Anthropological background
14 As mentioned, the NLC, representing the applicant, relied on a report of Ms Gay English. Ms English is an appropriately qualified anthropologist, having obtained a Bachelor of Arts with First Class Honours in Anthropology from Charles Darwin University in 2004 and a Bachelor of Arts with a double major in Anthropology from the Northern Territory University in 1995. Before that, Ms English had obtained a Bachelor of Applied Social Science from the Western Australian College of Advanced Education (in 1989).
15 Ms English has worked as an anthropologist in the Northern Territory since 2002 and had a number of Aboriginal community related employments before then. Her work as an anthropologist has included research in the Roper River region with, amongst others, people of the Alawa Language group. This included research in relation to native title claims concerning a number of pastoral leases in the Roper River area including pastoral leases which adjoin or surround Nutwood Downs. Ms English said, and I accept, that she has worked extensively with senior Alawa informants over a long period of time and that she had formed her opinions relying on their information regarding Alawa country, law, ceremony and ownership of land. Ms English provided the report to the NLC concerning the underlying claim for native title over Nutwood Downs.
16 Mr Kingston raised an issue concerning Ms English which it is appropriate to address before making my assessment of the reliability of her evidence. The issue arises from statements which Mr Kingston attributes to Ms English on the first occasion they met, which was at Hodgson Downs (Minyeri) on 14 August 2011. There were significant differences between the accounts of Mr Kingston and Ms English as to what occurred during this meeting.
17 Mr Kingston's account was that, at the time, he was visiting Hodgson Downs with his son Haydon and another. He was speaking to Mr Ellaga at his home. Mr Ellaga was an elder in the Guyal estate group. Mr Kingston said that Ms English arrived while he was talking to Mr Ellaga. She had some maps and was seeking the assistance of Mr Ellaga in relation to site surveys she was carrying out on the St Vidgeon Pastoral Lease. Mr Kingston said that he raised his own position with Ms English and provided her with some information, including that his grandmother, Violet, was one of three mixed blood Farrars born at Nutwood Downs. He said that Ms English then told him that "I was only chasing royalties and the evidence I was providing does [not] assist with any claim as the genealogy goes back to[o] far". Mr Kingston said that Mr Ellaga reacted to this statement in a way which indicated that he did not regard Ms English's statement as being appropriately respectful.
18 Mr Kingston's son Haydon gave evidence which was, in essential respects, corroborative of his father's account. He said that Ms English had said that they had "not been recognised for any land matters"; that "Nana Violet goes back too far"; and that "Kevin is only here for the royalties". Haydon said that Mr Ellaga had become upset on Ms English making these statements.
19 Ms English denied the account of Mr Kingston and Haydon. Her evidence was to the following effect. In August 2011, she had been carrying out an anthropological survey of sacred sites on St Vidgeon Station. Normally, because of his status as an elder and his knowledge, Mr Ellaga would have assisted with that work by travelling in the helicopter with her. However, by reason of recent surgery, he was unable to do so. She knew Mr Ellaga well and was on friendly terms with him. Knowing that he could not accompany her, she was seeking his assistance by reference to maps. She could not recall whether Mr Kingston arrived while she was speaking to Mr Ellaga or whether he was already present. In either event, while they were speaking, Mr Kingston raised concerns that he was not recognised by NLC as a traditional owner of Nutwood Downs. This was the first occasion upon which she had met Mr Kingston and she did not understand what his genealogical or other connection may be. In accordance with her usual professional practice, she asked questions about his background and began drawing his ancestry.
20 Ms English made notes of what she was told. Almost nine months later, she prepared (using her notes) a formal memorandum recording her discussion with Mr Kingston and Mr Ellaga and provided it to the NLC. Nothing had occurred in particular to prompt her to prepare the formal note, it was just that preoccupation with her case load had precluded her doing so before 10 May 2012. Ms English's memorandum was tendered at the trial. Ms English recorded in the memorandum that Mr Kingston had said that he and Cecil Damaso were related to Mr Ellaga and the Farrar family and, as such, should be recognised by the NLC as traditional owners of Cox River. Ms English discussed that claim with Mr Kingston and Mr Ellaga. The latter provided information regarding his own genealogy and that of Mr Kingston.
21 Ms English's memorandum concluded with the following:
Barney Ellaga stated that "they [Cecil Damaso, Kevin Kingston and their families] all fit in through Bob Farrar and his son Brian Farrar. When questioned specifically about this connection, Barney acknowledged, as did Kevin Kingston, that the primary, but distant, connection between the patrilineal members of the Dumnyun Ngatanyan Guyal Group and Cecil Damaso is Ruby's son, Brian Farrar. Barney also acknowledged that this is a family connection which does [not] give Mr Kingston or Mr Damaso any basis in which to claim Mingirringgi, Junggayi or Darlnyin relationships to the Dumnyun Ngatanyan Guyal country. These traditional role relationships and the definition of Traditional Owners in the ALRA (1976) NT were explained to Mr Kingston by both myself and Barney Ellaga in an attempt to explain why their broad family links do not entitle them to be recognised as Traditional Owners or to receive royalty monies. Refer to the attached partial genealogy compiled by myself with Barney Ellaga and Kevin Kingston (August 2011) for details of the names John and Bob Farrar's wives and children.
In response to our discussion, Mr Kingston stated that he and Mr Damaso were not seeking any royalty monies. He continued to express concern that the NLC does not recognise the family connection he and Mr Damaso have to Barney Ellaga and the Farrar family. I explained that the NLC is a statutory body that represents [and recognises] those people with traditional land interests in Alawa ALT, and is not required to document such family connections.
Ms English attached a typed version of the genealogy to which she referred at the end of the first paragraph.
22 As can be seen, Ms English confirmed that there was some discussion of Mr Kingston's genealogy in their meeting on 14 August 2011 and that the topic of royalties had been raised. She said, however, that this was in the context of her explaining the rights of Aboriginal traditional owners under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth).
23 Mr Kingston submitted, in effect, that I should reject Ms English's account. The NLC, on the other hand, submitted that I should accept the evidence of Ms English as reliable.
24 In the assessing these submissions, I keep in mind a number of matters. First, the effect of the evidence of Mr Kingston and Haydon (if it be correct) is that Ms English had departed, in a significant way, from the appropriate standard of conduct to be expected of a professional anthropologist. That is to say, that she had been dismissive of a genealogical claim because it went back "to[o] far" and, further, she had, in effect, adopted a partisan view of Mr Kingston's claims rather than addressing them in an impartial way. The statement imputed to Ms English that Mr Kingston was interested only in royalties implies a pejorative value judgment on her part, rather than being a statement of a detached anthropologist. I consider it unlikely that an anthropologist, acting responsibly, would adopt such an attitude. There is no other indication that Ms English was acting irresponsibly. She was present in connection with the survey of St Vidgeons for which she had been retained. She was in the presence of an acknowledged elder of the Guyal. To my mind, this makes it implausible that Ms English would have made the statements of the kind now attributed to her.
25 Secondly, it seems implausible that Ms English would have made the statement that the Kingstons could not establish appropriate connection because their ancestry went back "to[o] far". To my mind, it is inherently unlikely that an anthropologist would make such a statement.
26 Thirdly, Ms English seems to have been at pains to understand the genealogy of Mr Kingston. That is evident in her recorded memorandum and in the partial genealogy which she prepared. To my mind, this is inconsistent with the dismissive attitude which Mr Kingston sought to impute to her.
27 Next, I note that although Ms English prepared her memorandum almost nine months after the conversation, she did so as part of her regular professional practice and before it was known that there was any issue of the kind now raised.
28 Finally, I consider that there is the potential for some misunderstanding or reconstruction on the part of the Kingstons. Haydon said that it had been only this year, or perhaps last year, that he had been first asked to recall the conversation. The possibility that he has been influenced in his recollection by his father cannot be overlooked. Given that the topic of royalties was raised, there is the potential for what was said to have been misunderstood or, because of Ms English's (and Mr Ellaga's) attempts to explain to Mr Kingston that he could not be regarded as a traditional owner, for Mr Kingston to have developed feelings of resentment towards her. This may have led to some colouring on his part of his recollection of what occurred.
29 For these reasons, I prefer Ms English's account over that of the Kingstons as to what occurred at the meeting on 14 August 2011. I find that her memorandum is an accurate account of what occurred. The evidence of Mr Kingston and his son Haydon about the meeting does not cause me to have doubts about the reliability of Ms English's evidence more generally.
30 Mr Kingston was also critical that Ms English had not thought it appropriate to interview him and his family in connection with her report. I do not regard this as being a criticism of substance. The information available to Ms English did not contain any indication that Mr Kingston was, or could be, a member of the native title claim group. That being so, it is understandable that she did not consider it necessary to conduct an interview with him. Further, and in any event, Mr Kingston did not adduce at the trial any evidence of a material fact which overlooked in the preparation of her opinion. He did, however, put to Ms English that, contrary to her understanding, Cecil Damaso's paternal grandmother was a "full-blood" Aboriginal (and his paternal grandfather a Filipino) and Ms English appeared to be willing to accept that that may be so. Mr Kingston did not contend that this made Cecil Damaso an Alawa man, perhaps because Cecil's paternal grandmother came from Borroloola.
31 I am satisfied that, for the purposes of the determination of the separate question, it is appropriate to accept Ms English's opinions concerning the background to the Alawa social relationships and to the rights and responsibilities of land. I emphasise, however, that this is for the purposes of determining the present question, while at the same time noting that many of the principles relating to traditional rights and responsibilities of land which are relevant presently, appear to be well documented and to have been accepted in other matters.
32 Relying on Ms English's evidence, I proceed on the following basis. The five estate groups who comprise the applicant in the proceedings are within the Alawa Language Group, which in turn is part of a wider cultural bloc comprising a cluster of language groups known as Luralindji. Each of the estate groups is associated with particular areas within the claim area. The association of an estate group with a particular area of land has been recognised in native title determinations in respect of adjoining or nearby land. See, for example, Wandarang, Alawa, Marra, and Ngalakan Peoples v Northern Territory of Australia [2000] FCA 923, (2000) 104 FCR 380 (St Vidgeon's); Ellaga v Northern Territory of Australia [2012] FCA 670 (the consent determination concerning the Kalala Pastoral Lease); Ellaga v Northern Territory of Australia [2012] FCA 665 (the consent determination concerning the Maryfield Pastoral Lease); Fulton v Northern Territory of Australia [2013] FCA 1088 (the consent determination concerning the Tanumbirini Pastoral Lease).
33 The Alawa People consist of four categories called semi-moieties, namely, Budal, Guyal, Murungun and Mambali. These four semi-moieties are fundamental to the definition of rights to land for Alawa People. Membership of semi-moieties is inherited patrilineally. The primary function of the four semi-moieties is to codify relationships, particularly in the context of ritual and prescriptions to marriage, and to provide a framework for inter-group relations and alignment. All individuals within the Alawa kinship system are classified into one of eight subsection categories (commonly referred to as "skin names").
34 Each area of Alawa "country" is assigned to a semi-moiety and one or more such areas (which are not necessarily contiguous areas of land) constitute a "country", the land belonging to a local patrilineal descent group.
35 A patrilineal descent group contains three classes or categories of people, each of whom has a distinct role to play towards that country and ritual property. Those who inherit membership of the estate group through their actual or adopted father's father are termed Mingirringi. Those who inherit membership through their mother, or in certain cases, their father's mother, are termed Junggayi, and those who inherit membership through their mother's mother are termed Darlnyin. Each individual will belong to three such groups; that of their father's father, that of their mother's father or father's mother, and that of their mother's mother. The three categories have common spiritual affiliations to sites in the estate area and each performs a different (but complementary) role in relation to the estate. These lines of descent were recognised by Kearney J as Aboriginal Land Commissioner in his report to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and to the Administrator of the Northern Territory on the Cox River (Alawa/Ngandji) Land Claim in November 1984 at [21]-[24] and in the St Vidgeon's determination, at [47]-[53].
36 Ms English describes the roles of Mingirringgi, Junggayi and Darlnyin as being different but with complementary rights and responsibilities. She describes those rights and responsibilities in her report but it is unnecessary for present purposes to outline them.