© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2019] FCA 2001
Federal Court of Australia
2019-11-27
Dr J, Rangiah J
Original judgment source is linked above.
BEING SATISFIED that an order in the terms set out below is within the power of the Court, and it appearing appropriate to the Court to do so, pursuant to s 87 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth):
Other words and expressions used in this Determination have the same meanings as they have in Part 15 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
All of the land and waters described in the following table and depicted in dark blue on the determination map in Schedule 3: Area Description Map Sheet (at date of determination) That part of Lot 2 on Plan SL12157 subject to a strip of land five chains wide (100.58 meters) landward of the High Water Mark * Sheet 9 That part of Lot 114 on Plan SP183608 commencing at a point on the eastern boundary of Lot 114 on SP183608 at Latitude 27.075227 South, and extending south-easterly then south-westerly along the boundaries of that lot to the north-westernmost corner of Lot 48 on SL10011; and continuing south-westerly to the intersection with the eastern boundary of Moreton Street at Latitude 27.076585 South; then northerly along the boundary of that road to Latitude 27.07628 South; then north-easterly back to the commencement point, passing through Longitude 153.371289 East, Latitude 27.075888 South. ** Sheet 3 Lot 53 on Plan SL12539 ** Sheet 10 Lot 54 on Plan SL12539 ** Sheet 10
All of the land and waters described in the following table and depicted in light blue on the determination map in Schedule 3: Area Description Map Sheet (at date of determination) That part of Lot 109 on Plan USL20221 excluding former Allotment 1 of Section 7 on Plan B731 Sheet 4 That part of Lot 111 on Plan USL20220 excluding former Lot 9 on Plan SL2265 Sheet 5 That part of Lot 114 on Plan SP183608 excluding the area described as commencing at a point on the eastern boundary of Lot 114 on SP183608 at Latitude 27.075227 South, and extending south-easterly then south-westerly along the boundaries of that lot to the north-westernmost corner of Lot 48 on SL10011; and continuing south-westerly to the intersection with the eastern boundary of Moreton Street at Latitude 27.076585 South; then northerly along the boundary of that road to Latitude 27.07628 South; then north-easterly back to the commencement point, passing through Longitude 153.371289 East, Latitude 27.075888 South. Sheet 3 Lot 115 on Plan SP183608 Sheet 3 Lot 18 on Plan SL11788 Sheet 7 Lot 1 on Plan K94311 Sheet 10 Lot 1 on Plan SP135368 Sheet 5 Lot 20 on Plan SL11396 Sheet 6 Lot 21 on Plan SL12508 Sheet 10 Lot 26 on Plan SL837107 Sheet 6 That part of Lot 27 on Plan USL20221 excluding former Allotment 1 of Section 7 on Plan B731 Sheet 3 That part of Lot 2 on Plan SL12157 excluding a strip of land five chains wide (100.58 meters) landward of the High-Water Mark Sheet 9 That part of Lot 36 on Plan NPW662 excluding former Lots 45-47 on Plan DP813318, Lot 9 on Plan SL2265 and Lot 17 on Plan CWL3856 All Sheets except sheet 4 Lot 3 on Plan AP22155 Sheet 10 That part of Lot 406 on Plan C9562 excluding former Lot 9 on Plan SL2265 Sheet 5 Lot 46 on Plan SP135368 Sheet 5 Lot 46 on Plan USL20258 Sheet 3 Lot 47 on Plan USL20258 Sheet 1 Lot 48 on Plan SL10011 Sheet 3 That part of Lot 49 on Plan SL10012 excluding former Lot 9 on SL2265 Sheet 5 Lot 52 on Plan SL12538 Sheet 10 Lot 55 on Plan SL12829 Sheet 10 Lot 56 on Plan SL12829 Sheet 10 Lot 9 on Plan AP22155 Sheet 10
All the land and waters of Moreton Island above the High Water Mark and, for the avoidance of doubt, excludes any land and waters which fall within the Determination Area identified in Schedule 2 of the determination of native title in Federal Court proceeding, QUD6010/1998 Quandamooka People #1, handed down on 4 July 2011 in Delaney on behalf of the Quandamooka People v State of Queensland (2011) FCA 741. Notes Data reference and source • Application boundary data compiled by Queensland South Native Title Services Ltd • Cadastral data sourced from Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Queensland, November 2014 • High Water Mark is as defined in the Land Act 1994 (Qld)
Part 4 - Areas within the Determination Area where Native Title Does Not Exist:
4(a): Subject to paragraph 2(a) of the determination, the following areas: Area Description Map Sheet (at date of determination) Lot 528 on NPW663 Sheet 2 Part of Lot 36 on NPW662 formerly Lots 45, 46 and 47 on DP813318 Sheet 2
4(b): Subject to paragraph 2(b) of the determination, the following area: Area Description Map Sheet (at date of determination) That part of Lot 19 on Survey Plan 106585 formerly described as Lot 19 on Plan SL11787 Sheet 7
SCHEDULE 3 MAP OF DETERMINATION AREA SCHEDULE 4 AREAS NOT FORMING PART OF THE DETERMINATION AREA The following areas of land and waters are excluded from the Determination Area as described in Part 3 of Schedule 2:
RANGIAH J: 1 The applicant seeks a determination of native title pursuant to ss 61 and 225 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act) on behalf of the Quandamooka People. The claim is over the land and waters of Moreton Island (Mulgumpin). The parties have indicated their consent to a determination that the Quandamooka People are the holders of native title over the area covered by the application.
The Native Title Act 2 In its preamble, the Act recognises, on behalf of all people of Australia, that the Aboriginal peoples of Australia inhabited the country for many years prior to European settlement and that the Aboriginal peoples were progressively dispossessed of their lands. It records that the Constitution was amended, by the overwhelming vote of the people of Australia, to enable laws such as the Act to be passed and to facilitate recognition by our shared legal system of native title rights and interests. 3 Section 3 of the Act states that the main objects of the Act are to protect and recognise native title, establish ways in which future dealings in relation to native title should proceed, and set standards for those dealings and establish a mechanism for determining native title claims. 4 An objective of the Act is the resolution of claims for the recognition of native title by agreement. That objective was facilitated by amendments to s 87 of the Act made by the Native Title Amendment Act 2009 (Cth). The agreement of the parties to the terms of the proposed orders is consistent with that object of the Act. 5 The Court is asked to make a determination that native title is held by the Quandamooka People in the claim area. By making that determination, the Australian community will collectively recognise that status. But, it is important to emphasise that the Court's orders do not grant native title. The Court is merely recognising rights and interests that have existed under the traditional laws and customs of the Quandamooka People since thousands of years before European settlement. 6 Section 61 of the Act provides that a native title determination application may be made by persons authorised by all the persons who, according to their traditional laws and customs, hold the common or group rights and interests comprising the particular native title claimed. 7 Section 223(1) of the Act explains the meaning of "native title": Common law rights and interests (1) The expression native title or native title rights and interests means the communal, group or individual rights and interests of Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders in relation to land or waters, where: (a) the rights and interests are possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged, and the traditional customs observed, by the Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders; and (b) the Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders, by those laws and customs, have a connection with the land or waters; and (c) the rights and interests are recognised by the common law of Australia. 8 Section 225 of the Act describes what is meant by a "determination of native title": 225 Determination of native title A determination of native title is a determination whether or not native title exists in relation to a particular area (the determination area) of land or waters and, if it does exist, a determination of: (a) who the persons, or each group of persons, holding the common or group rights comprising the native title are; and (b) the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the determination area; and (c) the nature and extent of any other interests in relation to the determination area; and (d) the relationship between the rights and interests in paragraphs (b) and (c) (taking into account the effect of this Act); and (e) to the extent that the land or waters in the determination area are not covered by a non-exclusive agricultural lease or a non-exclusive pastoral lease - whether the native title rights and interests confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of that land or waters on the native title holders to the exclusion of all others.
The application 9 The application was filed on 18 November 2014 and amended on 28 October 2019. It seeks a determination on behalf of the Quandamooka People over land and waters within the external boundaries of the application area. 10 There has already been a determination of native title in favour of the Quandamooka People over neighbouring North Stradbroke Island: Delaney on behalf of the Quandamooka People v State of Queensland [2011] FCA 471. This application therefore represents an important step in the resolution of the Quandamooka People's claims. It is the culmination of a great deal of effort and cooperation between the parties. 11 In these proceedings, the parties agree that the Quandamooka People are the native title holders for the claim area. That agreement, made under s 87(2) of the Act was filed on 30 October 2019. 12 The respondents to the application are: Brisbane City Council, the Commonwealth of Australia, the State of Queensland, Telstra Corporation Limited, Kooringal Aquaculture Company Pty Ltd, Tangalooma Island Resort Pty Ltd and Tangalooma Pty Ltd. 13 The applicant relies on the following expert evidence in support of a determination: (1) Whalley, P (1991) Connection Report to the Quandamooka Tribal Lands Council, filed 18 October 2019; (2) Memmott and Stacy, (1998) Connection Report for Mediation with Queensland State Government for Native Title Claim No. QC 95/2, filed 18 October 2019; (3) Blackwood, P and Memmott, P (2003) Quandamooka decision making: A report prepared for the Federal Court, filed 18 October 2019; (4) Waters, K (2007) Quandamooka Genealogy Final Report, filed 21 October 2019; (5) Robins, R (2008) Supplementary Archaeological Report on the Quandamooka Native Title Application, filed 21 October 2019; (6) Wood, Ray (2008) Supplementary Anthropology Report on the Quandamooka Native Title Application: Report to the Federal Court, filed 21 October 2019; and (7) Wood, Ray, (2009) Response to Queries Raised by Graham Hiley in Relation to his Review of Wood (2008), filed 21 October 2019. 14 These expert reports provide detailed examinations of the continued acknowledgement and observance of a range of laws and customs in respect to language, cultural knowledge, totemic and spiritual beliefs, sites, dispute resolution, decision making, bush tucker and medicines. Much of the connection evidence the applicant relies upon in this application relates to Quandamooka country as a whole and was therefore considered by Dowsett J in Delaney. 15 As noted by Dr Memmott and Dr Stacy, unlike the situation in most other areas of Australia where indigenous communities were forced from their lands to missions, the Quandamooka People have been left relatively undisturbed. However, that does not mean the Quandamooka People were immune from the impacts of colonisation. Indeed, between 1912 and 1938, many removals occurred, with many Quandamooka People eventually managing to escape the mainland and return to the claim area. Many Quandamooka People have lived in the claim area for their entire lifetimes. 16 Dr Memmott and Dr Stacy's state: "The Quandamooka People comprise an identifiable society or 'community' that has never ceased to exist. The members are identified by themselves and by the outside world, including by neighbouring Aboriginal groups". 17 The applicant also relies on evidence of connection filed by Dr Vincent Anderson, Evelyn Enid Parkin, Darren John Burns, Alan Charles Perry, Joan Patricia Hendriks, Michael James Costelloe, Gavin Stanley Costelloe, Anne Maree Day, Ian Delany, Sidney Coolwell, Graham Hamilton Dillon, Vincent George Martin, Darren John Burns, Sam Watson, Kenneth Paul Murphy, Shirley Rose Borey, Joshua Jude Walker, Irene Paula Clarey nee Tippo and Peter Baryney Delaney. The evidence of members of the native title claim group about their traditional laws and customs and rights and responsibilities in respect to land and waters is of the highest importance: Sampi v Western Australia [2005] FCA 777 at [48] per French J. 18 The Quandamooka People are the biological descendants of the following apical ancestors: Nellie / Lilly Kidgeree; Mary Indoole Compignie; Elizabeth Ruska; Charlie Moreton (Dandruba); Sidney Rollands (Kingal / Winyeeaba); Lillian Lyons (Dungoo); King Billy Toompani; Juno (Gonzales); Liza Jungerboi (mother of Rose Martin nee Bain); Tommy Nuggin (Gendarieba); Tilly (mother of Tommy Dalton, Richard Dalton and Henry Lea); and Kindarra. 19 Both the expert and lay material reveals substantial evidence of continued acknowledgment and observance of laws and customs. These traditions are handed down from forebears to new generations of Quandamooka People. Examples include the continuation of language and place names; communication with dolphins during fishing; corroboree or dances; the collection of wildflowers, midgin berries, bush lemon and passionfruit, oysters and crabs; and swimming and diving. Elders continue to teach practices observed since pre-sovereignty including fire management techniques, on-country burial, and the sharing of natural resources.
The agreement reached between the parties 20 Section 87 of the Act gives the Court the power to make an order consistent with the terms of an agreement between the parties to the proceeding without holding a hearing in relation to the application. 21 The conditions under s 87 of the Act that enable the Court to make the determination without a hearing are: (1) The period specified in the notice given under s 66 of the Act in relation to the application had ended and there is an agreement between all the parties on the terms of a proposed order of the Court in relation to the proceedings: s 87(1)(a). (2) The terms of the proposed determination agreement are in writing and are signed by or on behalf of the parties and filed with the Court: s 87(1)(b). (3) The Court is satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, those terms would be within its power: s 87(1)(c). (4) The Court considers it appropriate to make the orders sought: s 87(1A) and (2). 22 The Court is not required to embark upon an inquiry as to the merits of the claim to be satisfied that the orders are supportable and in accordance with the law: Cox on behalf of the Yugngora People v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 588 at [3] per French J. However, the Court will consider evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether the parties who have agreed to compromise the claim, particularly the State on behalf of the community generally, have made a rational decision and are acting in good faith: Munn for and on behalf of the Gunggari People v State of Queensland (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [30] per Emmett J. The primary consideration of the Court is to determine whether there is an agreement and whether it was freely entered on an informed basis: Nangkiriny v State of Western Australia (2002) 117 FCR 6 at [14] per North J. 23 State and Territory governments are responsible for ensuring that community interests are protected by getting involved in a process that assesses the underlying evidence as to the existence of native title. In this case, the State of Queensland is satisfied that the claim group is an appropriate one to be recognised as holders of native title rights and interests, that it is appropriate to recognise the rights and interests proposed and that it is appropriate for the State to enter into the determination 24 The requirements of s 87 of the Act have been satisfied: (1) The period for notification of the Application under s 66 of the Act has ended: s 87(1)(a). (2) The parties have reached an agreement as to the terms of a determination of native title: s 87(1)(a). (3) The parties have recorded their agreement in a Minute of Consent: s 87(1)(b). (4) An order in terms of the Minute, or consistent with the Minute, would be within the Court's power because: (a) the application has been made in accordance with s61 of the Act; (b) the application is for a determination of native title in relation to an area for which there was no approved determination of native title: s 13(1)(a); and (c) the Minute agreed to by the parties complies with ss 94A and 225 of the Act: s 87(1)(c). 25 In addition, it is appropriate for the Court to make the orders sought because: (1) The active parties have freely entered into agreement. (2) The parties have agreed as to the nature and extent of rights and interests, and the proposed determination is unambiguous and certain as to the rights and interests declared. (3) There are no proceedings before the Court relating to native title determination applications that cover any part of the area that is the subject of this application. (4) The State has played an active role in the negotiation of the determination and, in doing so, has taken an interest in the proceeding on behalf of the community and given appropriate consideration to the connection material. 26 The terms of the proposed determination also satisfy the requirements of s 225 of the Act.
Prescribed Body Corporate 27 Section 55 of the NTA requires the Court to make such determinations as are required by ss 56 and 57 at the same time as or as soon as practicable after the determination. Order 17 of the s 87 agreement signed by the parties seeks a determination that the Quandamooka Yoolooburrabee Aboriginal Corporation (ICN 7564) (QYAC) (registered on 1 June 2011) is to be the prescribed body corporate for the purposes of s 57(2) of the Act, to perform the functions mentioned in s57(3) of the Act. 28 The nomination is supported by the affidavit of Robert Vincent Anderson, affirmed on 28 October 2019. On 30 October 2019, at a meeting on North Stradbroke Island, Mr Anderson was directed by the native title claim group in these proceedings, to nominate QYAC as the nominated Corporation. The nomination by Dr Anderson is a written nomination in accordance with s 57(2) of the NTA. 29 Accordingly, the Court determines that QYAC is to be the prescribed body corporate for the purposes of s 56(1) of the NTA. 30 For the reasons outlined above, I will make orders in terms of the agreement reached by the parties. I certify that the preceding thirty (30) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rangiah.
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES QUD 601 of 2014 Respondents Fourth Respondent: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 051 775 556) Fifth Respondent: TANGALOOMA ISLAND RESORT PTY LTD (ACN 010 170 902) Sixth Respondent: TANGALOOMA PTY LTD (ACN 010 997 707) Seventh Respondent: KOORINGAL AQUACULTURE COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 010 390 931)
Anderson on behalf of the Quandamooka People (Mulgumpin/Moreton Island Claim
State of Queensland