REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
History of the litigation
1 These reasons concern two of six appeals that were remitted to this Court by the High Court of Australia.
2 The six appeals were originally filed in this Court in 1998 and 1999 in order to challenge aspects of the decision of Lee J in Ward v State of Western Australia [1998] FCA 1478; 159 ALR 483. That decision concerned claims for determination of native title, under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ('the Act'), in respect of a substantial area of land in the Kimberley Region, predominantly in the State of Western Australia but extending into the Northern Territory of Australia.
3 The six appeals were considered by a Full Court of this Court (Beaumont, von Doussa and North JJ) in July and August 1999. On 3 March 2000, the Full Court delivered judgment and made orders allowing, in part, five of the appeals and dismissing the other appeal: see Western Australia v Ward [2000] FCA 191; 99 FCR 316. Amongst the appeals allowed in part was one of the appeals with which we are presently concerned, WAG 6296 of 1998. This was an appeal by the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory ('the Attorney-General') raising issues relevant to the portion of the claim area that lies within the Northern Territory ('the NT claim area'). By para 4 of its orders, the Full Court set aside the orders, declarations and determination made by Lee J and, in lieu thereof, ordered that there be orders, declarations and a determination that reflected the reasons for judgment of the majority (Beaumont and von Doussa JJ) of the Full Court.
4 The other appeal with which we are presently concerned, W 6020 of 1999, was brought by Cecil Ningarmara and others, claimants to the NT claim area. That appeal was dismissed by the Full Court.
5 Pursuant to grants of special leave, four appeals against the Full Court's orders were taken to the High Court. They included appeals in relation to the NT claim area by both the Attorney-General (P62 of 2000) and Cecil Ningarmara and others (P63 of 2000). In P62 of 2000, the Attorney-General contended that native title was extinguished over the portion of the NT claim area that is now within the Keep River National Park, by leases granted to the Conservation Land Corporation in order to establish the National Park. In P63 of 2000, Cecil Ningarmara and others challenged rulings by the Full Court concerning partial extinguishment of native title by reason of earlier pastoral leases over the NT claim area.
6 After a hearing in March 2001, the High Court delivered judgment on 8 August 2002: see Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28; 191 ALR 1. By majority, the Court held that the earlier pastoral leases did not totally extinguish native title in the NT claim area. The majority expressed views about the extent of extinguishment but felt unable, by reason of inadequate relevant factual findings, accurately to determine the native title rights and interests that were unaffected by the grant of the pastoral leases. In relation to the first issue, their Honours held that the leases to the Conservation Land Corporation did not extinguish whatever native title remained after the grant of the pastoral leases.
7 Having regard to their views in regard to these issues, and the more numerous issues that arose in relation to that part of the claim area that was located in Western Australia ('the WA claim area'), the High Court ordered (by majority) inter alia that para 4 of the Full Court's orders, and the determination made by the Full Court, be set aside and the matters remitted to the Full Court for further hearing and determination.
8 After this remittal, Beaumont, von Doussa and North JJ made directions in respect of the further hearing. However, before that hearing could take place, Beaumont J had to stand aside from the appeals on account of illness and von Doussa J retired from the Court in order to take up another appointment. Accordingly, the Chief Justice reconstituted the Court so as to comprise the present Bench.
9 On 31 July 2003, we conducted a lengthy directions hearing. We were informed, amongst other things, that the parties had been attending settlement conferences conducted by Deputy Registrar Efthim. These had, apparently, progressed well (more so in relation to the NT claim area than the WA claim area), but it was too early to say whether full agreement would be reached. Accordingly, we made directions fixing a timetable for the amendment of any notice of appeal and the filing of contentions as to the extent of the issues falling for determination by the Full Court. We also fixed Tuesday, 30 September 2003 for the commencement of a hearing concerning those issues 'and also any issues arising out of the Northern Territory claim'.
10 In fact, the hearing commenced on Wednesday, 1 October 2003; the settlement conference was still proceeding on the Tuesday. We were asked to defer dealing with the issues concerning the WA claim area, pending further negotiations, but the parties wished us to deal with the outstanding issues in relation to the NT claim area; that is, appeals WAG 6296 of 1998 and W 6020 of 1999.
Form of the proposed determination
11 The parties told us they had agreed on the form of a determination subject to some issues which they wished the Court to resolve. They handed to us a document containing proposed consent orders and a proposed determination. The proposed determination recites the history of the litigation and then proceeds as follows:
'1. Native title exists in the areas of land and waters claimed in the Northern Territory ("the NT determination area") and described in the Schedule.
2. The land and waters of the NT determination area are part of three estates, namely, the Damberal estate, the Bindjen estate and the Nyawamnyawam estate each of which estates is held by the members of the three respective estate groups, namely the Damberal estate group, the Bindjen estate group, and the Nyawamnyawam estate group, who, together with the Aboriginal people referred to in clause 4 below, are collectively referred to as "the native title holders".
3. Each of the three estate groups referred to in clause 2 includes members by reason of patrilineal descent and matrifiliates, who are members by reason of descent from mother and mother's father (djawidji), and persons adopted into such descent relationships ("the estate group members").
4. In accordance with traditional laws and customs, other Aboriginal people have rights in respect of the land and waters of an estate which is not their own, subject to the rights and interests of the estate group members, including:
(a) members of estate groups from neighbouring estates;
(b) spouses of the estate group members; and
(c) members of other estate groups with ritual authority.
5. Subject to clause 9, as at the date of this determination, the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests of the native title holders referred to in clause 3 hereof in relation to the NT determination area recognised by the common law are non-exclusive rights to occupy, use and enjoy the land and waters in accordance with their traditional laws and customs, including, as incidents of that entitlement:
(a) the right to hunt on the land, to gather and use the natural resources of the land such as food, medicinal plants, wild tobacco, timber, stone and resin, and to have access to and use of natural water on the land;
(b) the right to live on the land, to camp, to erect shelters, and to move about the land;
(c) the right to engage in cultural activities on the land, to conduct ceremonies, to hold meetings, and to participate in cultural practices relating to birth and death;
(d) the right to have access to, maintain and protect the sites of significance on the land of the NT determination area; and
(e) the right to make decisions about the use and enjoyment of the NT determination area by Aboriginal people who are governed by the traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed by the native title holders.
These native title rights and interests do not confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the land or waters on the native title holders to the exclusion of all others.
6. Subject to clause 9, the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests held, in accordance with their traditional laws and customs, by the native title holders referred to in clause 4 hereof in relation to the NT determination area recognised by the common law include:
(a) in relation to members of estate groups from neighbouring estates - rights of access to, and rights to hunt, fish and gather the natural resources on the land and waters of their neighbouring estate group members, subject to the permission, implied or express, of the relevant senior estate group members;
(b) in relation to spouses of estate group members - rights of access to, and to hunt, fish and gather the natural resources on, the land and waters of their spouse's estate; and
(c) in relation to members of other estate groups who hold ritual authority - rights to act, in accordance with traditional laws and customs, in relation to the maintenance and protection of sites associated with the travels of an ancestral being associated with a Dreaming which passes through the estates in the NT determination area.
These native title rights and interests do not confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the land or waters on the native title holders to the exclusion of all others.
7A. There are no native title rights and interests in:
(a) minerals (as defined in the Minerals Acquisition Act (NT));
(b) petroleum (as defined in the Petroleum Act 1984 (NT));and
(c) prescribed substances (as defined in the Atomic Energy (Control of Materials) Act 1946 (Cth) and/or Atomic Energy Act 1953 (Cth));
in the NT determination area.
7B. Notwithstanding anything in this determination, there are no exclusive native title rights and interests in flowing and subterranean waters.
8. The nature and extent of other interests in relation to the NT determination area are the interests created by the Crown or otherwise, as follows:
(a) in relation to Northern Territory Portion 3541 (Policeman's Hole), the interests of the Nyawamnyawam Dawang Aboriginal Corporation under its fee simple estate granted on 18 December 1990;
(b) in relation to Northern Territory Portion 3542 (Bucket Springs), the interests of the Binjen Ningguwung Aboriginal Corporation under its fee simple estate granted on 18 December 1990;
(c) in relation to Northern Territory Portion 3863 (Bubble Bubble), the interests of the Dumbral Aboriginal Community Association under its fee simple estate granted on 4 October 1993;
(d) in relation to Northern Territory Portions 1801 and 3121:
(i) the interest of the Conservation Land Corporation under Special Purposes Lease 475 and Crown Lease Perpetual 581; and
(ii) the interests of the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory pursuant to its functions and powers of management and control of these areas under the Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (and subsidiary legislation, and including under any Plan of Management in force in relation to these areas from time to time) and the Parks and Wildlife Commission Act, including interests in any buildings, works or other structures constructed or established by the Commission within these areas;
(e) in relation to Northern Territory Portions 1801 and 3121, the interests of members of the public arising from rights of access to and use of these areas as a national park, subject to any statutory limitations upon these rights including those under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act;
(f) in relation to the NT determination area, the interests of Telstra Corporation Limited, including:
(i) rights and interests as the owner or operator of telecommunications facilities installed within the NT determination area, including customer radio terminals and overhead and underground cabling;
(ii) rights and interests created pursuant to the Post and Telegraph Act 1901 (Cth), the Telecommunications Act 1975 (Cth), the Australian Telecommunications Corporation Act 1989 (Cth), the Telecommunications Act 1991 (Cth) and the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth); and
(iii) rights of access by employees, agents or contractors of Telstra Corporation Limited to its telecommunications facilities in and in the vicinity of the NT determination area in the performance of their duties.
9. In relation to the parts of the NT determination area identified as:
(a) the whole of NT Portion 3541 (Policeman's Hole);
(b) the whole of NT Portion 3542 (Bucket Springs); and
(c) the whole of NT Portion 3863 (Bubble Bubble);
the rights of the native title holders are an entitlement to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of those parts of the NT determination area to the exclusion of all others.
10. In relation to those parts of the NT determination area other than the portions identified in clause 9 above, the rights of the native title holders (identified in s. 122 of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act):
(a) to use the land or waters for hunting and gathering of food for domestic purposes;
(b) to use the land or waters for ceremonial and religious purposes;
(c) to be present on the land for the purpose of conducting such activities; and
(d) to take appropriate steps to protect sacred sites from damage, disturbance or interference;
continue to be enjoyed, and, subject to the principle of reasonable use, may be exercised notwithstanding the interests referred to in clause 8 above, but are not exclusive of the rights of others.
11. Subject to clause 10, the rights and interests of the persons referred to in clause 8(d) are wholly inconsistent with the native title rights and interests (other than the right referred to in clause 5(e)), but do not extinguish them. During the currency of the interests referred to in clause 8(d), the native title rights and interests (other than the right referred to in clause 5(e)) have no effect in relation to the rights and interests referred to in clause 8(d). If the interests referred to in clause 8(d) are later removed or otherwise cease to operate, either wholly or partly, the native title rights and interests will again have full effect, wholly or partly as appropriate.
12. To the extent, if at all, that the exercise of the native title right referred to in clause 5(e) conflicts with the exercise of the rights and interests of the persons referred to in clauses 8(d) and (e), the rights and interests of the persons referred to in clauses 8(d) and (e) prevail over, but do not extinguish, the native title rights referred to in clause 5(e).
13. To the extent that the rights and interests of the persons referred to in clause 8(a), (b), (c) and (e) are inconsistent with the native title rights and interests, the native title rights and interests have no effect during the currency of, but are not extinguished by, the interests referred to in clause 8(a), (b), (c) and (e). If the interests referred to in clause 8(a), (b), (c) and (e) are later removed or otherwise cease to operate, either wholly or partly, the native title rights and interests will again have full effect, wholly or partly as appropriate.
14. To the extent, if at all, that the native title rights and interests are inconsistent with the rights and interests of Telstra Corporation Limited referred to in clause 8(f), the rights and interests of Telstra Corporation Limited will prevail over, but will not extinguish, the native title rights and interests.
15. The native title rights and interests are subject to and exercisable in accordance with the valid laws of the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth.'
12 The Schedule to the document identifies the 'NT determination area' by reference to the numbers of its five constituent Portions and states the area is that which is outlined on an attached map. That map shows almost all of the area is located in Keep River National Park. The remainder comprises three comparatively small areas which are, apparently, Aboriginal community living areas granted in freehold.
13 Counsel identified seven issues in relation to the form of the determination. As we understand the position, the parties are agreed that there should be a determination in the proposed form but subject to such amendments as we may think appropriate in relation to the seven identified issues. We will deal with each of those issues separately.
Identification of native title holders
14 Clauses 2 and 3 of the proposed determination identify as primary native title holders the members of three estates, the Damberal estate, the Bindjen estate and the Nyawamnyawam estate. Clause 4 states that 'other Aboriginal people' have rights subject to the interests of the estate group members. Those people ('the secondary native title holders') are identified in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c). However, because of the word 'including' immediately before those three sub-clauses, this is not presented as an exhaustive identification of secondary native title holders. A determination in this form leaves open the possibility of there being other, unidentified, secondary native title holders. Counsel for the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Western Australia argue the result is a failure to comply with the description of 'determination of native title' in s 225 of the Act. That section relevantly provides:
'A determination of native titleis 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.' (Original highlighting)
15 It will be noted that para (a) of s 225 requires determination of 'the persons, or each group of persons, holding the common or group rights comprising the native title'. It is not necessary to identify the native title holders by name; it is sufficient that the persons be members of an identified group or groups. Clauses 2 and 3 of the proposed determination proceed on that basis. No issue is raised about them. However, clause 4 leaves open the possibility that there are native title holders who are neither members of an estate group identified in clause 2 or of a secondary group identified in sub-clause (a), (b) or (c) of clause 4. We agree with counsel that this is impermissible. Clause 4 should be turned into an exhaustive identification of secondary native title holders. This can be effected by omitting the word 'including' and substituting 'such people being'. We propose to make that amendment. We point out that a determination may be varied: see s 13(5) of the Act. This would allow the addition of other native title holders if this subsequently appeared to be appropriate.
Statement of holders' rights
16 The opening words of clause 5 of the proposed determination identify the native title holders' rights as being 'non-exclusive rights to occupy, use and enjoy the land and waters in accordance with their traditional laws and customs, including, as incidents of that entitlement' certain identified rights. Counsel for the Commonwealth and the State of Western Australia argue for two changes to these words: the omission of the word 'occupy' and the substitution of 'being' for the words 'including, as incidents of that entitlement'. These changes are resisted by counsel for the claimants, Mr J Basten QC.
17 As was pointed out by Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ in the High Court (at [89]), the expression 'possession, occupation, use and enjoyment', used in s 225(e) of the Act, 'is a composite expression directed to describing a particular measure of control over access to land'. The words of the proposed determination, 'occupy, use and enjoy' are not identical to, but are reminiscent of, this composite expression. They might be understood as conveying the notion discussed by their Honours, including control of access. This would be inappropriate in this case. The right of absolute control of access must have been extinguished by the grant of the pastoral leases. There might be a surviving right to make decisions, pursuant to Aboriginal laws and custom, about the use and enjoyment of the land by Aboriginal people. That right would not be affected by the grant of a pastoral lease. However, that matter is specifically addressed by sub-para (e) of para 5. We think the word 'occupy' should be omitted from the opening words of para 5.
18 The argument for an exhaustive, rather than inclusive, list of the incidents of the entitlement is based on para (b) of s 225 of the Act. That paragraph requires 'a determination of … the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the determination area'.
19 In their High Court joint judgment, Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ said (at [51]):
'A determination of native title must comply with the requirements of s 225. In particular, it must state the natureand extentof the native title rights and interests in relation to the determination area. Where, as was the case here in relation to some parts of the claim area, native title rights and interests that are found to exist do not amount to a right, as against the whole world, to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of land or waters, it will seldom be appropriate, or sufficient, to express the nature and extent of the relevant native title rights and interests by using those terms.' (Original emphasis)
20 Mr Basten argues that s 225(b) is satisfied by the reference in clause 5 of the proposed determination to 'non-exclusive rights to occupy, use and enjoy the land and waters in accordance with their traditional laws and customs'. He says this is the required specification of the nature and extent of the rights and interests; sub-clause (a) to (e) merely identify some incidents of those rights and interests.
21 We cannot agree with this approach. A statement about the right to 'occupy, use and enjoy' (or merely 'use and enjoy') in accordance with traditional laws and customs conveys no information as to the nature and extent of the relevant rights and interests. It is equivalent to a statement that the holders of the traditional rights and interests are entitled to exercise their traditional rights and interests. Something more is obviously required. There must be a specification of the content of the relevant rights and interests. That is why the parties included sub-clauses (a) to (e). It is to those sub-clauses that a reader may look in considering the effect of the determination. They must exhaustively indicate the determined incidents of the right to use and enjoy.
22 Mr Basten protested that his clients had not had an opportunity to consider whether any other incidents should be indicated, if the list was to be made exhaustive. We accepted it was reasonable for them to have this opportunity. After we reached the conclusion that the list should be exhaustive we advised Mr Basten, and the representatives of the other parties, of our view. We invited Mr Basten to indicate whether his clients wished to add to the list. He indicated they did not, but suggested the formula 'and, as incidents of that entitlement'. However, that formula is essentially the same as that rejected by us. We think it is preferable to use the word 'being'. We pointed out, once again, that s 13(5) would be available if needed.
23 The opening words of clause 5 of the prepared determination should be amended in the manner argued by counsel for the Commonwealth and the State of Western Australia.
The right to 'protect' sites
24 Sub-clause (d) of clause 5 refers to the holders' 'right to have access to, maintain and protect the sites of significance on the land'. Counsel for the Commonwealth argues for the omission of the word 'protect'. He says this word would give the holders an entitlement to exclude others from the land.
25 We do not agree. The notion of protection of significant Aboriginal sites is well understood. It may involve physical activities on the site to prevent its destruction, but it also extends to control of ceremonial activities. Particularly having regard to the existence of sub-clause (e), we do not think the words would be read as implying a general control of access.
Decisions about Aboriginal use and enjoyment of the determination area
26 Mr J D Allanson, counsel for the Commonwealth of Australia, argues that sub-clause (e) of clause 5 should be omitted from the determination. The Commonwealth is an intervener in both the appeals that are before us. Counsel for the State of Western Australia supports that argument.
27 The argument is that the right to make decisions about the use and enjoyment of the area cannot be recognised because the right to control access was extinguished by the grant of the pastoral leases. However, there is a clear distinction between a right to control access, generally and as a matter of law, and a right to make decisions about the use and enjoyment of land by Aboriginal people who will recognise those decisions and observe them pursuant to their traditional laws and customs. The continued existence of the former right is incompatible with a pastoral lease entitling the pastoral lessee to determine who has access to the land; the latter right is not. We think sub-clause (e) should remain.
Rights and interests subject to traditional laws and customs
28 Mr Allanson points out that native title rights and interests are possessed under traditional Aboriginal laws and customs. He recognises that clause 5 refers to 'non-exclusive rights to occupy, use and enjoy the land and waters in accordance with their traditional laws and customs'. However, he argues that any sufficient and accurate description of the rights and interests requires that the determination state those rights and interests are 'subject to and exercisable in accordance with traditional law and custom'.
29 We see no merit in this point. The present draft makes plain that the nature and extent of the activities that may be undertaken as incidents of the relevant native title rights and interests is governed by the native title holders' traditional laws and customs.
Use of 'include' in clause 6
30 Counsel argue that the opening words of clause 6 should be amended by substituting the word 'are' for 'include'. The argument is that, otherwise, the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests is not stated in the determination. The argument is the same as that put in relation to 'including' in the opening words of clause 5. For the reasons we indicated in relation to that clause, we agree it is necessary to have an exhaustive identification of the relevant rights. The word 'include' should be deleted and 'are' substituted.
The right to water
31 Clause 7B of the proposed determination states that, notwithstanding anything in the determination, 'there are no exclusive native title rights and interests in flowing and subterranean waters'. The substance of this clause is uncontroversial; all parties accept that the native title holders cannot obtain exclusive water rights. However, it is argued that the provision fits awkwardly into this position. It is suggested that the substance of the clause should be added as a proviso to clause 9, which gives exclusive rights over the three Aboriginal freehold areas, or deleted altogether, relying on the general override in clause 15.
32 It would be possible to delete the material set out in clause 7B and rely entirely on clause 15. However, in order to avoid any possible dispute, it seems preferable to make explicit reference to water. We propose to delete clause 7B but add to clause 9 the words 'provided, however, that rights and interests in flowing and subterranean waters are non-exclusive'.
Disposition
33 We will make orders (including a determination of native title) in the form agreed by the parties, but subject to some re-arrangement in structure and amended in accordance with the rulings set out above.
I certify that the preceding thirty-three (33) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.