Galway on behalf of Wamba Wamba, Barapa Barapa and Wadi Wadi Peoples v State of Victoria

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Before the Court is a native title application brought by the Wamba Wamba, Barapa Barapa, and Wadi Wadi Peoples. The application has been on foot for 15 years. It has weathered many ups and downs and on many occasions the Court has indicated that unless there was meaningful progress, it would have to be struck out. 2 The application faces the challenge that it is brought by three groups, necessitating both internal organisation within each of the groups and also cooperation between them. That has been a difficult task for the parties which the Court has overseen for many years. 3 On behalf of the applicants, Mr Murray advocated for the continuance of the application persuasively on many occasions. On each occasion he was able to explain the possibility of progress being made, for reasons which were well-articulated and sound at the time. Mr Murray now acknowledges that the time has come to concede that the three groups cannot, in the present circumstances, move the application forward together in an efficient way. 4 The Court has received a letter from Native Title Services Victoria (NTSV) dated 8 May 2015 which outlines its position. NTSV has offered to fund a group meeting, however, this has not taken place and the Court is informed that the arrangements for it have been difficult to finalise. NTSV indicates in the letter that, while it may ultimately provide assistance for the group, such assistance is not part of its 2015-2016 operational plan. This means that there would likely be a delay of at least another year before anything further is done in the application. 5 NTSV's position is relevant because the parties had hoped that their cause would be taken up by NTSV. Given the position expressed, and given the acknowledgement of Mr Murray with regard to the unlikelihood of the three groups working together to progress this particular application, the time has now come for the application to be struck out. 6 The decision to strike out the matter does not reflect upon the existence or otherwise of any native title rights which the group or the individual groups may have. Rather, this is a procedural decision which is based on the fact that the application has been on foot without significant progress for such a long time. The order to strike out the application is made because without progress it would be wrong to keep the parties returning to the Court for no good reason. It remains possible for the groups, either individually or together, to file further applications or to exert any rights which they may have under Victorian legislation, either the cultural heritage legislation or the traditional owners' settlement legislation. 7 In striking out the application, the Court particularly acknowledges the contributions made by Mr Murray for the applicants, and Ms Scalzo and Mr Rawson for the respondents, all of whom have appeared in Court on numerous occasions over the 15-year duration of this matter. 8 The strength, rationality and courtesy of Mr Murray's advocacy are particularly noted. Many passionate advocates appear before the Court, in native title and other matters, but rarely do they present their position with such aplomb and success. Although the order made today may be in a sense unwelcome to the applicants, it follows the acceptance by Mr Murray, that the day has come when this application, through lack of meaningful progress, should no longer stay on foot. I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.