The evidence
10 I find that the Auburn Hawkwood People remain connected to their ancestors' country in accordance with a normative system of traditional laws and customs under which they hold native title rights and interests in the Claim Area.
11 In addition to material accompanying the applicant's Further Amended Form 1: Native Title Determination Application, the following evidence from the Auburn Hawkwood People was provided to the State demonstrating their connection to the Claim Area through activities carried out in the course of their lives in accordance with the teaching of their Elders and in ongoing observation of traditional laws and customs:
(a) Affidavit of Alice West affirmed 2 February 2012;
(b) Affidavit of Dennis Cobbo dated 2 February 2012;
(c) Affidavit of Audrey Jane Clancy affirmed 2 March 2012;
(d) Affidavit of Pamela Blucher affirmed 30 March 2012;
(e) Affidavit of Robert Arnold Bond affirmed 22 February 2012;
(f) Affidavit of Rodney James Dodd affirmed 2 September 2012;
(g) Affidavit of Douglas Graham Hoehne affirmed 2 March 2012;
(h) Affidavit of Rodney Wayne Fuller affirmed 2 September 2012;
(i) Affidavit of Rose Margaret Dodd affirmed 31 March 2012;
(j) Affidavit of Margaret Francis Hure affirmed 23 August 2012;
(k) Affidavit of Leonard John Clancy affirmed 2 March 2012;
(l) Affidavit of Alick James Saltner affirmed 20 November 2012;
(m) Affidavit of Brian Allen Clancy affirmed 27 November 2012;
(n) Affidavit of Elizabeth Patricia Law affirmed 9 August 2012;
(o) Affidavit of Harold John Chapman affirmed 8 August 2012;
(p) Affidavit of Harry Thomas Blucher affirmed 9 August 2012;
(q) Affidavit of Albert Keith Thomson affirmed 26 October 2012
(r) Affidavit of Kevin Leonard Clancy affirmed 26 November 2012;
(s) Affidavit of Agnes Hoehne affirmed 2 March 2012;
(t) Affidavit of Stephen Joseph Collins affirmed on 23 May 2013;
(u) Affidavit of Drew Keith Anthony Millar affirmed on 28 November 2012;
(v) Affidavit of Thomas Anthony Blucher 10 May 2013;
(w) Affidavit of Jeffrey Hooper Williams affirmed 6 June 2013;
(x) Affidavit of Edward Fuller affirmed 23 May 2013;
(y) Affidavit of Adrienne Blucher affirmed 7 April 2015;
(z) Affidavit of Rory James Boney affirmed 25 July 2017;
(aa) Affidavit of Harry Rodney Hill dated 12 May 2015;
(bb) Affidavit of Loretta May Chapman affirmed 1 July 2016;
(cc) Affidavit of Yvonne Frances Chapman affirmed 2 July 2016;
(dd) Witness statement of Margaret Kay MiMi dated 3 July 2016;
(ee) Witness statement of Rodney Samuel Hill dated 2 July 2016;
(ff) Affidavit of Edwina Chapman dated 1 December 2017; and
(gg) Affidavit of Kevin Cowburn dated 1 December 2017.
12 As submitted on behalf of the applicant, the claimants gave specific evidence of their spiritual attachment to, knowledge of, and continuing use of the Claim Area and its natural resources. Their statements illustrate an enduring attachment to the Claim Area and demonstrate how they access areas for traditional purposes including hunting, gathering and spiritual purposes. This material is rich in detail, and I accept it.
13 The applicant relies on the following expert evidence:
(a) "Anthropological Report for the Native Title Claims of the Wulli Wulli People (QUD6006/2000 and QUD311/11)" prepared by Dr Fiona Powell dated 30 November 2012;
(b) "Archaeological Cultural Heritage Review within Wulli Wulli People Native Title Claim (QUD6006/2000) (QC00/7) and Wulli Wulli People #2 native title claim (QUD311/2011) (QC11/5) Central Queensland" prepared by Susan Davies (archaeologist and anthropologist) dated 2012;
(c) "The Wulli Wulli People Final Historical Report" prepared by Dr Rosalind Kidd dated November 2012;
(d) "Linguistic Report for Wulli Wulli People Native Title Determination Application (QUD6006/2000) and Wulli Wulli People #2 Native Title Determination (QUD311/2011)" prepared by Michael Walsh (linguist) dated 30 November 2012;
(e) "Wulli Wulli and Wakka Wakka Peoples QUD311/2011 & Wulli Wulli People QUD6006/2000 Supplementary Report" prepared by Dr Powell dated July 2015;
(f) "Wulli Wulli and Wakka Wakka Peoples QUD311/2011 Anthropologist's Further Supplementary Report" prepared by Dr Powell dated 12 December 2016;
(g) "Anthropological Review of the Wulli #2 Native Title Claim with particular regard to evidence connecting the descendants of Maggie Hart & Mi Mi to the Claim Area" prepared by Dr Kevin Mayo dated November 2017;
(h) "Response to Questions by the State in relation to Anthropological Review of the Wulli Wulli #2 Native Title Claim with particular regard to the evidence connecting the descendants of Maggie Hart & Mi Mi to the Claim Area" prepared by Dr Kevin Mayo dated March 2018; and
(i) Report of Conference of Experts (Dr Mayo, Dr Powell and Dr Kenny) held on 24 and 25 May 2018 in Brisbane.
14 The applicant submitted, and I find, that Dr Powell and Dr Mayo in their reports reviewed historical records regarding initial contact between the Auburn Hawkwood People and the first explorers and settlers in the Claim Area. They described references to Aboriginal people, their camps, activities, and customs observed by pastoralists and early settlers who first occupied the Claim Area. Many of the claim group's ancestors obtained exemptions from the statutory regime that governed Aboriginal peoples' lives in Queensland. Dr Powell explained how this allowed many families to remain on their country by working on properties within the Claim Area such as Hawkwood, Auburn, Coondarra, Knockbreak, Redbank, Yerilla and Rockybar stations.
15 Dr Powell and Dr Mayo also described the movement of Auburn Hawkwood People from these early pastoral stations into the towns of Eidsvold and Mundubbera as well as their removal and resettlement on reserves such as Cherbourg, Woorabinda and Taroom. Dr Powell and Dr Mayo's reports set out what the historical record revealed about the exercise of rights and interests claimed by the Auburn Hawkwood People in the Auburn/South Burnett region.
16 Dr Powell described the content of the traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed by Auburn Hawkwood People, particularly those governing the use and occupation of land and waters within the Claim Area. In Dr Powell's opinion those laws and customs had been observed by the claimants and their ancestors at the time of first European settlement, and by inference, from sovereignty. Her opinion was that the laws and customs observed by Auburn Hawkwood People had continued to be acknowledged and observed by each generation of Auburn Hawkwood People since sovereignty.
17 Dr Powell observed the strong desire of Auburn Hawkwood People to maintain their social and cultural responsibilities to their traditional country through employment in the pastoral industry. Cultural heritage monitoring work and interactions with developers were other contemporary means of continuing traditional responsibilities the Auburn Hawkwood People have to protect their country.
18 Dr Powell considered that while no evidence was found of a change in the fundamental tenets underlying the traditional laws of the pre-sovereignty land-holding group that relate to the holding of rights and interests in the land, waters and resources of the Claimed Areas, evidence was found of adaptation in some traditional practices.
19 Dr Kidd addressed: (a) when and how each claim area, or part thereof, was first occupied and used by early Europeans settlers for pastoral or other purposes; (b) what was written about the Aboriginal people who occupied those areas at that time; (c) the nature and extent of the interaction between the early settlers and the Aboriginal people who occupied those areas at that time; (d) the nature and extent of the interaction between early settlers and Aboriginal people since then, and the extent to which that interaction allowed members of the Wulli Wulli native title claim group (past and present) to physically occupy or access the claim areas; and (e) the impact that legislation and other events has had on the ability of members of that claim group (past and present) to physically occupy or access the claim areas.
20 Dr Kidd's findings, in summary, were as follows:
A. Earliest records confirm a large Aboriginal presence across the claim area. Henry Stuart Russell's party in 1842 encountered 'considerable numbers' of up to 'four hundred men at a time'. Frank Bannah said 'the blacks were numerous' in the EIDSVOLD district in the late 1840s. In the 1850s 'hundreds of natives' trekked past the KNOCKBREAK homestead on their way to CAMBOON. In mid-1857 two camps comprising as many as one thousand fighting men met for an event on PALM TREE CREEK.
B. Surviving records reveal a common perception of the tribes occupying the claim area as a discernible group. Raids by DAWSON RIVER Aborigines on those of the BURNETT area were said to be common. First settlers were on constant alert against the 'wild blacks of the district', aware that 'the DAWSON blacks were notoriously savage' and a 'war like tribe' that 'resented the intrusion of white men within their territory.' From ROCKY SPRINGS Philip Lamb wrote of the 'blacks in his district' harbouring men of the DAWSON tribe.
C. Even so, by the early 1850s there was a level of coexistence on many stations, due in part to the shortage of white labour; references locate camps of 'quiet blacks' on YERILLA, CAMBOON, HAWKWOOD, COCKATOO, HORNET BANK and BUNGABAN. The bora ground below CAMBOON station was known to be 'a great meeting ground of the blacks', accessed by Aboriginal pathways traversing both DYKEHEAD and AUBURN.
D. Early settlers recognised that the rapid influx of Europeans and massive sheep flocks fanned retaliatory attacks on shepherds, flocks and stations; the mass murder at HORNET BANK proving the crisis point. There is no doubt post-HORNET BANK reprisals were catastrophic for Aboriginal people across and beyond the DAWSON and BURNETT river areas. Yet even at the height of the killings groups are recorded remaining on stations at YERILLA, BOONDOOMA, AUBURN, CAMBOON and HAWKWOOD. Within days of the HORNET BANK massacre a big gathering of Aborigines 'mustered very strong' on AUBURN station from 'perhaps about three or four hundred miles'. Subsequently, the 'DAWSON RIVER tribe' again trekked to the Bunyas, an alleged HORNET BANK leader in the midst.
E. There seems little doubt that many fugitives returned to station camps within a few years of the eighteen-month dispersal action. Research identified camps on KNOCKBREAK, BOONDOOMA, and CAMBOON in the 1870s; at HAWKWOOD, AUBURN, BUNGABAN, CRACOW, DYKEHEAD and GLANDORE in the 1880s. During this time 'frequently five or six hundred natives' from 'both near and far' gathered for ceremonies at the bora ground on CAMBOON, passing their corroborees 'from tribe to tribe and far and wide'. Continuing treks to the BUNYA MOUNTAINS still included 'the DAWSON blacks'; in 1902 a 'mob of blacks' passed through DYKEHEAD on their way to HAWKWOOD. At this time BOONDOOMA station 'stretched to the Bunyas'.
F. Records from the 1890s and early 1900s show that as stockmen on the unfenced stations, Aboriginal workers travelled vast distances on long musters across land including CAMBOON, CRACOW, ISLA, WATERTON, COONAMBULA, HAWKWOOD, NOGO JUNCTION, RAWBELLE, CULCRAGIE, BOOLGAL, DEBINGAL, HEATHWOOD, EUROKA, KNOCKBREAK and ISLA (sic).
G. The vast stations were increasingly fragmented under legislation from the 1860s onwards, and severe droughts at the turn of the century and around 1916 led owners on stations like AUBURN and HAWKWOOD to call on provisions of the Aboriginal Act of 1897 to have some Aboriginal families removed to government settlements. While official records during the twentieth century show 'removals' did occur from stations in the claim area, files show that Aboriginal presence continued: a large number of workers in regular local employment were never brought 'under the Act'; some families taken to settlements were subsequently 'exempted' and allowed to return; some individuals absconded from settlements to return to family and work and were later exempted.
H. In addition, non-exempt Aboriginal labour was at a premium, being tightly regulated and heavily discounted. In 1914 there was 'a surprising number of blacks' employed in the BURNETT and DAWSON districts, particularly (in the claim area) on HAWKWOOD, CRACOW, ROCKYBAR; in 1919 the prevalence of Aboriginal workers in the districts was again reported. In the 1920s Aboriginal camps were mentioned at EIDSVOLD, GAYNDAH and HAWKWOOD, which is likely not the only station to host corroborees at this time.
I. 'Large numbers' of Aboriginal people, including drovers and workers from outlying stations, were regular visitors to the fortnightly cattle sales at EIDSVOLD in the 1940s, where they would camp on the outskirts and hold corroborees; white residents were also familiar with local Aboriginal people of that time. References sighted for the 1960s described a collection of Aboriginal families camping on the riverbanks at THEODORE, and also a large number of Aboriginal children at the EIDSVOLD school.
J. There seems little doubt that Aboriginal employment, both longstanding local exempt workers and contracted non-exempt labour, was the vehicle which allowed families to remain or return to country despite the post-HORNET BANK dispersals.
K. In the time available, evidence located indicates members of the following families have maintained a persisting presence in and around the claim area: BLIGH, BLUCHER, BOND, CHAPMAN, CLANCY, DODD, FULLER, HEATHWOOD, HORNET, LOGAN, McLENNAN, MI MI, POPE, SALTNER, WALSH, WEST.
21 Ms Davies' report addressed the evidence that the area she identified as the Project Area (the combined Wulli Wulli People (QC00/7) and Wulli Wulli People #2 (QC11/5) Native Title Claim Areas) was occupied and used by Aboriginal people prior to and after contact (approximately 1845) and whether that evidence indicates that the Project Area was used for specific purposes or activities.
22 Ms Davies reviewed the archaeological cultural heritage and found ample evidence of Aboriginal occupation of the Project Area prior to and after non-indigenous settlement of the region. She found that relative dating indicated occupation may have been for at least 5,000 years. The report referred to a total of 3,273 recorded and known sites, and collected items, which was considered to indicate an "extraordinary wealth and diversity of Aboriginal cultural heritage" within the Project Area. The evidence was found to clearly demonstrate extensive, and in some areas, intensive occupation, as represented by the variety of site and artefact types. These included: stone artefact scatters; middens; engraving; art (painting and/or stencils); ceremonial grounds and massacre sites. Ms Davies considered that the sites, as well as the spiritual and social ties, extended from the traditional past to the present, with the recorded and known sites dating from pre-contact to contact with non-indigenous people and post-contact periods and demonstrated continuity of occupation and knowledge in relation to country.
23 The report found that many sites were connected and were not spatially confined or site restrictive, with connections between stations such as a pathway between Camboon and Hawkwood. Letters written in the 1930s were found to reflect continuous occupation with information about Aboriginal people "bred and born in the district", and to highlight that connections between Camboon and Hawkwood continued into the post-contact period. Documentation of "glass artefacts within archaeological sites; the use of metal axes; station and other camps from 1855 to the 1950s and fringe camps from the 1930s to the 1970s" provided evidence that occupation continued into the contact and post-contact periods.
24 In some areas a lack of recorded or known cultural heritage sites was considered by Ms Davies to reflect an area not subject to cultural heritage surveys and assessment, rather than indicating an absence of use. She considered in summarising the evidence of prior Aboriginal occupation that the cultural landscape in which the Project Area is located is a "living interwoven mosaic of spiritual and social ties".
25 The connection material was assessed by the State for the purpose of determining whether a credible basis for the Auburn Hawkwood Claim existed, and whether the requirements of s 223(1) were met. Queries raised by the State following its assessment of the connection material were addressed by the provision of additional evidence. Following the provision of that material the parties entered into negotiations over the terms by which the Auburn Hawkwood Claim could be resolved by consent.