REEVES J:
1 In 2005 and 2006, Ms Elizabeth Dodd, Mr Andrew (Smokey) Anderson, Ms Gloria Santo, Ms Christine Hero and Ms Priscilla Michelle Huen, for and on behalf of the Gudjala People filed two native title determination applications with this Court: QUD 80 of 2005 and QUD 147 of 2006 (the applications). Both applications related to various areas of land and waters in and around Charters Towers in north Queensland.
2 In 2013, during the course of case management by a Registrar of the Court, the parties agreed that, save for certain areas that were affected by the existence of military orders issued pursuant to reg 54 of the National Security (General) Regulations 1939 (Cth) (the military orders areas), both of the applications could proceed to a consent determination over those parts of the claim area where, it was agreed, native title could exist. The military orders areas were identified in an affidavit of Michael Paul Everitt filed by the State of Queensland on 22 November 2013.
3 On 27 November 2013, programming orders were made in each proceeding permitting all parts of the claim area, except the military orders areas (Gudjala Part A in each of the applications) to proceed to a consent determination in accordance with s 87A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the NTA). On 18 March 2014, Gudjala Part A of each application was determined by Logan J (Dodd on behalf of the Gudjala People Core Country Claim #1 v State of Queensland (No 3) [2014] FCA 231 (Dodd)).
4 The question of extinguishment affecting the military orders areas was finally determined by the High Court in State of Queensland v Congoo (2015) 256 CLR 239; [2015] HCA 17. Soon thereafter, negotiations commenced for a final determination with respect to the military orders areas in each application.
5 The Gudjala Applicant and the remaining respondent parties, the State of Queensland, Charters Towers Regional Council, Flinders Shire Council, Ergon Energy Corporation Limited, Citigold Corporation Limited, Great Mines Pty. Ltd and various pastoralists, have now informed the Court that they have reached agreement on the terms of orders that should be made to determine the balance of the two proceedings (the proposed orders). The terms of that agreement were filed with the Court on 8 November 2016 (the s 87A agreement - see [6] below). Accordingly, the parties have requested that the Court make a determination of native title under s 87 of the NTA in, or consistent with, the terms of the proposed orders.
6 While the parties have described their agreement as an agreement that has been made under s 87 of the NTA, in the circumstances of these two applications, I consider the determinations with respect to the remaining parts of the claim areas must be dealt with under s 87A. That is so because these determinations will relate to a part - the remainder - of the area covered by the two applications (see s 87A(1)(b)) and not to a part of the proceedings (see s 87(1)(a)(ii)).
7 In practical terms, this distinction between s 87A and s 87 of the NTA is of little significance in these two matters. That is so because, while those sections of the NTA use different terminology and apply to different circumstances - s 87 to the settlement of a part of a proceeding and s 87A to a settlement relating to a part of a claim area in an application - the procedural and substantive conditions for the making of a consent determination in both sections are essentially the same. For example, s 87(1)(b) requiring the terms of the agreement to be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the parties; s 87(1A) requiring the Court to consider whether it is appropriate to make the orders sought; and s 87(1)(c) requiring the Court to be satisfied that the proposed orders are within the power of the Court, are reflected in almost identical terms in ss 87A(1)(d), 87A(4)(b) and 87A(4)(a), respectively.
8 The power of the Court to give effect to the parties' agreement is, in this instance, therefore 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 Gudjala #1 application was completed on 13 March 2006 and the Tribunal notification of the Gudjala #2 application was completed on 2 February 2011. Thus, that condition has been met.
9 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 the remaining parts of the two applications. Accordingly, that condition is also met. Thirdly, all of the parties described in s 87A(1)(c) must be parties to the agreement. That condition, too, is met because both the Gudjala Applicant on behalf of the Gudjala native title claim group and the remaining respondent parties (see at [5] above) are described as parties to the s 87A agreement. Fourthly, the terms of the agreement must be 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 8 November 2016 that condition has also been met.
10 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.
11 Section 94A requires the Court, in making a determination of native title, 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.
12 The expressions "native title" and "native title rights and interests" are defined in s 223 of the NTA. I have examined the terms of the proposed orders and I am satisfied that each of the matters referred to in s 225 of the NTA are appropriately articulated therein. Further, I am satisfied that the native title rights and interests that are proposed to be recognised in the proposed orders are of the kind defined in s 223, that is they are supported by the evidentiary material filed by the Gudjala Applicant, including the extensive anthropological reports by Dr Anthony Redmond and the historical report by Ms Val Donovan, and are therefore capable of recognition by the common law of Australia. Finally, I note that there is no other determination of native title in existence over each of the areas that are the subject of the orders I will make.
13 As to the remaining subsections of s 87A, since all the parties to these two applications are parties to the s 87A agreement, the notice requirements of s 87A(3) and the objection provisions of s 87A(8) do not arise for consideration in this matter. As well, none of the parties has elected to file an agreed statement of facts so I do not need to concern myself with ss 87A(9) to 87A(12) inclusive.
14 The final condition the parties need to meet in order to have the Court make a consent determination of native title concerns the operation of s 87A(4)(b) of the NTA. That section requires the Court to be satisfied that it is appropriate to make a determination in terms of the parties' agreement.
15 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". 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 …
See also the summary of the above matters set out in Pwerle v Northern Territory [2016] FCA 304 at [20] and the observations of Logan J in Dodd at [16]-[18].
16 In determining this question, first, I have been assisted by the outline of submissions filed by the Gudjala Applicant. Secondly, I have taken account of the review of the materials that were placed before the Court in Dodd to demonstrate that native title existed in Gudjala Part A (see Dodd at [23]-[33]). Since the areas in Gudjala Part A are geographically close to the military orders areas that are the subject of these determinations, I consider those materials can generally be translated to these claim areas. Thirdly, I take account of the fact that the s 87A agreement in this matter was reached after intensive case management on the part of a Registrar of this Court and throughout the proceedings, all the parties were represented by independent and competent lawyers. Finally, I consider the terms of the s 87A agreement which is filed with the Court are unambiguous and clear. I am therefore satisfied that the s 87A agreement of the parties was entered into on a free and informed basis.
17 Thus far, I have been addressing the native title related features of the proposed orders as raised by s 225(a) and s 225(b) of the NTA. It is convenient, next, to turn to, what I will describe as, the tenure-related issues raised by s 225(c) to s 225(e) inclusive. Those subsections are as follows:
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 or waters and, if it does exist, a determination of:
…
(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.
18 With respect to these tenure-related issues, I raised some concerns with the parties similar to those that I raised in Bar Barrum #5: see Kynuna on behalf of the Bar Barrum People #5 v State of Queensland [2016] FCA 1504 (Bar Barrum #5) at [38]-[46]. Subsequently, the parties provided an amended form of Schedules 2 and 4 to the proposed orders which:
(a) deleted the reference to s 47 of the NTA in clause 1(b) of Schedule 2 in both matters;
(b) deleted clause 7 from Gudjala #1 and clause 6 from Gudjala #2 of Schedule 4; and
(c) amended clauses 7 and 8 of Gudjala #1 and clauses 6 and 7 of Gudjala #2 in Schedule 4.
19 Having regard to the apposite provisions of the NTA, the observations I made in Bar Barrum #5 about the streamlined approach to tenure assessments at [29]-[36] and for the reasons stated in Bar Barrum #5: at [37]-[41] in relation to [18(a)] above, noting that in these two applications the claimants were pursuing claims under ss 47A and 47B, but not under s 47 of the NTA; at [44] in relation to [18(b)] above; and at [45] in relation to [18(c)] above; I consider these amendments were appropriate to be included in these determination orders.
20 As with the Gudjala Part A determinations, the native title rights and interests the subject of these determinations are not to be held on trust. That brings into operation the provisions of s 57 of the NTA, specifically s 57(2). It provides:
If the determination under section 56 is not as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, the Federal Court must take the following steps in determining which prescribed body corporate is, after becoming a registered native title body corporate, to perform the functions mentioned in subsection (3):
(a) first, it must request a representative of the common law holders to:
(i) nominate, in writing given to the Federal Court within a specified period, a prescribed body corporate for the purpose; and
(ii) include with the nomination the written consent of the body corporate;
(b) secondly, if a prescribed body corporate is nominated in accordance with the request, the Federal Court must determine that the body is to perform the functions;
(c) thirdly, if no prescribed body corporate is nominated in accordance with the request, the Federal Court must, in accordance with the regulations, determine which prescribed body corporate is to perform the functions.
21 The determination under s 57(1) mentioned in this subsection is a determination under s 56 that the native title rights and interests are to be held in trust. On 3 August 2016, the Gudjala Applicant filed a Notice of Nomination and Consent of the Prescribed Body Corporate nominating the Ngrragoonda Aboriginal Corporation ICN 7982 (the Corporation) to be the Prescribed Body Corporate to perform the functions set out in s 57(3) of the NTA. I therefore determine that the Corporation is the body corporate that is to perform those functions.
22 For these reasons, I am satisfied that all of the conditions in s 87A of the NTA have been met and it is appropriate to make determinations of native title that are consistent with the terms of the proposed orders, as amended, without holding a hearing.
I certify that the preceding twenty-two (22) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Reeves.