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.