REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This application for the determination of native title rights and interests under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Native Title Act) has proceeded much more quickly than past experience would have dictated. The application was made on 17 December 2010, so it is almost to the day two and a half years to its finalisation by the consent orders which are made with this judgment. That is a matter of great credit to the Tjayiwara Unmuru People, to Mr De Rose and Ms Anderson who bore the responsibility of progressing the claim on their behalf as their authorised representatives, to the State of South Australia, and to the pastoral lessees who have leases over part of the claim area, Lyndavale Pty Ltd and Tieyon Pastoral Co Pty Ltd and the two miners who have exploration licences over part of the claim area, Tianda Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd and Tianda Uranium (Australia) Pty Ltd.
2 The area to be the subject of recognition of native title is a significant area in the central northern part of South Australia, part of the much larger Western Desert region of Australia over which the Tjayiwara Unmuru People share traditional laws and customs with other Western Desert groups. It adjoins the area of the earlier De Rose Hill native title claim (SAD 253 of 2002).
3 The determination area is described in detail in Schedule 1 to the Orders and depicted in the map in Schedule 2 (the Determination Area). It is important to stress some important more general matters.
4 The first is that, by the determination of native title rights and interests over the Determination Area, the Tjayiwara Unmuru People are being recognised on behalf of all the people of Australia as the Aboriginal peoples who inhabited this country prior to European settlement. The preamble to the Native Title Act recognised, on behalf of all the people of Australia, that the Aboriginal peoples of Australia variously inhabited this country for many years prior to European settlement, and that they were progressively dispossessed of their lands. It recorded that by the overwhelming vote of the people of Australia, the Constitution was amended to enable laws such as the Native Title Act to be passed to facilitate recognition of the native title rights and interests of Aboriginal peoples in their land. The determination that the Tjayiwara Unmuru People were and are the traditional owners of the land we are on is a recognition of that status. It is important to emphasise that the Court does not grant that status. It declares that it exists, and has always existed at least since European settlement. The determination is made recognising the existence of native title rights and interests with the consent of the State of South Australia, and all the respondents whose interests might be affected by the orders made today. It is therefore a community recognition of that status.
5 It is also important to note that the Native Title Act by its Preamble recognises that European settlement did progressively dispossess Aboriginal peoples in whole or in part of their lands, largely without compensation, and in significant respects at least to date without reaching a lasting and equitable agreement with Aboriginal peoples concerning the use of their lands. The parties to this application have, following their negotiations, recognised that primary status of the Tjayiwara Unmuru People over this land and the significance of certain acts made before the 1993 Native Title Act which affected that status. All the parties present have obviously approached the negotiations in good faith to agree upon the Orders made today. Such a task was no doubt a challenging one. The Court encourages resolution of claims such as the present claim by giving effect to the agreement of the parties where it is appropriate to do so.
6 However, the Court must be satisfied in terms of s 87 of the Native Title Act, that it should make the determination of native title by consent as proposed. The Tjayiwara Unmuru People and the State have together filed the following documents:
1. Minute of proposed orders and determination of native title by consent;
2. Submissions of the Tjayiwara Unmuru People and of the State;
7 Section 87 enables the Court to make such a determination without a hearing under certain conditions. They are:
(a) the period specified in the notice given under s 66 of the Native Title Act has 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));
(b) 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));
(c) the Court is satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, those terms would be within its power (s 87(1)(c)); and
(d) the Court considers that it would be appropriate to make the order sought (ss 87(1A) and (3)).
8 In addition, the Court should have regard to the following before making determinations of native title by consent orders:
(a) whether all parties likely to be affected by an order have had independent and competent legal representation;
(b) whether the rights and interests that are to be declared in the determination are recognisable by the law of Australia or the State in which the land is situated;
(c) whether all of the requirements of the Native Title Act have been complied with.
See generally Munn for and on behalf of the Gunggari People v Queensland (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [29] and [31]-[32] per Emmett J.
9 The focus of the Court in considering whether the orders sought are appropriate under s 87 is on the making of the agreement by the parties. That is because the Native Title Act is designed to encourage parties to take responsibility for resolving proceedings without the need for litigation. That is why, when the Court is examining the appropriateness of an agreement, it is not required to examine whether the agreement is grounded on a factual basis which would satisfy the Court at a hearing of the application. The primary consideration of the Court is to determine whether there is an agreement and whether it was freely entered into on an informed basis. It will be influenced by whether the State party has taken steps to satisfy itself that there is a credible basis for an application.
10 Therefore, the Court does not need to embark on its own full inquiry of the merits of the claim made in the application to be satisfied that the orders sought are supportable and in accordance with the law: Cox on behalf of the Yungngora People v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 588 at [3] per French J. However, it might consider that evidence for the limited purpose of being satisfied that the State is acting in good faith and rationally: Munn for and on behalf of the Gunggari People v Queensland (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [29]-[30] per Emmett J.
11 State governments are necessarily obliged to subject claims for native title over lands and waters owned and occupied by the State and State agencies, to scrutiny just as carefully as the community would expect in relation to claims by non-Aborigines to significant rights over such land: Smith v Western Australia (2000) 104 FCR 494 at [38] per Madgwick J.
12 Reeves J in Nelson v Northern Territory (2010) 190 FCR 344; [2010] FCA 1343 at [12]-[13] said:
It is appropriate to make some comments about the difficult balance a State party needs to strike between its role in protecting the community's interests, including the stringency of the process it follows in assessing the underlying evidence going to the existence of native title, and its role in the native title system as a whole, to ensure that it, like the Court and all other parties, takes a flexible approach that is aimed at facilitating negotiation and achieving agreement. In Lovett North J commented:
…
The power conferred by the Act on the Court to approve agreements is given in order to avoid lengthy hearings before the Court. The Act does not intend to substitute a trial, in effect, conducted by State parties for a trial before the Court. Thus, something significantly less than the material necessary to justify a judicial determination is sufficient to satisfy a State party of a credible basis for an application. The Act contemplates a more flexible process than is often undertaken in some cases.
See Lander v State of South Australia [2012] FCA 427 and the cases cited therein.
13 The State has developed a process for assessing the evidence in native title claims against the requirements of the Native Title Act. This process is outlined in the State's policy document Consent Determinations in South Australia: A Guide to Preparing Native Title Reports (the State's CD Policy).
14 Having assessed the evidence presented by the applicants (the Evidence) in accordance with the State's CD Policy, the State is satisfied that a consent determination is appropriate for the Determination Area as set out in the consent determination. That material is available as required.
15 As noted, this claim is over an area that adjoins the determined De Rose Hill native title claim. It involves many of the same persons who have been determined to be native title holders in that area. It is sensible that both the applicants and the State have, therefore, relied on the extensive evidence given in the course of that matter. However, as the claim area is different and the composition of the claim group includes some other persons, it was nevertheless appropriate to procure and consider further evidence to validate the inclusion of the new claimants in the claim group and to substantiate the contemporary traditional activities and connection to the particular claim area.
16 The further evidence consisted of:
(a) the native title application Form 1, and in particular Attachment G with affidavits from Whiskey Tjukanku, George Kenmore, Peter De Rose, Lucy Waniwa Lester and Leroy Lester;
(b) a document entitled Draft Statement of Facts - Contemporary Connection (which asserts that the substantial evidentiary material provided during the De Rose claim establishes the claimants' contemporary connection to the claim area),
(c) a Report on the Tjayiwara Unmuru Native Title Determination Application prepared by Susan Woenne-Green and additional statements from Peter De Rose, David Frank, Martin Thompson, Tjaruwa Anderson, Hughie Cullinan, Julie Anderson, Angkuna Baker, Christine De Rose, Jeannie Minungka and Tillie Yaltjangki.
Ms Woenne-Green is an anthropologist with extensive experience in the Western Desert Bloc and did much of the preparatory anthropological work for the De Rose claim. She has also had considerable professional experience with the De Rose Hill native title holders, conducting extensive fieldwork in the De Rose and Tjayiwara Unmuru claim areas and neighbouring Yankunytjatjara and Eringa areas.
(d) The assessment of the material by a consultant anthropologist, Mr Kim McCaul, engaged by the State. Mr McCaul was also closely involved in the earlier De Rose claim.
17 All of the evidence submitted by the applicants, as well as Mr McCaul's assessment, was reviewed by independent counsel experienced in the requirements under the Native Title Act. His opinion is that a decision by the State to consent to Orders recognising native title in favour of the claim group over the claim area would be justifiable on the basis of the material before him.
18 A position paper explaining the basis for the State's view was distributed to all other respondent parties in December 2012.
19 Section 223 of the Native Title Act defines native title as:
(1) ... the communal, group or individual rights and interests of Aboriginal peoples … 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 …; and
(b) the Aboriginal peoples …, 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.
20 Section 223(1) of the Native Title Act has been considered extensively by the High Court, most notably in Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422 (Yorta Yorta). Subsequently, several Federal Court judges have summarised the relevant principles, including in Risk v Northern Territory [2006] FCA 404 at [44]-[58] and Summary [8] (Risk).
21 A threshold requirement is that the evidence shows that there is a recognisable group or society that presently recognises and observes traditional laws and customs in the Determination Area. In defining that group or society, the following must also be addressed:
(a) That they are a society united in and by their acknowledgement and observance of a body of accepted laws and customs;
(b) That the present day body of accepted laws and customs of the society in essence is the same body of laws and customs acknowledged and observed by the ancestors or members of the society adapted to modern circumstances; and
(c) That the acknowledgement and observance of those laws and customs has continued substantially uninterrupted by each generation since sovereignty, and that the society has continued to exist throughout that period as a body united in and by its acknowledgment and observance of those laws and customs.
22 The claim group must show that they still possess rights and interests under the traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional customs observed by them, and that those laws and customs give them a connection to the land: Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1 at [64]; Yorta Yorta at [84]-[86].
23 The native title claim group identifies themselves as Yankunytjatjara people with some Pitjantjatjara ancestry. The claim group membership substantially mirrors that found to hold native title in the De Rose determination. The congruence might be expected given the relatively small size of this claim and its shared border with the determined De Rose claim. The evidence suggests that the Yankunytjatjara people have always moved freely between the pastoral stations that make up the De Rose and Tjayiwara Unmuru areas.
24 The Yankunytjatjara are recognised as part of the Western Desert Bloc (WDB) society. This bloc consists of a number of groups of people who speak variants of a single language that are mutually intelligible (at least in the case of adjacent groups) and have similar culture. Their country includes vast areas of Australia's interior from Western Australia, into the north-west of South Australia and the south-west of the Northern Territory.
25 The definition of the WDB society, as accepted by the Federal Court in De Rose v South Australia (No 2) (2005) 145 FCR 290 (De Rose (No 2)), recognises that persons are Nguraritja (traditional owners) by virtue of a number of principles, specifically:
(a) he or she was born on the claim area, or;
(b) he or she has a long-term physical association with the claim area, or;
(c) he or she possesses an ancestral connection to the claim area, or;
(d) he or she possesses geographical and religious knowledge of the claim area
and he or she is recognised as Nguraritja by the other Nguraritja.
26 The native title claim group in the Tjayiwara Unmuru claim differs slightly from the claim group in De Rose, and relates to land that was previously the subject of the Eringa native title claim. As Peter De Rose stated:
Tjayiwara Unmuru is Yankunytjatjara country. There is tjukurpa that marks our country, and there is tjukurpa east of Tieyon that is not our country. For example, there is a tjukurpa site east of Mount Irwin that is not in our claim. That is not Yankunytjatjara. That is not my ngura [country] over there.
Another example is Mungapiti. That is Yankunytjatjara tjukurpa and that is why it is in the Tjayiwara Unmuru claim, not the Eringa claim. That is why their country stops at Tjayiwara. It is the same tjukurpa, but their tjukurpa stops at Mungapiti. Yankunytjatjara takes over that tjukurpa from Mungapiti. They won't know the ngintaka tjukurpa from Mungapiti.
27 Similarly, Martin Thompson stated:
Mungapiti is next to Tieyon. It is Ngintaka tjukurpa. There is a handover of who can speak for that country. That is called mayunganyi. Old people sing the songs, they come to a certain point, and then another person takes over and he has to start singing. That is called kanyinma, meaning someone else holding that law.
Mungapiti is also a common area though. Mungapiti is Yankunytjatjara Country and it belongs to the Tjayiwara mob. The Traditional Owners can go there.
There is Katukatu, or an overlap, because there is lots of tucker and water there. So it is a common area.
28 On specific inclusions in the Tjayiwara Unmuru claim, Martin Thompson continues:
Howard Doolan is from Tieyon, he was born in Tieyon, that dog place. That is why Howard is on the Tjayiwara Claim. He is Papa tjukurpa. Lucy Lester was also born there, she is also Papa tjukurpa. So, through them being born there, and through the tjukurpa, they are connected to Tieyon. Mt Cavenagh, Tieyon, is all ngura kutja, all one country.
29 Although that material might support the limitation of the claim group as expressed in the proposed determination by a further element of biological descent from named apical ancestors, other WDB determinations are in accord with the proposed description of the claim group and the Court is satisfied in the circumstances that it is both appropriate on fact and to properly identify a claim group capable of recognition by the State as part of the WDB society, and to satisfy the requirements of the Native Title Act.
30 Further negotiation with the claimants on the claim group description resulted in the amendment of the description to comply with the accepted principle-based formulation set out above at paragraph 25. Accordingly, the State is satisfied that there is an identifiable claim group capable of recognition by the State as part of the WDB society.
31 In De Rose (No 2) at [8], the Court summarised its findings in De Rose v South Australia (2003) 133 FCR 325 at [278]-[280] as follows:
The evidence amply supported the proposition that, whatever the degree of acknowledgment or observance of traditional laws and customs by the appellants themselves, Western Desert society had continued to exist since sovereignty and the traditional laws and customs of that society had been acknowledged and observed substantially uninterrupted throughout that period.
32 As undisputed members of the WDB society (and comprising many of the same people referred to as appellants by the Full Court in the above quotation), the Court agrees with the acknowledgment of the State that the contemporary native title claimants' society is directly linked to the native title holders at sovereignty.
33 Moreover, the evidence supports the continued existence and observance of the traditional laws and customs. The claimants give accounts of travelling through the claim area, hunting and gathering traditional foods and being taught about the tjukurpa (dreaming) sites and the associated stories relating to how ancestral creatures created significant features of the landscape (such as waterholes) in the course of their progress across the land. From the time of sovereignty through until the present time, the claimants, their ancestors, and their descendants have continued to celebrate these tjukurpa narratives for the land.
34 This knowledge has been passed down from generation to generation and connects the claimants not only to one another but also to the physical and spiritual country of the land. In Peter De Rose's words:
My father, …, would teach me all of these things. We would go around Tieyon all the time, at least once every year.
35 Similarly, Hughie Cullinan says of his traditional education:
I was taught about the country of Tjayiwara by [the father of Peter De Rose]. We would go around hunting for kangaroo, emu and perentie.
I still go hunting in Tieyon, especially for malu. [Mr Kunmanara De Rose] taught me where to go, so I know that place.
36 David Frank concurred stating:
The old people would tell me about the tjukurpa for Unmuru. That was only after I was made a man, not when I was a young fella. I had to go through the Law before I was told those things.
37 The evidence is that personal interpretations of the Nguraritja rule satisfy a person's particular life circumstances and are consistent with the traditions of WDB people. These traditions provide for an individual's ability to connect to multiple areas, a feature with high survival value in this highly arid country, and are also well attested for giving rise to sometimes intense internal controversy about interests in land.
38 Also relevant to this issue is the observation of the Court in De Rose (No 2) at [83] that:
… the findings and the evidence point strongly to a number of appellants … genuinely believing in the Tjukurpa and in the sacredness of particular sites.
The Court further observed at [90] that the evidence presented by Peter De Rose and a number of other members in the claim group demonstrated that they "… regarded themselves as bound at all times by the rules for determining Nguraritja for particular country" and as such continued to possess rights and interests in relation to the claim area under the traditional laws and customs of the WDB society.
39 Consequently, the Court agrees with the State that there is sufficient evidence of the continued existence and vitality of a system of law and custom, substantially uninterrupted since sovereignty, among the claim group.
40 In assessing the connection evidence provided by the claimants, Mr McCaul observed that daily life was focussed around the stations of Tieyon, Mt Cavanagh (Ayers Range South) and Sundown, with people using a wider area for hunting, gathering and camping. Mr McCaul acknowledged the existence of tjukurpa sites in the claim area, and concluded that there are a range of spiritual connections across the claim area, linking the Nguraritja to country.
41 For example, Tjaruwa Anderson describes her connection in the following terms:
The reason why this is our country is because one of our tjukurpa, the Ngintaka (Perentie) tjukurpa came through into our country north of Tieyon Homestead. The Ngintaka came into our country through the northeast corner of the Tjayiwara Unmuru claim boundary.
The tjukurpa, to me, is telling us where we belong on the country and what country belongs to us. What we know through our tjukurpa stops us from claiming country that belongs to other people even if it is through other parts of the same tjukurpa.
42 In a similar vein, Julie Anderson says of her connection:
When I say it makes me happy, it is like my heart is glad. That feeling comes from the tjukurpa, my tjukurpa, and also from good memories. When I am away from my country, it is like my heart is blocked. But when I got back to my country, it is like my heart is open and free.
43 Claimant David Frank is more pragmatic, describing his connection in bare terms:
There was always lots of bush tucker at Unmuru, including bush tomatoes, witchetty grub and honey ant. The women and the children would collect them. The men would go hunting for Malu, kangaroo.
There is lots of kapi, water, at Unmuru, and we would always drink that. That water would stay there for a long time for us to drink. We camped there because there was plenty of water that would stay for a couple of years. We would've all died without that water and the old people wouldn't have taken us there unless we could camp.
44 It is a principle under WDB traditional law and customs that the claimants have responsibility for the tjukurpa and the sacred sites and ancestral tracks, and they exercise authority over other members of the WDB society in relation to them. These sites are linked to each other, to the country and to the claimants. In Martin Thompson's words:
I look after the Tieyon area, I watch over those places because I have been shown that Country because I married [name deleted for cultural purposes]. Artumananyi means to look after and protect sites. It is like being a guardian over those places. That's what I do for Tieyon.
45 Similarly, David Frank has said:
I am nguaritja for all that area. That is my place.
Because I am nguaritja, people must ask me for permission to go on to that Country. People can go hunting in the area but if they want to use a motor car, they need to ask permission. That is because they could damage the tjukurpa through that area. I have to look after that Country.
46 The tjukurpa and the associated sites within the Tjayiwara Unmuru area encompass the following major ancestral creatures:
(a) Kalaya (Emu);
(b) Kurpany ("Mamu") and Mala (Rufous Hare Wallaby) which join together with Kalaya;
(c) Malu (Kangaroo), Kanyala (Euro) and Tjurki (Owlet Nightjar) (usually conflated when referring to it in public as "Malu"; and
(d) Kungkaralya (Seven Sisters);
(e) The Pakalira tjukurpa is represented within the claim area, but all information concerning the tjukurpa, except the name, is specifically restricted to senior male claimants and a number of other senior men;
(f) Maku (edible grub) tjukurpa. Both Maku locations on the land are restricted completely in terms of physical access, and both Pakalira and Maku sites and all associated tjukurpa are associated only with senior men at a "very high" (completely gender-restricted) level; and
(g) Ngintaka (Perentie) tjukurpa.
47 The evidence in De Rose and the statements and affidavits provided in connection with this claim indicate that under the relevant traditional laws and customs those who were Nguraritja in relation to land had rights and responsibilities in connection with the tjukurpa sites on the land, and that any claimants who possess rights and interests under the traditional laws and customs would be most unlikely to encounter any difficulty in demonstrating their connection to the land.
48 On consideration of the evidence provided, the Court agrees with the State that it is appropriate to accept that the native title claim group's traditional laws and customs give them a connection to the claim area.
49 The rights and interests which it is contemplated will be recognised through a native title determination are set out at paragraph 4 of the consent determination.
50 These rights are consistent with rights recognised by the Federal Court elsewhere in South Australia and they align with those recognised by the Court in De Rose (No 2) at [112].
51 The evidence provides that a number of claimants have camped, hunted and gathered on the claim area. For example:
(a) In relation to camping, Peter De Rose said:
I would go to Ngatiri, Wipa, and Kulpitjara near Tjiti Tjiti. We camped near Kulpitjara. Sometimes we go out to that area for one day to get perentie.
Tillie Yaltjangki remembers that:
Our family used to travel between these places on my brother [Mr Kunmanarai De Rose's] camels.
Angkuna Baker remembers travelling across the claim area:
We used to go between Sundown and Tieyon, and walk. It would take about one night and in between we camped and then we would get to the Station on the next day.
(b) in relation to hunting and gathering, Hughie Cullinan said:
We would usually go hunting in the northern part of Tjayiwara. We would get perentie where all the small rocks are. That is a good area for perentie.
Peter De Rose remembers gathering the bush tucker:
We would get lots of bush tucker like kangaroo, perentie, echidna, bush tomatoes, witchetty grubs and quandongs. Only men would hunt the kangaroo. But the women would still get sand goannas. The echidnas are everywhere and are very easy to catch; you can easily see their tracks and just grab them. Quandongs would be out in the spring time.
52 The claimants also continue to observe the laws in relation to the tjukurpa sites and teach the associated stories to the next generation. The division between men's and women's knowledge continues, as Peter De Rose explains:
There is also a tjukurpa that goes through the western part of the claim. I can't talk about that though. It is for men and is too heavy to talk about; it is mens' ngura millmillpa. [Mr Kunmanara De Rose] showed me that tjukurpa after I was made a man. Only men know and can talk about that tjukurpa. I need to talk to all the old men about this before I can share information about that tjukurpa.
53 Martin Thompson also provides an example:
There is another place near Tieyon Station, which isn't on the maps that were made for De Rose Hill. I have been shown that place, but I am not allowed to talk about it.
54 Tjaruwa Anderson also provided an example of current practice in the observance of laws and customs:
So today, if people visit our country like our water points, before they drink water or camp close by they have to throw a small rock into the pool to let the spirit of the water and country know that they are visitors that they are only visiting for a short time or are passing through.
As traditional owners, we have the right to take the water or camp close by without doing these things.
55 All of the cultural sites and areas associated with tjukurpa on the land are linked with cultural sites, areas and tjukurpa which extend beyond the boundaries of the claim. In particular, the tjukurpa of Kalaya, Kurpany and Mala, Malu, Ngintaka, and Kungkaralya are associated with linked sites on ancestral tracks, which extend a considerable geographical distance beyond the Determination Area in all four directions.
56 The Court accepts, on the material, that the native title rights and interests claimed arise from the claimants' traditional law and customs and that they have evolved from the native title rights and interests as they were likely to have been at sovereignty.
57 The State submits that there is no right or interest within the consent determination that would not be recognised by the laws of Australia.
58 Section 225 of the Native Title Act governs what the consent determination must include. The applicants and the State submit that the consent determination complies with each requirement. The consent determination defines the group of native title holders and the criteria by which they have group membership. Paragraphs 4 to 14 of the consent determination set out the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in the Determination Area. Paragraph 15 lists the nature and extent of other interests in the Determination Area. This has been the subject of some negotiation between the applicants and the State and various respondents. There has been ample opportunity for any other interest-holders in the area to identify themselves and join as parties to the claim, so it may be accepted as reliable especially as the State's comprehensive tenure searches have not identified any other relevant interest holders in the area.
59 Paragraph 16 of the consent determination describes the relationship between the native title rights in Paragraphs 4 to 14 and those other rights in Paragraph 15.
60 Finally, the land and waters in the Determination Area are covered entirely by non-exclusive pastoral leases. There are no exclusive native title rights in the Determination Area.
61 It is clear that the requirements of s 225 are met.
62 Agreement has been reached between all parties to the proceedings on the terms of the consent determination and signed copies of that determination have been filed with the Court. As noted, the Tjayiwara Unmuru native title claim was filed on 17 December 2010. Full notification by the National Native Title Tribunal under section 66 of the Native Title Act closed on 15 February 2012. The Court is satisfied that all relevant interest holders in the area have had an opportunity to take part in the proceedings.
63 The Court notes that South Australian Native Title Services Ltd, the native title service provider for the Determination Area, is not a party to the proceedings, and that the Commonwealth is not a party to the proceedings.
64 All parties have had independent and competent legal advice in the proceeding from solicitors well versed in native title law.
65 Schedule 1 to the consent determination contains a detailed description of the external boundary of the Determination Area. Schedule 3 to the consent determination contains a detailed description of those areas within the external boundary which have been excluded from the Determination Area because native title has been extinguished.
66 Section 87 of the Native Title Act allows the Court to make a consent determination in the native title proceeding even though the proceeding has not been heard by the Court. In light of the above, the Court is satisfied that it is appropriate to make a final determination over the Determination Area on the basis of the evidence presented by the applicants and with the support of the other respondents.