© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2012] FCA 690
Federal Court of Australia
2012-05-25
Ms J, North J
Original judgment source is linked above.
introduction 1 The Court sits today at Talgarno in Western Australia to consider two applications for determinations of native title. 2 The land is in the south west Kimberley region and covers approximately 1995 square kilometres. It is located approximately half way between Bidyadanga and Sandfire. Most of the area falls within the Anna Plains pastoral lease. 3 Immediately to the north and west of the land in question in the present applications is land in which the Court determined (Nangkiriny v State of Western Australia [2002] FCA 660 (Nangkiriny)) that the Karajarri have native title rights and interests (the Karajarri land). Immediately to the south of the land in question in the present applications is land in which the Court determined (Hunter v State of Western Australia [2009] FCA 654 (Hunter)) that the Nyangumarta people have native title rights and interest (the Nyangumarta land). The land in question in the present applications is country shared by the Nyangumarta people and the Karajarri people (the shared country). 4 The present applications over the shared country arose in the following way.
the shared country applications 5 On 29 September 1998, application WAD 6281 of 1998 for determination of native title was filed by the Nyangumarta people. On 23 November 2007, a further application for determination of native title, WAD 234 of 2007, was filed by the Nyangumarta people. These applications included but extended beyond the shared country. The applicants are Darcy Hunter, WD (deceased), Ada Stewart, Winnie Coppin and Alma Gray on behalf of the Nyangumarta people. The Nyangumarta people are those persons who are descended from 12 sets of apical ancestors, who self-identify as Nyangumarta and who are accepted by other members of the community as Nyangumarta in accordance with traditional law and custom. 6 On 3 December 2008, application WAD 280 of 2008 for determination of native title was filed by the Karajarri people. It covered the shared country only. The applicants are SP (deceased), John Hopiga, Lenny Hopiga, Mervyn Mulardy Jnr, Joseph Edgar, Joseph Munro, Harry Watson, Mr Watson, Gordon Marshall, Donald Grey, Wittidong Mulardy, Celia Bennett, Regina Grey and Anthony Watson on behalf of the Karajarri people. The Karajarri people are those persons who are descended from 6 apical ancestors, who self-identify as Karajarri and who are accepted by other members of the community as Karajarri in accordance with traditional law and custom. 7 The non-indigenous respondents to all the applications are the State of Western Australia (the State), the Commonwealth of Australia, the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (Inc), Anna Plains Cattle Co Pty Ltd, Mandora Pty Ltd and Telstra Corporation Pty Ltd. 8 The land covered by the Nyangumarta applications was divided into Part A and Part B areas. The Part A area covered the land subject to the original application, save for the shared country, and the land the subject of the further application. The Part B area was the shared country. 9 On 11 June 2009, the Court determined that the Nyangumarta people held native title rights and interests in the Part A area, and adjourned consideration of the application concerning the Part B area. 10 Consequently, the applications which cover the shared country are the Part B area application brought by the Nyangumarta people, and the shared country application brought by the Karajarri people. 11 As both applications cover the same area, on 12 December 2008, the Court ordered, pursuant to s 67(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act) that both applications would be dealt with in the same proceeding, to be known as the Nyangumarta-Karajarri (Yawinya) Overlap Proceeding.
the agreement 12 The parties to the applications have now reached agreement as to the outcome of the applications. The Court has power to make orders consistent with such agreement without holding a hearing (whether under s 87 and/or s 87A of the Act). 13 In order to make such orders the terms of the agreement or determination must be filed with the Court, the Court must be satisfied that orders consistent with the terms of the agreement or determination are within the power of the Court, and it is appropriate to make such orders or determination (ss 87(1)(c), (1A) and (2) and 87A(4)). 14 The orders sought by the parties and the proposed determination have been signed by all the parties and filed with the Court. Thus, the first requirement has been satisfied.
Are the orders within the power of the Court? 15 In broad terms the proposed determination recognises exclusive native title rights and interests over a 40 metre wide strip of land along part of the 80 Mile Beach between the border of the Anna Plains pastoral lease and the landward side of the intertidal zone (schedule 3). A corridor of non-exclusive native title rights and interests through this strip of land is agreed in order to provide access to the 80 Mile Beach. Further non-exclusive native title rights and interests are agreed over most of the determination area which is comprised by the Anna Plains pastoral lease. Small areas of non-exclusive native title rights and interests are agreed over part of the Mandora pastoral lease, reserves for watering places and a reserve for the Kimberley De Grey Stock Route (schedule 4). Non-exclusive native title rights and interests are agreed over the intertidal area (schedule 5). 16 The proposed determination sets out the persons or each group of persons holding the common or group rights comprising native title, the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the determination area, the nature and extent of any other interests in relation to the determination area, the relationship between the native title rights and interests and the other interests in relation to the determination area and to the extent that the land or waters in the determination area are not covered by a non-exclusive agricultural lease or 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. The proposed determination therefore includes the matters which are required by s 225 of the Act and hence the orders comply with s 94A of the Act which provides that such orders must set out the details of the matters mentioned in s 225 of the Act. As a result, I find that the orders and determination are within the power of the Court as required by ss 87(1)(c) and 87A(4)(a).
Is it appropriate to make the orders? 17 The remaining question is whether it is appropriate for the Court to make the orders and determination (ss 87(1A) and (2) and s 87A(4)(b)). The proper approach for the Court to take when considering whether it is appropriate to make orders consistent with the agreement of the parties without a hearing was explained in Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria [2007] FCA 474 as follows: 36 The focus of the section is on the making of an agreement by the parties. This reflects the importance placed by the Act on mediation as the primary means of resolving native title applications. Indeed, Parliament has established the National Native Title Tribunal with the function of conducting mediations in such cases. The Act is designed to encourage parties to take responsibility for resolving proceedings without the need for litigation. Section 87 must be construed in this context. The power must be exercised flexibly and with regard to the purpose for which the section is designed. 37 In this context, when the Court is examining the appropriateness of an agreement, it is not required to examine whether the agreement is grounded on a factual basis which would satisfy the Court at a hearing of the application. The primary consideration of the Court is to determine whether there is an agreement and whether it was freely entered into on an informed basis: Nangkiriny v State of Western Australia (2002) 117 FCR 6; [2002] FCA 660, Ward v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 1848. Insofar as this latter consideration applies to a State party, it will require the Court to be satisfied that the State party has taken steps to satisfy itself that there is a credible basis for an application: Munn v Queensland (2001) 115 FCR 109; [2001] FCA 1229. There is a question as to how far a State party is required to investigate in order to satisfy itself of a credible basis for an application. One reason for the often inordinate time taken to resolve some of these cases is the overly demanding nature of the investigation conducted by State parties. The scope of these investigations demanded by some States is reflected in the complex connection guidelines published by some States. 38 The power conferred by the Act on the Court to approve agreements is given in order to avoid lengthy hearings before the Court. The Act does not intend to substitute a trial, in effect, conducted by State parties for a trial before the Court. Thus, something significantly less than the material necessary to justify a judicial determination is sufficient to satisfy a State party of a credible basis for an application. The Act contemplates a more flexible process than is often undertaken in some cases. These comments relate to the requirements of s 87, and are not intended to reflect on the conduct of the State in this case. 18 The Court is entitled to act on an agreed statement of facts if the conditions prescribed by the Act have been met (ss 87(8)-(11) and 87A(9)-(12)). These provisions were among measures introduced in 2009 which were intended to improve the operation of the native title system by encouraging and facilitating more negotiated settlements to native title claims and allowing for greater efficiency in the process overall. The statement of facts must, as a minimum, be agreed by the applicant and the principal government respondent at the time the agreement is reached. In considering whether to accept an agreed statement of facts, the Court must take into account any objections that are made by the other parties. 19 In the present proceedings, on 21 May 2012, the parties filed an agreed statement of facts which explains the process by which agreement was reached. No objections were filed. The Court has also been assisted by written submissions filed by the applicants and by the State, and by oral submissions. The following account of the agreement making process is largely taken from the agreed statement of facts. 20 In the course of mediation, in February 2010, the applicants engaged an independent expert to give an opinion about the nature of the applicants' interests in the proposed determination area. The respondents were advised of this proposal. 21 On 24 March 2010, the Court ordered, on the recommendation of the National Native Title Tribunal, that mediation cease, and that the proceeding be referred to a case management conference before a registrar of the Court. 22 On 30 September 2010, the independent expert, Dr Alan Rumsey, provided his report. 23 On 14 and 15 February 2011, the applicants advised the Court and the respondents that they would seek a joint determination of native title. 24 On 21 February 2011, a copy of Dr Rumsey's report was provided to the State so that it could give consideration to the evidence relied upon by the applicants in support of their application for a joint determination of native title. Dr Rumsey's report included and referred to relevant portions of evidence led by Karajarri and Nyangumarta people in Nangkiriny and connection material provided to the State by the Nyangumarta people in Hunter. A partially redacted copy of Dr Rumsey's report was provided to other respondents on 8 July 2011 so that they could form their own view as to the connection of the applicants to the area. 25 Also on 21 February 2011, the Court referred the proceedings back to mediation by the Tribunal. 26 Between 14 March 2011 and 9 March 2012, the parties remained in active mediation overseen by the Tribunal. The parties considered and resolved the nature and constitution of the Prescribed Body Corporate to hold the applicants' native title rights and interests, the manner in which rights of access by the applicants to the land subject to the Anna Plains and Mandora pastoral leases within the proposed determination area would be enjoyed, and whether exclusive native title rights could be recognised to an area within the 40 metre strip of unallocated Crown land that lies between the boundary of the Anna Plains pastoral lease and the high water mark, pursuant to s 47B of the Act. A particular concern of the respondents was the ability to deal in the future with one body corporate representing the joint holders of native title over this area, and continued access to 80 Mile Beach by government agencies, the fishing, pearling and specimen shell industries and the public at large. These concerns have been accommodated in the proposed constitution of the Prescribed Body Corporate, and in the drafting of the proposed consent determination of native title, which preserves continued access to 80 Mile Beach via a corridor of land where non-exclusive rights will continue to exist, through the exclusive rights area which, in effect, is a continuation of Road 12638 from the boundary of the pastoral lease to the beach. 27 On 9 March 2012, after these issues were resolved, the State advised the applicants of an agreement in principle to the proposal for the application of s 47B to the 4 km area, in the vicinity known as Jangyjartiny, on the basis that there will be an approximately 20 metre wide corridor of non-exclusive rights recognised through this 4 km area which is the same width as, and effectively a continuation of, Road 12638 so as to allow government officers and members of the public continued access to 80 Mile Beach, and agreement in principle to the provisions in the draft rule book of the Nyangumarta Karajarri Aboriginal Corporation. 28 The agreed statement of facts demonstrates that the parties have arrived at a genuine agreement on an informed basis. The applicants sought independent anthropological expert advice relating to the requirements of the Act to establish native title rights and interests. That advice was that both the Nyangumarta and Karajarri peoples hold native title rights and interests in the shared country under laws and customs recognised by both groups. The State, acting on behalf of the public, has examined that material independently and arrived at the conclusion that there is a proper basis for a determination of native title. 29 It is not necessary when the Court acts under ss 87 or 87A that it be satisfied separately from the agreement of the parties that there exists a proper basis for the determination of native title rights and interests in favour of the native title parties. However, quite often there will be a basis for the Court to support its satisfaction as to the appropriateness of the agreement by reference to evidence called in early evidence or preservation proceedings (Mullet on behalf of the Gunai/Kurnai People v State of Victoria [2010] FCA 1144 and Hayes on behalf of the Thalanyji People v State of Western Australia [2008] FCA 1487) or to evidence lead in a trial which was not completed because an agreement was reached between the parties (Nangkiriny). 30 The present case is another and different example of circumstances in which the Court may obtain extra assurance of the appropriateness of the agreement from the record of other proceedings. 31 The determination in respect of the Karajarri land was made by consent but only after very extensive evidence had been called. The course of the hearing was described in Nangkiriny as follows: 4 The hearing of this application commenced, as many of you here will know, in the Broome Courthouse on 20 June 2000. It proceeded until 22 July 2000. In all, the case occupied twenty-seven sitting days. Most of the hearing took place on country, first at Bidyadanga just over the way from where we are now sitting and then at a number of coastal sites which the Court visited with the claimants, lawyers and other representatives in a four wheel drive convoy. Those sittings were held under canvas or in the open. 5 Then between 19 and 22 July 2000 the Court, the parties and their representatives were taken east into the Great Sandy Desert into the unallocated Crown Land where the Court sat at a number of memorable places including Munro Springs, Kurriji Pa Yajula, Pirrijiti, Jawani Jawani and Yilpi. 6 The Court heard evidence from about forty witnesses. The evidence occupies over 2400 pages of transcript. Most of the witnesses were Karajarri people and Aboriginal people from neighbouring areas. The evidence of all of these people was central to the applicants' case. Of particular importance was the evidence of John Dudu Nangkiriny, [SP], Mervyn Mulardy Senior, Norman Munro, Donald Grey, Edna Hopiga, Patrick Dodson, Peter Clancy and Mervyn Mulardy Junior. 7 The Court also heard evidence from anthropologists, historians, linguists, hydrogeologists and several other people. Again, without seeking to minimise the evidence of any of those witnesses, special acknowledgment should be directed to the great assistance given by the evidence of the anthropologists, Doctor Bagshaw, Mrs Yu and Professor Maddock. 32 I was privileged to be the trial judge in that case. The evidence amply established that the Karajarri people constituted a society bound together by laws and custom which related to the land and that society had retained its connection with the land through those laws and customs since sovereignty in accordance with the requirements in Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422; [2002] HCA 58. 33 Although the Court did not directly hear evidence in relation to the determination made in respect of the Nyangumarta land, it was given a detailed account of the basis upon which the State had been persuaded of the connection of the Nyangumarta people to the land such that they were entitled to a determination of native title. That material was described in Hunter as follows: 18 … In relation to the consideration given by the State of Western Australia to the application, Mr Hamley, who is the Executive Director of the Office of Native Title (ONT) in the Western Australian Department of Treasury and Finance, explained the process which led to the agreement of the State of Western Australia. The process is laid down in the State's Guidelines for the Provision of Information and Support of Applications for a Determination of Native Title dated October 2004 (the Guidelines). First, the applicants were required to provide evidence of connection. In response they provided a Connection Report dated April 2006 from Dr Nicholas Smith, the Senior Anthropologist with the Pilbara Native Title Service. The report came with a DVD showing a number of the Nyangumarta People explaining their connection with country, and also with genealogies and genealogical sources. In accordance with the Guidelines this material was reviewed internally by Ms Debbie Fletcher, the Director of Research. On the basis of this internal review the ONT advised the then Deputy Premier that the State should enter into negotiations toward an agreed determination of native title. Mr Hamley explained the basis upon which this advice was given. He said: …In particular, ONT was satisfied that the connection material supports the existence of a body of traditional laws and customs under which the claimants hold rights and interests within the area covered by the application. This was on the basis that: (a) the Nyangumarta claimants are a clearly defined group of people who acknowledge and observe a shared set of normative rules for determining group membership and are descended from Nyangumarta ancestors who were present in the claim area at the time of settlement; (b) there is evidence of continuity of acknowledgement and observance of traditional laws and customs in relation to the claim area by the claimants and transmission of these laws and customs to younger members of the claim group; and (c) the continued connection of the Nyangumarta people to the claim area has been underpinned by acknowledgement and observance of a normative system of law and custom. 19 During its assessment process, the State of Western Australia engaged an independent expert anthropologist to assess the connection material. In the meantime further material was provided by the applicants from October 2006 until December 2008. 20 The affidavit of Mr Mathews filed on behalf of the applicants exhibited the report of Dr Smith with certain deletions designed to protect confidentiality. This was only part of the connection material provided by the applicants to the State of Western Australia. Excluding the seven appendices the report ran to 240 pages. It is a comprehensive discussion of each of the elements together with supporting evidence which the applicants would need to prove at a trial to secure a native title determination. 21 The affidavit material amply demonstrates not only that the State of Western Australia gave detailed and comprehensive consideration to the applicants' case, but also that the applicants have a strong basis for the determination of native title sought. 34 The evidence of the connection of both the Karajarri and the Nyangumarta peoples to the shared country was addressed in the applications made for determinations of native title in the adjoining country. That evidence provides a solid basis for the Court to be satisfied that the elements necessary to establish native title have been made out by both peoples in relation to the shared country.
the requirements of sections 55 and 56 - prescribed body corporate 35 Where the Court proposes to make a determination that native title exists it must determine whether the native title is to be held in trust and if so by whom (ss 55 and 56(1)). The Nyangumarta people and the Karajarri people have each given to the Court a nomination in writing dated 21 May 2012 and 18 May 2012 respectively that the Nyangumarta Karajarri Aboriginal Corporation (the Corporation) is to hold the rights and interests comprising the native title in trust for the common law holders (s 56(2)(a)). The Corporation is a body corporate which may be determined by the Court under s 56 to hold the rights and interests in trust for the common law holders (s 59 and reg 4 of the Native Title (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999 (Cth)). The Corporation has filed a written consent dated 14 May 2012 to act in that capacity. 36 Although each of the Nyangumarta people and the Karajarri people have existing prescribed bodies corporate which hold native title rights and interests in respect of their own country, they have registered a new prescribed body corporate to hold the rights and interests in the shared country. Membership of the new prescribed body corporate is controlled by the existing prescribed bodies corporate so that a Nyangumarta member of the new prescribed body corporate must be nominated by the existing Nyangumarta prescribed body corporate and a Karajarri member of the new prescribed body corporate must be nominated by the existing Karajarri prescribed body corporate (r 5.8). Further, there are six directors of the new prescribed body corporate, three appointed by the Nyangumarta members and three by the Karajarri members (r 7.1). Through these provisions the parties devised a single channel for communication with the joint native title holders. This addressed one of the particular concerns of the respondents. The arrangement reflects the evolving sophistication of solutions to issues which arise in the formulation of native title determinations. 37 For the reasons explained I find that it is appropriate to make the orders including the determination sought by the parties and that the Nyangumarta Karajarri Aboriginal Corporation be determined to be the prescribed body corporate which is to hold the rights and interests comprising the native title in trust for the common law holders.
conclusion 38 In the non-Indigenous community, contention between neighbours is a type of disputation often dealt with by the legal system. It is no surprise that the same dynamics give rise to contention in the indigenous community. The applicants are to be congratulated on finding a way to resolve the question between them concerning the shared country at the boundary of land in which each group has already been found by the Court to hold native title rights and interests. The applicants have adopted an innovative procedure by engaging Dr Rumsey to provide an expert opinion to them as to the historical rights and interests in the shared country. They have been assisted by Mr O'Dea, a member of the Tribunal, and by Registrar Eaton of the Federal Court. 39 They have also utilised the provisions of the Act concerning prescribed bodies corporate in an imaginative way to answer the concerns of the respondents over having native title rights and interests held by two native title holding groups. The respondents have cooperated to reach this welcome outcome. 40 These features indicate the evolution of practice in native title and the growing options provided through the process of agreement making which is facilitating solutions to difficult problems. 41 Some would say that this is not before time. Indeed, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the High Court's judgment in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1; [1992] HCA 23 which was the genesis of the system of native title which we see in action here today.
a personal note 42 I end on a personal note. It is almost twelve years since the Karajarri applications for determination of native title commenced in the Broome courthouse on 20 June 2000. I have presided over the determinations of native title in the Karajarri land and the Nyangumarta land, and now over the shared country. It has been a great privilege to hear the evidence of many old people concerning their laws and customs which have their roots in antiquity. It has been very moving to witness the joy of the Nyangumarta people and the Karajarri people achieving recognition by their fellow Australians of their rights and interests in their country. It has also been heartening to witness the practical way in which the respondents have addressed the wrongs of historical dispossession through the process of agreement making. 43 Finally, I have seen the sad passing of the senior law people whose commitment inspired the commencement of the native title applications and who gave evidence all those years ago. But I now see the new generation of Nyangumarta and Karajarri leaders continuing with the same pride in their indigenous heritage and their unswerving commitment to their country. 44 The making of this determination of native title represents a continuation of the efforts of the old people to achieve land justice and to have past wrongs redressed. 45 The orders of the Court recognise the rights and interests of the Nyangumarta people and the Karajarri people in the shared country. Those orders speak for all Australians because the Court applies the law of Australia. By this recognition, the day of a reconciled Australia is brought a little bit closer. I certify that the preceding forty-five (45) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice North.
Associate: Dated: 27 June 2012 Attachment A THE COURT NOTES THAT: A. Pursuant to s 87(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) the parties have filed with the Court the attached Minute of Consent Determination of Native Title ("A") which reflects the terms of an agreement reached by the parties in relation to an area covered by the entirety of the application WAD 280 of 2008 and the balance of the application WAD 6281 of 1998. B. The terms of the agreement involve the making of consent orders for a determination of native title in relation to the balance of the land and waters the subject of proceedings numbered WAD 6281 of 1998 and the whole of the area subject to proceedings numbered WAD 280 of 2008 pursuant to s 87(2) and s 94A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). C. The persons who are the First and Second Applicants have indicated that they intend to have the native title rights and interests held in trust and they have nominated the Nyangumarta Karajarri Aboriginal Corporation as the prescribed body corporate to be the trustee of their shared native title rights and interests. D. The Nyangumarta Karajarri Aboriginal Corporation has consented in writing to hold the rights and interests comprising the native title in trust for the common law holders and to perform the functions given to it as a registered native title body corporate under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, THE COURT DETERMINES, DECLARES AND ORDERS THAT:
Existence of native title (s 225)
3.2 Any other public work Any other public works as that expression is defined in the Native Title Act and the Titles (Validation) and Native Title (Effect of Past Acts) Act 1995 (WA) and to which s 12J of the Titles (Validation) and Native Title (Effect of Past Acts) Act 1995 (WA) or s 23C(2) of the Native Title Act applies, within the external boundary of the Determination Area including the land and waters defined in s 251D of the Native Title Act. SCHEDULE 7 - Part A and B DESCRIPTION OF THE NATIVE TITLE HOLDERS A. NYANGUMARTA PEOPLE Nyangumarta People (referred to in paragraph 3) are: (a) descendants of the following sets of apical ancestors:
Hunter
State of Western Australia
Hunter v State of Western Australia [2012] FCA 690 CORRIGENDUM
(2002) 214 CLR 422
(2002) 117 FCR 6
(2001) 115 FCR 109
(1992) 175 CLR 1