REEVES J:
1 On 14 April 2009, Russell Doctor, Arthur Georgetown, Cheryl Moggs, Tony Turnbull, George Hopkins, Gary Woodbridge and Veronica Jarrett, acting as the authorised applicant of the Bigambul People, applied in accordance with the provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the NTA) for a determination that native title exists over certain land and waters in the South Western Downs region of Queensland (the Bigambul application).
2 The claim area of the Bigambul application covers approximately 20,000 square kilometres. It encompasses country watered by the Weir River and its tributaries. Its southern limit is defined in part by the Macintyre River (which becomes the Barwon River at its junction with the Weir River) and a portion of the Dumaresq River. The Moonie River defines part of its western boundary. In the north, it extends to encompass Western Creek (a tributary of the Weir River) and in the east, Cecil Plains and Texas. Goondiwindi is the largest town in the claim area.
3 There were three earlier native title determination applications lodged or filed by the Bigambul People. The first of those was lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal on 22 September 1998. That application was dismissed on 18 August 2000. Two further applications were filed with this Court, one in 2001 and the other in 2008. Those applications were either dismissed or discontinued. The current application was initially accepted for registration on 4 June 2009 and remains on the Register of Native Title Claims.
4 The remaining respondents to the Bigambul application are: the Goondiwindi, Toowoomba and Western Downs Regional Councils; the Balonne Shire Council; Ergon Energy Corporation Limited; Telstra Corporation Limited; and various mining and pastoral entities.
5 On 18 October 2016, the Court made orders splitting the Bigambul application into Parts A and B. Bigambul Part A comprises the vast majority of the claim area. It is described in considerable detail in Schedule 1 of the orders I will make today. Bigambul Part B comprises six lots within the claim area in relation to which the Bigambul Applicant has disputed whether the grants over those lots of previous exclusive possession acts under s 23B of the NTA have resulted in the extinguishment of native title rights and interests with respect to them. That issue is awaiting the outcome of an appeal to the Full Court from my decision in Doyle on behalf of the Iman People #2 v State of Queensland [2016] FCA 13.
6 The parties have now informed the Court that they have reached agreement to resolve the Bigambul application in relation to all of the Bigambul Part A portion of the claim area. Accordingly, they have requested that the Court make a determination of native title under s 87A of the NTA in the terms of the agreement filed with the Court on 11 November 2016 (the s 87A agreement). Since this agreement relates to a part of the claim area covered by the application, I am satisfied that s 87A applies to it (see s 87A(1)(b)).
7 I have made orders by consent in a number of native title determination applications in recent times and on each occasion I have commented on the length of time it has taken to finally determine those applications (see, for example, Kearns on behalf of the Gunggari People #2 v State of Queensland [2012] FCA 651, Doyle on behalf of the Iman People #2 v State of Queensland [2016] FCA 743 and Congoo on behalf of the Bar Barrum People #2 v State of Queensland [2016] FCA 693). Some of those applications had been filed in the Court as long as 20 years ago. In those judgments, I made specific reference to the Court's grave concern regarding the length of time it is taking to finalise native title applications. The same concern arises with this matter. By comparison to the proceedings referred to above, the fact that this application was filed approximately 7½ years ago would make it relatively young. However, that ignores the fact that the first Bigambul application was lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal about 18½ years ago (see at [3] above). In that period, many of the knowledgeable Bigambul elders have undoubtedly passed away without seeing their native title recognised. To attempt to avoid this state of affairs and to attempt to reduce these sorts of delays occurring in its native title lists, in recent years, particularly since the 2009 amendments to the NTA and the introduction of Pt VB to the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the Court has sought to make full use of its case management powers.
8 As is already mentioned above, in this matter, the power of the Court to give effect to the parties' agreement is founded on s 87A of the NTA. That section sets out the various conditions which will trigger the jurisdiction of the Court in the event that the parties reach agreement on the terms of an order to resolve a proceeding where the agreement relates to a part of the claim area (s 87A(1)(b)). The first condition is that the notice period under s 66 of the NTA must have ended prior to the parties' written agreement being filed with the Court (s 87A(1)(b)). The National Native Title Tribunal's notification of the Bigambul application was completed in 2009 and so that condition has been met. Secondly, the agreement of the parties must relate to an area (the determination area) which is included in the area covered by the application (s 87A(1)(b)). As I have already observed above, in this instance the agreement of the parties relates to Part A of the Bigambul application, which comprises the vast majority of the claim area, so that condition is also met. Thirdly, all of the parties described in s 87A(1)(c) must be parties to the agreement. The Commonwealth of Australia withdrew as a party in 2015. Aside from it, all the other parties there described are parties to the s 87A agreement. Fourthly, the terms of the agreement must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of those parties (s 87A(1)(d)). It is apparent from the s 87A agreement filed with the Court on 11 November 2016 that that condition has also been met.
9 Having satisfied those matters, the next condition is that the Court must be satisfied that an order in the terms of the order sought, or an order consistent with those terms, would be within the power of the Court (s 87A(4)(a)). An order will be within the power of the Court if it complies with s 94A of the NTA, if the rights and interests included in the proposed determinations are recognisable by the common law of Australia and if there is no other determination in existence over the area the subject of the proposed determinations.
10 Section 94A requires the Court, in making a determination, to set out the details of the matters mentioned in s 225 of the NTA. Section 225 outlines the content of a determination of native title as:
A determination of native title is a determination whether or not native title exists in relation to a particular area (the determination area) of land and 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.
(Emphasis in original; note omitted)
11 Having regard to the materials described below (at [15]-[23]) and having examined the draft consent determination attached to the s 87A agreement, I am satisfied that each of the matters outlined in s 94A is properly articulated therein. I am also satisfied that there is no other determination of native title in existence over any part of the determination area. Finally, I am satisfied that the native title rights and interests of the Bigambul People in the determination area are recognisable by the common law of Australia.
12 As to the remaining subsections of s 87A (with the exception of s 87A(4)(b): see below), in accordance with s 87A(3), on 14 November 2016, a Registrar of the Court gave notice to all remaining parties that the proposed determination had been filed with the Court. No objections were made by any of the other parties so the provisions of s 87A(8) do not arise for consideration in this instance. As well, none of the parties has elected to file an agreed statement of facts for the purposes of this proposed determination so I do not need to concern myself with ss 87A(9) to 87A(12) inclusive.
13 The final condition the parties need to meet in order to have the Court make a consent determination under s 87A of the NTA concerns the operation of s 87A(4)(b). That section requires the Court to be satisfied that it is appropriate to make a determination in terms of the parties' agreement.
14 In Nelson v Northern Territory of Australia (2010) 190 FCR 344; [2010] FCA 1343 (at [5]-[13]), I canvassed the authorities that identified the factors to which the Court will routinely have regard in determining this question of "appropriateness" under s 87. In my view, the same factors apply to s 87A. It is not necessary for me to repeat all those observations here, it will suffice to set out the concluding summary as follows (at [14]):
It follows from all these considerations that the central issue in an application for a consent determination under s 87 is whether there exists a free and informed agreement between the parties. In this respect, the process followed by the State party respondent, particularly how it goes about assessing the underlying evidence as to the existence of native title is critical. Other critical factors, all directed to the processes that lead to the agreement and what was agreed, that have been previously identified by the Court include: whether the parties have independent and competent legal representation..; whether the terms of the proposed order are unambiguous and clear …; and whether the agreement has been preceded by a mediation process …
15 The s 87A agreement in this matter was reached after extensive mediation, case management and expert conferences. In that process, the following reports were commissioned and filed by the various parties at different stages:
(a) Anthropological Expert Reports of Mr Michael Niblett - June 2003 and January 2008;
(b) Bigambul Native Title Determination Application Report of Ms Karen L McFadden - December 2008;
(c) Anthropology Reports prepared for Queensland South Native Title Services by Dr Anna Kenny - 27 June 2011 and 16 January 2015;
(d) Anthropological Report of Mr Nathan Woolford - October 2012;
(e) Expert Genealogical Report: Bigambul Research Area of Ms Kate Waters - 16 January 2015;
(f) Expert Historical Report: Bigambul Research Area of Ms Kate Waters - 6 January 2015;
(g) Supplementary Anthropology Report of Dr Fiona Powell - 23 February 2015;
(h) Anthropological Assessment of the Expert and Lay Evidence Filed for the Bigambul Native Title Claim of Mr Daniel Leo - February 2015.
16 The Bigambul Applicant has filed detailed submissions in support of this proposed consent determination. Those submissions explain that this determination will recognise that native title is held by the descendants of the following people who are identified in the Genealogical Report of Ms Waters (see [15(e)] above):
(a) Nellie Yumbeina;
(b) Queen Susan of Welltown;
(c) Jack Noble;
(d) Sally Murray;
(e) Susan (mother of Duncan Daniels); or
(f) Jack and James Armstrong.
17 The submissions also refer to a number of affidavits provided by members of the Bigambul claim group: Ms Daphne Jarrett, Mr Cyril Logan, Ms Katherine Hippi, Mr Herbert Noble, Mr Leslie Woodbridge and Ms Jennifer Clevens. Those affidavits illustrate in detail the transmission of the stories that support the beliefs held by the Bigambul People as they relate to hunting of kangaroo, possum, turkey, goanna and bandicoot and the collection and preparation of bush tucker. For example, in his affidavit, Mr Herbert Noble refers to being taught to hunt and fish by his father and uncles to provide food. He has said that porcupine was his favourite meal and was cooked in fire pits. All of the deponents speak of learning about the observance of their traditional laws and customs and the kinship of the claim group from grandparents and parents.
18 This direct evidence from the Bigambul claimants in relation to the exercise of their native title rights and interests is supplemented by the extensive anthropological material outlined above. For example, in her Report dated 27 June 2011, Dr Kenny (see at [15(c)] above) examines the laws and customs that give rise to the rights and interests in land which she says derive from a broader regional society that includes a number of individual groups holding tenurial rights to particular stretches of country in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales. In that Report, Dr Kenny says:
277 The Bigambul and their neighbours such as the Kamilaroi, Yuwaalaraay and Mandandanji as well as other groups such as the Kooma acknowledge and observe the same body of laws and customs relating to rights and interests in land and waters. They and others constitute the society that acknowledges a common system of laws and customs in relation to the acquisition and possession of rights and interests in land.
278 Therefore, the common body of laws and customs that determined and determines the ownership of country was and is adhered to on both 'local' and regional level by the claimants and the other groups of their regional society. The rights and interests held in a country were endorsed within and amongst the relevant groups of the regional society who acknowledged and observed the same system of laws and customs in relation to land and waters.
19 European settlement of the claim area commenced when Mr Allan Cunningham led the first expedition into the Darling Downs in 1827. Dr Powell's report refers to records which show that land was first taken up along the Macintyre River in the late 1830s and, by the second half of the 1840s, pastoral stations were:
[e]stablished along the frontages on both sides of the Macintyre River with the lower Weir River frontages taken up soon after. The pastoral occupation of the lower Moonie frontages was slower. The late 1840s saw pastoralists moving up the lower Moonie and downstream from the headwaters, but it was not until the second half of the 1850s that the whole of the frontages had been taken up (Waters 2015a:18).
20 The establishment of the pastoral industry allowed many Bigambul People to maintain their connection to their country and family. Dr Kenny, at paragraph 465 of her 27 June 2011 Report, says that:
Aboriginal men were employed as stockmen, drovers, stickpickers, woodcutters, ringbarkers, fencers and station hands. Aboriginal women were mainly employed as domestic servants and cooks. Bigambul people appear to have lived and worked on stations for generations, which facilitated the intergenerational transmission of some traditional skills and knowledge about country. Thus, station work allowed Aboriginal people to remain on or close to their country and to maintain local and ecological knowledge.
21 And further (at paragraph 494):
The management and dissemination of traditional knowledge, including appropriate social conduct, occurred through work and residence on pastoral properties and in the tightly knit fringe camps or reserves at or near such places as Boggabilla, Goondiwindi, Toobeah, Bungunya, and Mungundi.
22 The Bigambul Applicant relies on all this evidence to demonstrate the continued acknowledgement and observance of a range of Bigambul laws and customs with respect to cultural knowledge, spiritual beliefs, sites, decision making and resource use to support exclusive native title rights over that part of the determination area which is described in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the proposed orders (other than in relation to the use and enjoyment of water) and the non-exclusive native title rights (other than in relation to the use and enjoyment of water) over the determination area, which is described in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the proposed orders.
23 Having regard to the evidence summarised above, the submissions of the Bigambul Applicant, the fact that all the parties have had the advantage of competent legal representation and the fact I have already mentioned above, that the proposed consent determination was preceded by an intense process of mediation, case management and expert conferences, I am satisfied that the parties have reached a free and informed agreement to seek a consent determination of the Bigambul native title rights and interests in the claim area. Finally, I am also satisfied that the terms of the proposed orders are unambiguous and clear. I am therefore satisfied it is appropriate to make orders in the terms of the draft determination attached to the s 87A agreement.
24 Pursuant to s 56(2) of the NTA, the Bigambul Applicant has nominated the Bigambul Native Title Aboriginal Corporation ICN 8479 (the Corporation) to be the prescribed body corporate to hold the native title of the claimant group in trust following the making of this determination. The Corporation was registered on 20 September 2016. That nomination is in writing and the Corporation has given its consent to it. I am therefore satisfied that the relevant requirements of the NTA and of the Native Title (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999 (Cth) have been met.
25 For these reasons, I am satisfied that the Bigambul Applicant and the other parties have met all the conditions set out in s 87A of the NTA to allow me to make the determination of native title that they have sought in the s 87A agreement. I will therefore proceed to make orders consistent with the determination proposed by the parties in that agreement.
26 The achievement of a settlement of a native title claim by agreement is to be encouraged and the work and commitment of all those involved to be commended. In particular, it is worth mentioning that this agreement could not have been achieved without the cooperation and goodwill of all the parties, the guidance provided to them by their legal, anthropological and other advisers and the assistance provided by the Court's Native Title Registrars and staff. Finally, I would make this concluding observation. The orders that I will now make determine, under the laws of Australia, that native title exists in the determination area according to the traditional laws and customs of the Bigambul People. It is, however, important to record that this determination, made as it is under the NTA, does not grant native title to the Bigambul People. Instead, it recognises, under the laws of Australia, the native title the Bigambul People have long held in the determination area under their traditional laws and customs.
I certify that the preceding twenty-six (26) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Reeves.