SECTION 87 OF THE NATIVE TITLE ACT
40 The joint submissions seek that a determination of native title should be made pursuant to s 87 of the NT Act. Section 87 of the NT Act provides, in effect, 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 NT Act has ended and an agreement has been reached regarding the proceeding or part of the proceeding (s 87(1)(a));
(b) the terms of an agreement, in writing signed by or on behalf of the parties, are filed with the Court (s 87(1)(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)).
41 Pursuant to s 87(1) of the NT Act, for each of the Yinhawangka Applications, the notification period referred to in ss 66(8) and 66(10)(c) of the NT Act has ended. The notification period for the Yinhawangka Part A Application ended on 23 May 2011 and the notification period for the Yinhawangka Part B Application ended on 2 February 2011.
42 The requirements of s 87(1)(a) and (b) are established. 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 by (or on behalf of) all parties to both proceedings.
43 In accordance with s 87(1)(c) of the NT 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 Yinhawangka Applications are validly made, having been authorised by the native title claim groups according to a decision-making process agreed to and adopted by the claim group members that authorised the Applicant for each of the Yinhawangka Applications to bring the application;
(b) the Yinhawangka Applications are each for a determination of native title in relation to areas of land and waters for which there is no approved determination of native title (s 13(1)(a) NT Act) and there remains no approved determination in relation to the area the subject of the proposed determination (ss 61A(1) and s 68 of the NT Act);
(c) there are no other 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 NT Act;
(d) the form of the Determination proposed, as outlined in the Minute, complies with ss 94A and 225 of the NT Act; and
(e) the requirements of s 87 of the NT Act are otherwise satisfied.
44 Section 87(1A) of the NT 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 broad boundaries ascertained by reference to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the NT Act: Brown v Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025 at [22] (Bennett J).
45 As the terms of s 87(2) of the NT Act suggest, this does not necessarily require the Court to receive evidence, make findings, or embark on its own inquiry on the merits of the claim made in the application. Rather, the focus of the Court is upon determining whether there is an agreement between the parties and whether that agreement was freely entered into on an informed basis: Hughes v Western Australia [2007] FCA 365 at [9] (Bennett J). As observed by North J in Ward v Western Australia [2006] FCA 1848 at [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 …
46 The requirements of s 87(2) of the NT Act will likely 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, but it might consider that evidence for the limited purpose of being satisfied that the government respondent is acting in good faith and rationally: Lovett v Victoria [2007] FCA 474 at [37] (North J); Munn v Queensland (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [29]-[30] (Emmett J).
47 The joint submissions outline that the State has played an active role in the negotiation of the proposed consent determination contained in the Minute and it is apparent that the State has taken a real interest in the proceeding in the interests of the community generally: Watson v Western Australia (No 3) [2014] FCA 127 at [54] (Gilmour J); Munn at [29]. In so doing, the State has, acting on behalf of the community generally, had regard to the requirements of the NT Act. Through a rigorous and detailed assessment process, and after a period of negotiations, the State, acting in its capacity as parens patriae to look after the interests of the community generally, has satisfied itself that the Determination is justified in all the circumstances.
48 The Connection Material, together with information obtained from the Yinhawangka people at the May 2014 confidential settlement conference is, in the view of the State, sufficient to demonstrate that the Yinhawangka Applications have a credible basis. The State is satisfied that the material presented by the Applicants was sufficient to evidence the maintenance of connection according to traditional laws and customs in the Determination Area.
49 The State has also conducted searches of land tenure, mining and petroleum registries to determine the extent of "other interests" within the Determination Area, and the Determination includes those other interests at Schedule Six such that the Determination complies with s 225 of the NT Act.
50 By signing the Minute, the parties to the proceeding have indicated their agreement. The Applicants and the State have been legally represented throughout the negotiation process. All other respondent parties have also had the benefit of legal representation.
51 In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that it would be appropriate and within the Court's power to make orders under ss 87 and 94A of the NT Act. The effect of the orders I will make is that the native title claim group for both Yinhawangka Applications, being the Yinhawangka People, in accordance with the traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional custom observed by them, are to be recognised as the native title holders for the Determination Area.