Whether the proposed orders are appropriate to make
21 Section 87(1A) provides:
The Court may, if it appears to the Court to be appropriate to do so, act in accordance with:
(a) whichever of subsection (2) or (3) is relevant in the particular case; and
(b) if subsection (5) applies in the particular case - that subsection.
22 In the present case, subsection (2) is the relevant subsection and subsection (5) does not apply. Subsection 87(2) provides:
If the agreement is on the terms of an order of the Court in relation to the proceedings, the Court may make an order in, or consistent with, those terms without holding a hearing or, if a hearing has started, without completing the hearing.
23 The words "… if it appears to the Court to be appropriate to do so …" in s 87(1A) confer a discretion on the Court. Once the conditions precedent to the exercise of the discretion have been satisfied, it is unfettered, although it must be exercised judicially in accordance with legal principle. The fact that a determination of native title operates to bind not just the parties to the proceeding but all people in the Australian community underlines the importance of the Court's consideration of the source of the power and the appropriateness of making the orders sought: Munn v Queensland [2001] FCA 1229; 115 FCR 109 at [26] and [28] (Emmett J).
24 The wording of s 87(1A) and (2) provide that the question for the Court is whether it is appropriate to make an order in the terms of the agreement reached between the parties, and the primary focus of the section is that agreement. As Murphy J said Eagles on behalf of the Combined Thiin-Mah, Warriyangka, Tharrkari and Jiwarli People v State of Western Australia [2019] FCA 508 at [19]-[22]:
[19] In deciding whether it is appropriate to make the proposed orders it must be kept in mind that the Court's function under s 87 focuses on the making of an agreement by the parties, and the power must be understood in the context of the Act's emphasis on negotiation and alternative dispute resolution, rather than judicial determination in a contested proceeding. The power in s 87 is only exercisable when an agreement has been reached and the power should be exercised flexibly and with regard to the purpose for which the provisions are designed.
[20] The Court is not necessarily required to make findings or embark on its own inquiry as to the merits of the claim made in an application for a consent determination under s 87: see Ward v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 1848 (Ward) at [8] (North J); Cox on behalf of the Yungngora People v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 588 (Cox) at [3] (French J); Lander v State of South Australia [2012] FCA 427 at [11]-[12] (Mansfield J); Freddie v Northern Territory [2017] FCA 867 (Freddie) at [16]-[17] (Mortimer J). Rather, the Court must be satisfied, inter alia, that it is appropriate to make the orders sought. The indicia that will be sufficient to satisfy the Court of the appropriateness of a consent determination will be determined on a case by case basis. In some cases it may be appropriate to make orders under s 87 where the Court has received no evidence of the primary facts substantiating native title if the Court is satisfied that the parties have freely and on an informed basis come to an agreement: see Hughes (on behalf of the Eastern Guruma People) v Western Australia [2007] FCA 365 at [9] and Ward at [8].
[21] Even so, as French J observed in Cox the concept of appropriateness also recognises that the determination made by the Court is one made as against the whole world, and not just between the parties to the proceeding. The Court must be conscious that the rights conferred are enduring legal rights, proprietary in nature. This informs considerations including the requirement for the free and informed consent of all parties and the State's agreement that there is a credible and rational basis for the determination proposed: Freddie at [18].
[22] The requirements of s 87 may, and will likely, be met where the Court is satisfied that a relevant government respondent (such as the State in the present case), through competent legal representation, is satisfied as to the cogency of the evidence upon which the Applicant relies. The Court is entitled to rely on the processes established by a State or Territory for assessing native title claims and to proceed on the basis that the State or Territory has made a reasonable and rational assessment of the material to which it has had access in deciding to enter into an agreement: Freddie at [23]-[24] and the authorities there cited.
25 The matters to be taken into account include whether: there exists a free and informed agreement between the parties who have had the benefit of independent and competent legal representation in the proceeding; the State has taken a 'real interest' in the proceeding on behalf of the broader community; it appears the agreement was freely entered into without duress, fraud or misrepresentation; whether there is evidence before the Court which justifies the order 'for the purpose of satisfying itself that those parties who have agreed to compromise the matter, particularly the State on behalf of the community generally, are acting in good faith and rationally': Munn at [30].
26 The Court is satisfied that the s 87 Agreement reflects a free and informed agreement between the parties. It was negotiated in a case management process with the assistance of a Registrar who is experienced in dispute resolution in native title cases. All parties have had the benefit of independent and competent legal representation.
27 The State has taken a 'real interest' in the proceeding on behalf of the broader community and given appropriate consideration to the Applicant's Connection Material, in particular by participating in the on country evidence process.
28 The Connection Material filed by the Applicant in support of the proposed determination is sufficient evidence of the existence of native title, as defined by s 223 of the NTA, and included:
(1) relevant genealogies by Dr Sandra Pannell filed 13 June 2019
(2) report on Anthropologists conference filed 13 June 2019
(3) Anthropological Connection Report for Koa Native Title Claim (February 2016) by Dr Kevin Mayo filed 13 June 2019
(4) further comments on the evidence of Robert Beckett by Dr Kevin Mayo filed 13 June 2019
(5) affidavit of Robert Duncan 15 July 2015 filed 14 June 2019
(6) affidavit of Robert Beckett 15 July 2015 filed 14 June 2019
(7) witness statement of Alana Purcell 28 February 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(8) witness statement of Charlie Chambers 3 March 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(9) witness statement of Elizabeth Jacobs 15 March 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(10) witness statement of Frank Button 5 March 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(11) witness statement of Frank Petersen 24 March 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(12) witness statement of Lesley Williams 21 March 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(13) witness statement of Pam Hegarty 24 March 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(14) witness statement of Robert Beckett 15 February 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(15) witness statement of Sandra Morgan 1 March 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(16) witness statement of William Gorham 14 March 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(17) witness statement of Wesley Conlon 29 August 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(18) witness statement of Dennis Conlon 29 August 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(19) witness statement of Michael Mace 20 October 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(20) witness statement of Robert Duncan 8 September 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(21) witness statement of Hayley Langton 5 October 2017 filed 14 June 2019
(22) further witness statement of Frank Button 27 April 2018 filed 14 June 2019
(23) further unrestricted witness statement of Pam Hegarty 27 April 2018 filed 14 June 2019
(24) amended further unrestricted witness statement of Frank Petersen 14 May 2018 filed 14 June 2019
(25) further restricted witness statement of Frank Petersen 7 August 2017 filed 3 July 2019
(26) further restricted witness statement of Pam Hegarty 10 May 2018 filed 3 July 2019
(27) transcript of on country evidence process (OCEP) - Days 1-4 22 May 2018 filed 3 July 2019
(28) map referred to and used during OCEP filed 18 November 2019
(29) restricted transcript of OCEP - Day 1 22 May 2018 filed 3 July 2019
(30) restricted transcript of OCEP - day 4 25 May 2018 filed 3 July 2019.
29 Having regard to the above, the Court is satisfied that the State, acting on behalf of the broader community, has taken a real interest in the proceeding and has engaged in a thorough examination of the application such that it is properly satisfied that there is a credible basis for the making of the proposed determination pursuant to the requirements of the NTA.
30 The Court is satisfied that, in accordance with s 87 of the NTA, it is appropriate to make a determination of native title in terms of the Draft Orders.