by the Wakaman Applicants. That is so primarily because I do not consider the Chongs can be properly characterised as dissentient members of the Wakaman claim group. It follows that, even on the construction advanced by the Wakaman Applicants, they would not have been prevented from relying on s 84(3)(a)(ii) of the NTA to become respondent parties to the Wakaman #3 and Wakaman #4 proceedings. Nonetheless, I would make the following observations with respect to this construction issue.
30 First, I respectfully agree with the observations made in the authorities referred to above that the legislative scheme of the NTA supports the conclusion that the joinder provisions of s 84(3)(a)(ii) were not intended to apply to dissentient members of a native title claim group to allow them to pursue, what have been described as, "intra-mural disputes", including those relating to the commencement of, or conduct by, an authorised applicant of a native title claim group's native title determination application.
31 Secondly, however, I do not consider there is any indication in the text of s 84(3) which expresses that limitation. Thirdly, there is, therefore, in my respectful view, considerable force in the view expressed by Logan J that the statutory mechanism which is intended to regulate any improper use of the joinder provisions of s 84(3)(b)(ii) lies within the broad discretion contained in s 84(8) to order that a person already joined as a party cease to be so joined. This appropriately provides for any such joinder issue to be determined according to the particular factual circumstances of each case (see, for example, the observations of White J in Lander at [25]). For this reason, and contrary to the contentions of the Wakaman Applicants, I do not consider any assistance can be gained by comparing the factual circumstances of the Chongs in these applications with those of Mr Reid in Starkey.
32 I turn from that construction issue to the joinder issue raised by the Wakaman Applicants. My reasons for concluding that, in the particular factual circumstances of these applications, the Chongs should not cease to be respondent parties in these two proceedings are as follows. First, as is already mentioned above, I do not consider the Chongs can truly be characterised as "dissentient members" of the Wakaman native title claim group. That is so because, while it is common ground that they have been included as members of that claim group, that was apparently done in recognition of their accepted status as Wakaman People, not because they sought to have that status recognised in the three claims presently being pursued by that claim group. I have used the word "apparently" because the evidence shows that, not only did the Chongs not consent to their inclusion in that claim group for that purpose, they have been opposed to those claims from the outset. For instance, the evidence shows that the Chongs did not participate in the authorisation process for these claims beyond attending at the commencement of the authorisation meetings, stating their grounds of opposition to the claims in their present forms and then leaving.
33 It follows that the Chongs cannot be properly regarded as seeking to use their position as respondent parties to the Wakaman #3 and Wakaman #4 claims to pursue an "intra-mural dispute". That is so because they have not sought to raise a dispute on an issue that could be peculiarly determined by the Wakaman claim group. For example, a dispute concerning their acceptance as one of its members. Nor have they sought to challenge the actions of the Wakaman Applicants in their pursuit of the present claims. Rather, they are fundamentally opposed to those claims, both as to the composition of the Wakaman claim group, and as to the boundaries of the claim areas concerned.
34 The former opposition is longstanding; it has been at the heart of the disputes between the Chongs and the various Wakaman claim groups on whose behalf claims have been made and pursued since soon after the first Wakaman claim was lodged in 1997 (see at [12] above). The latter is more recent. With respect to the Wakaman #3 claim, it concerns Crystalbrook Station and whether both the Tate River area, which is located in what was formerly Bullockhead Station, and the balance of Crystalbrook Station, now known as New Crystalbrook Station, should be included within Wakaman Country (see at [15] above).
35 With respect to both of these issues, the Chongs clearly have their own views about the traditional laws and customs of the Wakaman People, about who it is that comprise the Wakaman People and about the lands and waters in respect of which the Wakaman People legitimately hold native title. They have expressed those views in various affidavits and submissions filed in respect of these applications and they have outlined the objectives they seek to achieve in pursuing them (see, for example, at [18] above). In this latter respect, they have therefore, in my view, engaged the principle set out at [28(f)] above. It is also worth adding that, while the Wakaman Applicants, and the Wakaman claim group they represent, disagree with those views and claim that they are not supported by the available anthropological research, it has not been suggested that those views are not genuinely held.
36 Furthermore, since these differences between the Chongs and the Wakaman claim group relate to the composition of that group of Wakaman persons who hold native title in the areas covered by the three Wakaman claims and also to the boundaries of those areas, if they remain unresolved, they will ultimately have to be determined by the Court. So much is dictated by various provisions of the NTA, including ss 94A and 225. Hence, those issues are central to the separate questions which are to be considered at the trial tentatively set for June 2020. This factor, it should be added, reinforces the reasoning above that the Chongs are not pursuing "intra-mural disputes" which can only be determined by the Wakaman claim group.
37 Having regard to all these circumstances, I consider the Chongs should be permitted to remain respondent parties to the Wakaman #3 and Wakaman #4 claims. It is only if they retain that status that they will be able to properly agitate their views about the matters mentioned above in the appropriate forum, namely the Court, and thereby act to protect their native title interests as they perceive them to exist from "erosion, dilution or discount" by a determination of native title in those claims. That is a well-established basis for becoming, or remaining, a respondent party in native title proceedings (see at [28(e)] above).