THE NON-CONTENTIOUS ASPECTS
12 On 19 June 2013, the applicant filed an amended statement of claim in Birriliburu #1, #2 and #4, and a separate amended statement of claim in Birriliburu #3. Each amended statement of claim alleged that the native title claim group and their ancestors constituted a society united in and by their acknowledgement and observance of a body of laws and customs which had existed continuously since sovereignty. Each amended statement of claim alleged that those laws and customs acknowledged and observed are traditional, and that that acknowledgement and observance, in particular in relation to the claim area, has continued substantially uninterrupted from sovereignty to today. Each amended statement of claim further alleged that the members of the claim group have a connection with the claim area by those traditional laws or customs. Each amended statement of claim also alleged that the members of the society hold and have held specified native title rights in the application areas in accordance with traditional laws and customs.
13 On 21 June 2013, the State filed further amended defences in which it admitted each of the central allegations made by the applicant, save for the terms of one of the claimed native title rights.
14 On 12 May 2016, at the request of the Court, the parties filed a joint submission in support of the making of the orders and determinations. The submission referred to the power of the Court in s 86(1)(c) of the Act to adopt a finding of the Court in other proceedings. The parties submitted that it would be appropriate to adopt the finding made by French J (as he then was) in the original Birriliburu determination concerning the connection of the Birriliburu People to the land in the application areas in Part B of Birriliburu #1, #2, #3 and #4.
15 The reason why it is said to be appropriate for the Court to adopt those findings is because Birriliburu #2 and #4 overlap Birriliburu #1, Birriliburu #3 is largely surrounded by Birriliburu #1, and all the applications were made on behalf of the same native title claim group. I agree. A further reason is that the findings are based on the connection reports prepared by an anthropologist, Dr Lee Sackett. Those reports were also in evidence in the present applications.
16 The relevant findings from the original Birriliburu determination are as follows:
15 It is helpful to set out briefly the nature of the native title claim group's connection to the land and waters the subject of the application as set out in the joint submission. That is based upon the material contained in the connection reports prepared by Dr Sackett.
16 The members of the native title claim group are said to be members of the broader Western Desert cultural bloc, which is the relevant "society" for the purposes of the determination. There are three Western Desert dialects associated with the determination area, namely: Putijara, Kartutjara and Mantjiltjara. The soak after which the application takes its name is described by the claimants as "mix-up country" where the three dialects overlap.
17 Most of the claimants reside at Wiluna, Jigalong, Patjarr, Warnarn, Warakurna and Parngurr which are close to, but not inside, the proposed determination area. Together with people from other parts of the Western Desert they describe themselves as Martu. They share a body of laws and customs with other Western Desert groups. They acknowledge shared beliefs and rituals and gather for ceremonial purposes. Some of them are recognised native title holders in neighbouring Western Desert areas. It is agreed between the parties, however, that the claimants are identifiable as a subset of the wider Western Desert society, being members of 17 family groups and other individuals recognised as custodians with rights and responsibilities in relation to the proposed determination area in accordance with Western Desert laws and customs. They recognise, in accordance with their traditional laws and customs, that certain individuals and family groups are associated with particular areas of country within the proposed determination area. The final description of the native title holders has been altered between application and determination to define them by reference, inter alia, to descendants. Following an inquiry from the Court, about the change, the State Solicitor's Office wrote a letter dated 17 June 2008. The solicitors for the applicants agree with the contents of the letter which stated, inter alia:
Both the Applicants and the State agreed that the description of the native title claim group in the amended application by reference to 181 named individuals was problematic, principally because of the absence of any reference to the descendants of those named individuals. That description wrongly implies, firstly, that the claim was made by the Applicants on behalf of individuals holding individual rights and, secondly, that native title will cease to exist on the death of the last surviving individual.
Also, the description of the native title claim group in the amended application does not differentiate between native title holders who hold rights through descent from an apical ancestor, and those 'custodians' who hold rights by reason of being particularly knowledgeable about country…
The parties settled on the description of native title holders in the minute having satisfied themselves that the description accurately reflects the position as described in the connection materials (principally the connection report and the genealogies) and captures all native title holders. That process included the Applicants providing the State with a supplementary report by Dr Lee Sackett to address certain issues arising from the proposed description…The parties identified a slight inconsistency between membership of the native title claim group as described in the amended application and the native title claim group as described in the minute, but those inconsistencies were explained by the Applicants to the State's satisfaction. Ultimately, the parties formed the view that, for the purposes of the Native Title Act, nothing turned on those inconsistencies in any event…
18 The letter from the State Solicitor pointed out that the amended application had not been further amended. The position of the parties was that provided the application were valid, the Court could proceed to make a determination in such form as it sees fit based on the evidence. It was not limited to making a determination in the form sought in the application. In any event, it argued that in circumstances in which the group of proposed native title holders is, in substance, the same group as the native title claim group, an amendment is unnecessary. I accept these contentions.
19 A fundamental belief in the Tjukurrpa ("the Dreaming" or "the Law") is the basis of all understanding, according to the traditional laws and customs of the group. It is the source of laws and customs to which the members of the native title holders group adhere. It governs their religious practices, social rules, systems of land tenure and other aspects of their life.
20 The association of individuals and groups with particular areas of country comes about through a variety of mechanisms. These include conception, birth, growing up or initiation on the country, acquisition of knowledge through long residence or descent from a person who has had such a connection. Landholding groups are not patrilineally-patrilocally structured. The members of the groups are landholders through their shared association with and to the land. The groups are open and inclusive so people have potential access to a number of areas through the mechanisms mentioned above.
21 There are still living senior claimants connected to country by one or more of these means. Various of the custodians specifically named in Schedule 3 to the Determination have rights in country because they are recognised as particularly knowledgeable. The movement away from the proposed determination area as a result of European settlement has resulted in group membership and rights being asserted primarily through descent from a parent or grandparents associated with the country. There are now more fixed family group associations with country.
22 The parties are agreed that the narrowing of pathways to group membership and rights in land does not represent an interruption in the acknowledgment and observance of traditional laws and customs. It may represent a change or adaptation of those laws and customs, but it is agreed that the change or adaptation is not of such a kind that the rights or interests now asserted are no longer held under traditional laws and customs. Descent remains the means by which people acquire rights.
23 It is also common ground that although the applicants do not live on the proposed determination area, they continue to assert their rights and carry out their responsibilities in accordance with their laws and customs.