The applicable requirements of s 87
22 The joint submissions seek that a determination of native title should be made pursuant to s 87 of the Native Title Act. That section provides that the Court may make a determination of native title by consent over an area covered by a native title application without holding a hearing where:
(a) the period specified in the notice given under s 66 of the Native Title Act has ended: s 87(1);
(b) agreement is reached between the parties on the terms of an order of the Federal Court in relation to the proceedings and the terms of the agreement, in writing signed by or on behalf of the parties, are filed with the Court: s 87(1)(a) and (b);
(c) the Court is satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, those terms would be within the power of the Court: s 87(1)(c); and
(d) it appears appropriate to the Court to make the orders sought: s 87(1A) and s 87(2).
23 The notification period referred to in s 66(8) and s 66(10)(c) of the Native Title Act has ended and so the condition in s 87(1) is satisfied.
24 The requirements of s 87(1)(a) and (b) of the Native Title Act are satisfied. There is an agreement in writing for a proposed determination of native title which has been filed with the Court. The agreement is reflected in the Minute which has been signed on behalf of the parties of the proceeding.
25 In accordance with s 87(1)(c) of the Native Title Act, the orders sought in the Minute are consistent with the terms of the agreement and are within the power of the Court to make for the following reasons:
(a) the Goorring application is validly made, having been authorised by the Goorring claimants according to a decision-making process that, under the traditional laws and customs of the claim group, authorised the Applicant to make the native title determination application;
(b) the Goorring application seeks a determination of native title in relation to an area for which there is no approved determination of native title (s 13(1)(a) of the Native Title Act) and there remains no approved determination in relation to the area the subject of the proposed determination (s 68 of the Native Title Act);
(c) there are no proceedings before the Court relating to native title determination applications that cover any part of the area the subject of the proposed determination which would otherwise require orders to be made under s 67(1) of the Native Title Act;
(d) the form of the proposed determination outlined in the Minute complies with s 94A and s 225 of the Native Title Act; and
(e) the requirements of s 87 of the Native Title Act are otherwise satisfied.
26 Section 87(1A) of the Native Title Act requires the Court to be satisfied that it is appropriate to make the determination sought by the parties. This is a discretion that must be exercised judicially and within the boundaries ascertained by references to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Native Title Act: Brown (on behalf of the Ngarla People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025; (2007) 203 FCR 505 at [22] (Bennett J).
27 The process envisaged by s 87(2) of the Native Title Act does not necessarily require the Court to receive evidence and make findings, or even to form a concluded view, as to whether the legal requirements for proving native title have been met: Watson on behalf of the Nyikina Mangala People v State of Western Australia (No 6) at [29]. Orders may be made under s 87 when the Court is satisfied that the parties have freely and on an informed basis come to an agreement: Ward v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 1848 at [8] (North J).
28 In Ward, North J made the following comments as to s 87 of the Native Title Act:
[6] Section 87 gives the Court power to make orders following agreement between the parties to applications for determination of native title. However, the Court must be satisfied about a number of matters. Relevantly, it must be satisfied that the orders sought are within the power of the Court and that it is appropriate that the orders be made (s 87(1)).
…
[8] The Act makes mediation the primary means of resolution of native title cases. It is designed to encourage parties to take responsibility for resolution of proceedings without the need for litigation. Section 87 must be construed in this context. The section provides a power which is exercisable only when an agreement has been made. The power must be exercised flexibly and with regard to the purpose for which the section is designed. The section should not be construed to require parties in agreement to produce evidence as if in a trial. Consequently, in some circumstances, it will be appropriate to make orders under s 87 notwithstanding that the Court has not been provided with evidence of the primary facts substantiating native title.
29 In particular, s 87 is designed to encourage the parties to take responsibility for resolving proceedings without the need for litigation and must be exercised flexibly and with regard to the purpose for which the section is designed: Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria [2007] FCA 474 at [36] (North J).
30 The requirements of s 87(2) of the Native Title Act will often be met where the Court is satisfied that a relevant government respondent, such as the State, has through competent legal representation satisfied itself as to the cogency of the evidence upon which an applicant relies. Generally this will not involve the Court making findings on the evidence on which the government respondent relies, although the Court might consider that evidence for the limited purpose of being satisfied that the government respondent is acting in good faith and rationally: Munn for and on behalf of the Gunggari People v Queensland [2001] FCA 1229; (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [29]-[30] (Emmett J).
31 In this case, the Applicant and the State have been legally represented throughout the case management process.
32 Through an assessment process, which has included consideration of the connection material, the State has satisfied itself that the determination is justified in all the circumstances. The information and connection material provided by the Applicant is, in the view of the State, sufficient to demonstrate that the Goorring native title claims have a credible basis. The State is satisfied, as set out in the joint submissions, that the material presented is sufficient to evidence the maintenance of connection according to traditional laws and customs in the determination area.
33 In the circumstances, based on the material filed and taking into account the State's active role in the negotiations, I am satisfied that an order under s 87 of the Native Title Act is appropriate.