Drill on behalf of the Purnululu Native Title Claim Group v State of Western Australia

Federal Court of Australia|2022-12-19|Before: Mortimer J

BACKGROUND 7 These proceedings have a long history. As I noted in Drill at [2], disputes over who are the right people for Purnululu National Park, and some of the areas surrounding it, have extended almost back to the conception of the NTA itself. A history to those disputes, and the proceedings to which they gave rise, is described in Drill at [29]-[68]. I adopt that description here. 8 Drill concerned only what was described as the Purnululu Disputed Area, which was in substance the area of the National Park. It was in the PDA that the Purnululu applicant's claims and the Gajangana Jaru applicant's claims overlapped. 9 The Court's answers to the separate questions in Drill did not result in an acceptance of either of the two competing positions, as between the Purnululu applicant and the Gajangana Jaru applicant. At [7]-[9], I summarised the Court's findings: In summary, I have accepted aspects of the cases presented by each native title applicant, but I have not accepted the whole of the case presented by either of them. It must be borne in mind that the findings I summarise below relate only to the PDA, and not to the entire geographical range of the Purnululu #1 and #2 applications. I have accepted the Gajangana Jaru applicant's case to the following extent: (a) Fred Jalwarta was a person who had rights and interests in the PDA under traditional law and custom; (b) Nelson was a brother of Jalwarta; (c) The siblings of Bulugul were (at least) Gagai, Flora Mayilba and Wulmarriya. There is not enough evidence to make a finding about Bungul; (d) Bulugul, Flora Mayilba and Wulmarriya had rights and interests in the PDA under traditional law and custom; (e) Durrukman was the father of Bulugul, Flora Mayilba, Gagai, and Wulmarriya; whether the biological father for all of them, or the father under customary law for some of them, it is not possible to say. Again, the evidence does not permit a positive finding about Bungul; (f) Some of the people I have described in these reasons as the "Purnululu PDA apicals" have been shown on the balance of probabilities not to have had rights and interests under traditional law and custom in the PDA, namely: (i) Unnamed father of Bulugul and Mayilba (although I accept Durrukman as their father is likely to have had rights); (ii) Davy Mardangin; (iii) Mulkparriya; and (iv) Unnamed father of Paddy Pirtawuny, Dickie Tooltany and Ngangamil; (g) The late contention by the Purnululu applicant that all the other Purnululu apical ancestors should be found to have rights and interest in the PDA was not a contention compatible with how the separate question proceeding was conducted and will not be considered. (h) Bonnie Edwards and her descendants acquired rights and interests in the PDA through her classificatory relationship with Paddy Jandiyarri Turner, because of an adaptation of customary law to accommodate children with non-Aboriginal fathers; and (i) Lily Banks and Bonnie Edwards and their descendants acquired rights and interests in the PDA through their maternal grandfather, Fred Jalwarta. I have accepted the Purnululu applicant's case to the following extent: (a) Jimmy Turrukpany and Durrukman were two different people rather than one person whose name was mistakenly recorded in these two ways at different times, but I have not found it has been proven that they were brothers; (b) Jimmy Turrukpany and Kemintul were in a marriage relationship; (c) Some of the people described in these reasons as the "Purnululu PDA apicals" have not been shown on the balance of probabilities to have been excluded from having had rights and interests under traditional law and custom in the PDA, namely: (i) Jimmy Turrukpany (subject to the outstanding issue of who is descended from him); (ii) Girnyan; (iii) Kemintul; (iv) Mungamungagatsdil; (v) Unnamed mother of Ruby Ngadayi and Jenny; and (vi) Walambal; (d) Mountain was a son of Kemintul and Jimmy Turrukpany, not Durrukman; (e) Bulugul and Flora Mayilba had rights and interests under traditional law and custom in the PDA, but their "unnamed father" does not, because I have found them to be part of a sibling set with Gagai and Wulmarriya and have found that the father of all those sisters is Durrukman; (f) Gagai did not have rights and interests under traditional law and custom in the PDA; (g) The PDA is not exclusively identified as Jaru country, rather it is an area shared between people who now, and for some time in the past, have generally (but not exclusively) been described by reference to the language identities of Kija, Jaru and Malngin; and (h) Lily Banks did not acquire rights and interests in the PDA through any classificatory relationship with Paddy Jandiyarri Turner. 10 At [12]-[13], I stated: Determining the answers to the separate question has involved the parties, and now the Court, in a painstaking reconstruction of historical materials and historical accounts, all framed within a culture which operates on an oral tradition, and at a time when many knowledgeable elders have sadly passed away. It was no easy task for the parties, their experts and lay witnesses, nor for the Court. Although throughout these reasons I make findings accepting some evidence, and argument, and rejecting others, I accept that all concerned have done their best to assist the Court in this reconstruction, for which the Court is grateful. As I explain below, the Court's answers to the separate questions depend on reaching a view about what, on the evidence before it, are more likely than not to be the facts. That is what the civil standard "balance of probabilities" means. The Court does not decide what the "truth" is in any absolute sense. The Court is not in that sense the arbiter of history. The Court decides whether the party who must prove the necessary facts has shown the facts it contends for are more likely than not to have existed. In circumstances which involve the level of historical reconstruction that these separate questions do, that is not only all that is required; it is all that can reasonably be expected. This exercise is carried out on the basis of the evidence adduced, and inferences which can reasonably be drawn from that evidence. The Court must assess what, reasonably and rationally, can be made of the evidence before it. It does so from a more objective perspective than that brought by the parties, and for that reason, it may well see some evidence as persuasive although one party does not. Conversely, it may see other evidence as unpersuasive, although a party, its expert or the claim group members find that evidence persuasive. Even where the task is challenging, and the evidence pulls in different directions (as it does in many of the factual issues to be resolved in these separate questions), the Court's function is to make a decision, and to decide if the party with the onus of proof has discharged it. 11 There was no appeal, or application for leave to appeal, from the Court's orders in Drill. Therefore, the Court proceeded to invite the parties to move towards a native title outcome for the PDA, and for the remaining areas covered by the Purnululu applicant's claims. 12 However, it is understandable that there was a need for considerable working through of the Court's findings with claim group members. The Court accepts that some of its findings were difficult for many claim group members. As I sought to explain at [12]-[14] in Drill, these difficult outcomes are a consequence of the disputes having to be decided in an adversarial setting by a Judge, where a burden of proof operates. 13 The evidence now before the Court on the present application, and in particular Ms Toohey's affidavit, is a testament to the hard work and dedication that the legal representatives of the parties, especially the legal representatives of the Purunlulu and Gajangana Jaru applicants (past and present), have applied in assisting claim group members to understand the Court's decision, and to find a way to work together to ensure that a native title outcome for the area can be secured. The State's legal representatives have also been crucial in this last two year process, and the Court acknowledges the considerable work undertaken by them, especially by Ms Sheila Begg. 14 To reach this outcome, the parties have also been assisted over a long period of time by a number of anthropological experts and a range of staff at the Kimberley Land Council, and at the State. All of those people deserve acknowledgement, and thanks. 15 In my opinion, there would not have been a constructive and agreed resolution to this proceeding after the Court's orders in Drill without the pro-active, insightful, skilled and patient efforts of Judicial Registrar Laurelea McGregor. Judicial Registrar McGregor has been not only of invaluable assistance to the parties, but to me as well. I thank her sincerely for her role in bringing these proceedings to a positive conclusion. 16 The Court sought to have the parties progress the finalisation of their respective claims in accordance with a workplan or timetable, amended from time to time, annexed to orders of the Court. The initial orders setting out a workplan were made on 12 March 2021. There were, as Ms Toohey outlines at [15] of her affidavit, five topics that the parties identified as needing to be addressed after the orders in Drill were made: Issue A - Apical Ancestors. Issue B - Technical issues regarding the nature of the claims and the determination to be made. Issue C - Malgnin. Issue D - Prescribed Body Corporate. Issue E - Determination. 17 Like the word "Jaru" and the word "Kija", "Malngin" is a language identifier. The "Malngin" issue arose from the findings in Drill at [1482]-[1524] under the heading "Is the PDA exclusively Jaru and Malngin country?". That heading reflects the contention of the Gajangana Jaru applicant as part of the separate questions. There was a level of agreement between the experts who gave evidence in Drill, and some recognition by each of the Purnululu and Gajangana Jaru applicants, that a part of the PDA was Malngin country. However, in the parties' cases as presented in Drill, there was no real exploration of the extent of Malngin country, nor whether there were other apical ancestors who were properly identified as Malngin people with rights and interests under traditional law and custom in the PDA. 18 I accept Ms Toohey's evidence at [17] that: On 30 June 2021, the Purnululu Applicant, Gajangana Jaru Applicant and State of Western Australia respectively filed statements of issues in dispute which recorded the positions of the parties regarding the resolution of each of the issues identified in the Workplan. Since this date, the parties have, through a process of conferral, mediation and in accordance with the Workplan, substantively resolved the issues which were identified as in dispute at 30 June 2021. 19 A final set of programming orders were made on 25 October 2022, towards the filing of documents on 22 November 2022 in support of the determination. The joint submissions at [10] identify how the parties have agreed those five issues should be resolved: With respect to the issues identified by the Court and referred to at [9], the parties have agreed: (a) That there are people who have rights and interests as Malngin-identifying persons in the north-east area of the park: see Toohey affidavit at [88], [102(g)]; Carlton affidavit at [7], [23]; Statement at Recital F, [3], [6], [7]. (b) That there should be a single determination of native title over both the Park Area and the area to the north and west which is claimed only by the Purnululu applicant; see Toohey affidavit at [88(a)], [102(g)]; Cameron affidavit at [3(a)]; Statement at Recital I, Annexure 1 (c) That there be one PBC that holds native title rights and interests on trust for the proposed Determination area. That PBC has been nominated by a representative of the common law holders to be the BBAC. This nomination has been accepted by the BBAC; see Toohey affidavit at [88(b)], [102(g)]; Carlton affidavit at [4], [23]; Cameron affidavit at [3(b)]; PBC nominations filed on 22 November 2022. (d) That the PBC should be structured in a particular way for ordinary PBC decisions and native title decisions: see Recital K and Annexure 1 of the Determination. (e) The correct and complete list of apical ancestors, that the determination should be by a decision of the Court, that the State tenure searches have been appropriately updated, and the wording of the determination. (f) As part of the Determination, the Applicant parties and the State have also reached agreement under 47C NTA with respect to the Park Area and the Purnululu Conservation Reserve. The 47C Agreement was notified publicly on 19 August 2022. 20 The statement, the proposed orders and draft determination of native title provided to the Court, along with the PBC nomination and acceptance, all reflect this agreement.

THE PARTIES' ACCOMODATION IN RELATION TO MALNGIN PEOPLE 21 The way that the interests of Malngin-identifying people have been accommodated in the determination represents a careful and ultimately cooperative approach. The joint submissions described the agreed process which began with an anthropological report by Mr Justin Lincoln, who was appointed by the Court for the purposes of preparing a report about Malngin interests (at [20]-[22]): In order to address the issue of whether there are any additional Malngin identifying ancestors with rights and interests in the northeast part of the Purnululu National Park in July 2021, the Court appointed an anthropologist, Mr Justin Lincoln, as an expert to answer the following questions. (a) Were there Aboriginal people with a Malngin language identity who possessed rights and interests under traditional laws and customs in relation to the Purnululu National Park at the time of effective sovereignty in this region (which the Court has found to be between the mid - 1880's and 1910)? (b) Are there Aboriginal people who currently possess rights and interests under traditional laws and customs in relation to the Purnululu National Park by descent (including adoption) from the persons inquired after in paragraph 1? Mr Lincoln's report was provided to the Court and the parties in November 2021. In his opinion, the following people had traditional connections to the north-eastern part of the Purnululu National Park. (a) King Paddy (b) Jimmy Binduwuk (c) Polly Marrngu (d) Unnamed mother of Rosie Gerrard (e) Unnamed mother of Jerry Wangali (f) Dinah Nyukaya (g) Monday, father of Dougal Gungali Dinah Nyukaya, according to the Lincoln Report was the same person as Dina Ngowaya, who is listed as an apical ancestor for the Purnululu Claim Group. (Footnotes omitted.) 22 The outcome contained in the proposed orders and determination is that there be additional apical ancestors specified as having rights and interests in the determination area at sovereignty. They are persons identified through Mr Lincoln's research, and are (see joint submissions at [24(e)]): King Paddy, Jimmy Binduwuk, Polly Marrngu, Unnamed mother of Rosie Gerrard, Unnamed mother of Jerry Wangali. 23 Throughout 2022, various meetings and consultations were held - they are described by Ms Toohey in her affidavit and also by Ms Carlton in her affidavit. The constructive outcome is best left to Ms Carlton to describe (at [15]-[17]): My family and I attended a Malngin research consultation meeting at the language centre in Kununurra. Doriald "Duck" Chulung was there and family from the Gerrard side were there as well. People knew that they were proposing to include us in the determination and everybody seemed to agree with this, nobody was upset about this, it seemed like the right thing to do. My family went to the consultation meetings in May and I spoke with them after those meetings. It makes sense for there to be one blanket for native title for Purnululu, Gajangana Jaru and Malngin. We are all family, all related and connected. I see the people in those claims as my family, our apicals all have connection to this area and it makes sense that there is one mob for that area of the determination, not in all separate bits. In the future now, we will know that Malngin, Purnululu and Gajangana Jaru can move forward together, nobody is there to take anybody else's country, we are happy to be recognised and we recognise them. 24 The Court expresses its gratitude to Mr Lincoln for accepting the Court's referral, and for the efficient and effective way he went about his research, the writing of his report and his participation in subsequent consultations.

THE COURT'S POWER TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION 25 The proposal put forward by the parties is not put forward by them as an agreement pursuant to s 87 of the NTA. It is an application for orders accepted as appropriate by all active parties, including by reason of a number of matters that are admitted or agreed between the parties, but also - and critically - because of the Court's findings in Drill. While the parties have not said as much in their joint submissions, the absence of any appeal from the Court's orders made on 22 October 2022 can be taken as an acceptance of the Court's findings as binding on the parties. It may not indicate, however, and importantly, agreement with all those findings. That is why the present application takes the form that it does. 26 As the joint submissions state, there are other cases where the Court has proceeded to make a final determination of native title after a contested hearing which resolved some, but not all, of the factual and legal issues necessary for the making of final orders. Those cases are collected and reviewed by Barker J in Tjungarrayi on behalf of the Ngurra Kayanta People v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2017] FCA 938 at [20]-[24]. I accept the parties in this application have followed the same approach as that accepted by Barker J in Tjungarrayi and I accept that is an appropriate approach, especially utilising the statement to make the factual position clear to the Court. 27 In BP (Deceased) on behalf of the Birriliburu People v State of Western Australia [2016] FCA 671, there had been a consent determination over one part of the claim area, a contested hearing on the asserted native title right to access the resources of the area for all purposes including commercial purposes, which his Honour resolved by judgment, and then an application for a final determination of native title. 28 North J discussed whether, despite the parties' reluctance to have the matter characterised as an application under s 87 of the NTA, that was the correct characterisation. In the end, his Honour described the issue as a "barren exercise" because the parties had in substance agreed on all matters (at [35]). However, at [33], his Honour described the position as: at least a hybrid - part agreement on the substance of the claims which flowed from the admissions made by the State, and part imposed by the judgment of the Court. 29 With respect to his Honour, I agree that "hybrid" is a pragmatic and accurate description. As I have said above, the parties have, I infer, accepted the Court's decision in Drill even if they do not agree with all the findings made in it, and reflected in the Court's orders. They have accepted they are bound by it, by not seeking to appeal it. They have then proceeded to resolve all other outstanding issues which stood in the way of a final determination of native title and they have, to their credit, achieved that objective. 30 Like North J, I can see how it might be possible to characterise the present application as one made after an agreement reached pursuant to s 87 of the NTA. Section 87(1) provides: Application (1) This section applies if, at any stage of proceedings after the end of the period specified in the notice given under section 66: (a) agreement is reached on the terms of an order of the Federal Court in relation to: (i) the proceedings; or (ii) a part of the proceedings; or (iii) a matter arising out of the proceedings; and (aa) all of the following are parties to the agreement: (i) the parties to the proceedings; (ii) the Commonwealth Minister, if the Commonwealth Minister is intervening in the proceedings at the time the agreement is made; and (b) the terms of the agreement, in writing signed by or on behalf of the parties to the proceedings and, if subparagraph (aa)(ii) applies, the Commonwealth Minister, are filed with the Court; and (c) the Court is satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, those terms would be within the power of the Court. (Original emphasis.) 31 If it were necessary to identify a particular provision in the NTA which confers on this Court an express power to make the orders sought, I would not have any difficulty in relying on s 87. Like North J, I consider the parties' statement and the proposed orders could constitute an agreement under s 87. That is not, however, how the parties have framed their application. Therefore, I do not expressly rely on s 87. 32 The parties rely on, cumulatively, I infer, ss 61, 81, 94A and 225 of the NTA. None of those provisions confer an express power to make a determination of the kind sought. Section 61 concerns applications (ie originating processes), s 81 confers jurisdiction to hear and determine applications filed in the Federal Court that relate to native title, exclusive of all Courts except the High Court, and s 94A directs the Court to set out, in orders for the determination of native title, details of certain matters listed in s 225. It may be that s 81 is properly construed as impliedly conferring power as well as jurisdiction. Or it may be that s 94A should be read in the same way. Finally, it may therefore be that the ordinary powers of the Federal Court - namely s 22 and s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) - supply the power to make a determination of this kind. 33 I do not consider it is necessary in this proceeding to make an express choice between these options, since there is no opposition to the making of the orders sought. At a minimum, s 22 and s 23 of the FCA Act provide ample power to make the orders sought, read with s 81 of the NTA. The material before the Court amply supports a conclusion that it is appropriate to make a determination compliant with s 225, as required by s 94A.

AUTHORISATION 34 By reason of the Court's findings and orders in Drill, and the accommodation of the interests of Malngin-identifying people as I have explained above, the composition of the group of native title holders recognised by the Court's orders and determination today differs from the composition of the Purnululu claim group, and the Gajangana Jaru claim group and from the determinations sought in their respective s 61 applications. On one view, that might be said to mean that the group which has authorised and agreed to the orders and determination made today is not the same group as those who authorised the originating applications. 35 The parties have acted out of an abundance of caution and sought an order under s 84D(4) of the NTA. There might be some debate as to whether the present circumstances could be said to involve any "defect" in authorisation of the agreed outcome. I would incline to consider that they do not. This is not a situation where there is any challenge to the original authorisation of the applications. If anything, the question is whether each of the Purnululu applicant and the Gajangana Jaru applicant have been authorised to agree to the outcome as set out in the proposed orders and determination. The fact that over the course of a contested hearing, and subsequent negotiations ranging over issues not canvassed in that contested hearing, the parties have now accepted and agreed on a group description that differs from that contained in the originating process is nothing more than a natural consequence of this process. 36 In no matter in which this Court exercises jurisdiction is the Court hamstrung by the form of relief originally claimed by a party. Sections 22 and 23 of the FCA Act require the Court to make orders that are appropriate to do justice between the parties. Determinations under the NTA are no different. Due to the nature of the rights being recognised, it is of course important that where a native title applicant agrees to, or decides to accept, a certain aspect of a proposed determination, the applicant does so within the scope of its authority and after reasonable consultation with the wider claim group. This is not a situation where there is any real doubt that all native title holders have been given the opportunity to be informed, and have their say about, the proposed resolution to these three proceedings. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrates there have been all reasonable efforts made to engage in consultations and provide information. This is apparent from Ms Toohey's affidavit and the statement. 37 For those reasons, I doubt this is an occasion where an order under s 84D(4) of the NTA is necessary. Nevertheless, I do not wish to stand in the way of the parties' caution at this point of such a long journey. Therefore, to accommodate the caution the parties consider is appropriate, I am content to make an order under s 84D(4) of the NTA.

PRESCRIBED BODY CORPORATE 38 A key feature of the resolution represented by the orders and determination is the creation of a new prescribed body corporate (PBC) to hold the native title of the common law holders on trust - the BBAC. The structure of the PBC has been carefully worked through to ensure all interests are represented. In Ms Toohey's affidavit, the process is described in the following way (at [119]-[123]): The rule book of the Bungle Bungles Aboriginal Corporation (BBAC) was drafted and developed by the legal representatives of the Purnululu Applicant and Gajangana Jaru Applicant along with members of each Applicant, each Claim Group and the descendants of the people identified in the Lincoln Report over the course of the meetings and consultation identified within this affidavit. At the joint claim group meeting on 27-28 July 2022, the members of the claim group in attendance agreed that only 9 initial members should be nominated to register the BBAC, including representatives from each of the Purnululu and Gajangana Jaru claim groups and 1 representative who was descended from the ancestors identified in the Lincoln Report (Ms Natalie Carlton). The pre-incorporation meeting of the BBAC was held on 28 July 2022. On 29 August 2022, the application for registration of the BBAC was made to ORIC. On 20 October 2022, the BBAC was registered with ORIC and given the ICN number 9836. (Original emphasis.) 39 The PBC will be the vehicle through which the native title of the common law holders is exercised, and as such it is appropriate that a high level of care and consideration has been applied to its structure and its rules. Those who have agreed to be directors are to be thanked for assuming the responsibilities inherent in being a director. As I said at the start of these reasons, the Court's orders and determination mark a new start for the protection and management of the Purnululu National Park and the surrounding areas; a new start to the protection and management of country, and the ongoing practice of culture.

THE S 47C AGREEMENT 40 Ms Toohey's affidavit at [125]-[133] deals with the tenure of the Purnululu National Park, adjacent areas and the parties' agreement pursuant to s 47C of the NTA. 41 The statement indicates the parties' agreement that (at [11]-[12]): An agreement in writing has been reached by the Purnululu and the Gajangana Jaru Applicants and the State of Western Australia pursuant to s 47C of the NTA (s 47C Agreement), the agreement being that those parts of the Proposed Determination Area comprising the land and waters within: (1) the Park Area, that is, Purnululu National Park (Reserve 39897); and (2) the Conservation Reserve, that is, Purnululu Conservation Reserve (Reserve 39898). together constitute an Agreement Area for the purposes of s 47C of the NTA. Pursuant to the s 47C Agreement, s 47C of the NTA applies in relation to the Agreement Area and for all purposes under the NTA in relation to the Purnululu #1 Claim and the Gajangana Jaru Claim, any extinguishment of the native title rights and interests in relation to the Agreement Area by the creation of any prior interest must be disregarded. (Original emphasis.) 42 Purnululu National Park is an extraordinary part of the Australian landscape. It was inscribed on the World Heritage List on 5 July 2003. In Drill at [411]-[424] I dealt with findings about the consequences of that listing for the issues on the separate questions. At [417] I extracted the "statement of significance" made by the Australian Government to the World Heritage Committee, and observed at [418] that words cannot do justice to the extraordinary features of the park. 43 In terms of the role for common law holders in the protection and management of the park, what might follow the conclusion of the s 47C agreement remains to be seen. However, the parties' efforts in reaching agreement under s 47C are no doubt a vital component of the overall settlement of these proceedings.

CONCLUSION 44 More than two years after the orders were made in Drill, it is a matter of considerable moment that these three proceedings have concluded in a positive, cooperative and forward-looking way. Jaru, Kija and Malngin people who comprise the common law holders of native title in the determination area recognised by the Court today are to be warmly congratulated on their spirit of determination, and their acceptance of the need to work and walk together to achieve this outcome. I certify that the preceding forty-four (44) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Mortimer.

(Cth), the Telecommunications Act 1975(Cth)

(Cth), the Australian Telecommunications Corporation Act 1989(Cth)

(Cth), the Telecommunications Act 1991(Cth)

Native Title (Prescribed Body Corporate) Regulations 1999(Cth)

Native Title Act 1993(Cth)ss 56(2)(a), 47C, 61, 81, 84D(4), 87, 94A, 225

A. The following native title determination applications are being determined together, being the applications made in proceedings: (1) WAD 536 of 2018 (Purnululu Claim #1) on 21 December 1994; (2) WAD 401 of 2018 (Purnululu Claim #2) on 6 September 2018; (3) WAD 65 of 2019 (Gajangana Jaru Claim) on 7 February 2019; B. Each application seeks a determination of native title pursuant to s 225 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act) and as depicted in the Maps contained within Schedule 2 to the Determination: (1) the outer boundaries of the Determination Area correspond with the outer boundaries of the Purnululu Claim #1 area; (2) the areas covered by each of the Purnululu Claim #2 and the Gajangana Jaru Claim are within the outer boundaries of the Determination Area; (3) the area covered by the Gajangana Jaru Claim corresponds with the Park Area known as the Purnululu National Park (Reserve 39897). C. On 22 October 2020, the Court answered separate questions and gave reasons for judgment in Drill v Western Australia [2020] FCA 1510 on whether certain apical ancestors of Aboriginal people possessed rights and interests under traditional law and custom in the Park Area for the purposes of determining, in substance, who are the right people for country. D. The Court answered that the apical ancestors who possessed rights and interests under traditional law and custom in the Park Area are: (1) Girnyan; (2) Fred Jalwarta; (3) Nelson; (4) Bulugul; (5) Flora Mayilba; (6) Wulmarriya; (7) Kemintal; (8) Jimmy Turrukpany; (9) Mungamungagatsdil; (10) Walambal; (11) Unnamed mother of Ruby Ngadayi and Jenny. E. On 22 November 2022, a report prepared by Mr Justin Lincoln, a Court expert appointed pursuant to rules 1.32 and 23.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), was filed in proceedings WAD536/2018, WAD401/2018 and WAD65/2019. The purpose of the report was to assist the Court's determination of whether native title is held in any part of the Park Area by descendants of Malngin-identifying people. In Mr Lincoln's opinion, Malngin apical ancestors, including the following people, possessed rights and interests under traditional law and custom in the part of the Park Area framed in the west by Eaglehawk Bore and Kitty's Knob Yard with a northern boundary of the Osmand River and an eastern boundary following the course of the Ord River to its junction with the Osmand River: (1) King Paddy; (2) Jimmy Binduwuk; (3) Polly Marrngu; (4) Unnamed mother of Rosie Gerrard; (5) Unnamed mother of Jerry Wangali. F. On 22 November 2022, the Applicants in each of the Purnululu Claim #1, the Purnululu Claim #2 and the Gajangana Jaru Claim, and the State of Western Australia, filed a Statement of Agreed Matters in the three native title applications as to the existence of native title, and as to the persons holding native title, in relation to the Determination Area, including the Park Area, having regard to the Court's answers referred to at D and the expert anthropological evidence referred to at E and G. G. The Statement of Agreed Matters is consistent with the expert anthropological evidence filed in the Purnululu Claim #1, the Purnululu Claim #2 and the Gajangana Jaru Claim establishing proof of the Aboriginal people who hold native title in the Determination Area, being those Aboriginal people who are descendants of the apical ancestors referred to in the Determination and other Aboriginal people recognised, in accordance with traditional laws and customs, by descendants as having rights and interests in the Determination Area under traditional law and custom. H. On 21 November 2022, the Applicant in each of the Purnululu Claim #1 and the Gajangana Jaru Claim, and the State of Western Australia, agreed to the operation of s 47C of the Act in the relation to the Agreement Area comprising the Park Area and the Purnululu Conservation Reserve (Reserve 39897). I. The Determination provides in Schedule 5 that native title does not exist in that part of Reserve 28538 for the purpose of Regeneration of Eroded Areas in Ord River Dam Catchment Area that falls within the outer boundaries of the Purnululu Claim #1 area. When the purpose of Reserve 28538 is changed to conservation reserve or other tenure to which the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 (WA) applies, or at such other time as agreed between the State and the Bungle Bungles Aboriginal Corporation, the State will consult with the Bungle Bungles Aboriginal Corporation about a 47C agreement over Reserve 28538, in relation to the area that falls within the outer boundaries of the Purnululu Claim #1 area, such that prior extinguishment over that area is to be disregarded and a variation of the Determination sought. J. On 22 November 2022, the Applicants in each of the Purnululu Claim #1, the Purnululu Claim #2 and the Gajangana Jaru Claim filed affidavits giving an account of consultations with persons and groups who hold native title in the Determination Area about the effect of the Determination. K. The Rule Book of Bungle Bungles Aboriginal Corporation, being the prescribed body corporate determined to hold the native title on trust, has rules dealing with the representation of directors and the making of native title decisions in relation to the Park Area. Annexed to this determination at Annexure 1 are Schedules 1 & 2 of the Rule Book of the Bungle Bungles Aboriginal Corporation which contain those rules regarding the making of native title decisions. BEING SATISFIED that it is appropriate to make the Determination

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (7 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (17)

Cases Cited (3)