The s 87 agreement
22 The parties have approached the Court asking the Court to act under s 87 of the Act and make orders in accordance with the agreed terms between the parties.
23 In support of this application, the parties have filed the following documents:
(a) Minute of Proposed Orders and Determination of Native Title by consent.
(b) Statement of Joint Agreed Facts by the applicant and the first respondent.
(c) Joint Submissions of the applicant and the first respondent.
24 Section 87 of the Act empowers a court at any stage of proceedings after the end of the period specified in any notice given under s 66 of the Act if it appears to be appropriate to do so, to make an order consistent with the terms of an agreement between the parties to the proceeding without holding a hearing in relation to the application.
25 The conditions under which s 87 enables the Court to make such a determination without a hearing are:
(a) the period specified in the notice given under s 66 of the Act has ended and there is an agreement between all of the parties on the terms of a proposed order of the Court in relation to the proceedings: s 87(1)(a);
(b) the terms of the proposed determination agreement are in writing and are signed by or on behalf of the parties and 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 its power: s 87(1)(c); and
(d) the Court considers that it would be appropriate to make the orders sought: s 87(1A) and (2).
26 In addition to those matters, the Court must have regard to the following before making determinations of native title by consent:
(a) whether all parties likely to be affected by an order have had independent and competent legal representation;
(b) whether the rights and interests that are to be declared in the determination are recognisable by the law of Australia or the state in which the land is situated;
(c) whether all of the requirements of the Act have been complied with.
27 The Act is designed to encourage parties to an application to take responsibility for resolving proceedings without the need for the Court's intervention by way of a hearing.
28 For that reason, when the Court is examining the appropriateness of an agreement reached between the parties, the focus of the Court in considering whether the orders sought are appropriate under ss 87(1) and (2) is on the making of the agreement by the parties. In Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria [2007] FCA 474 North J stated at [36] to [37] that:
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.
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.
29 The Court is not required to embark upon an inquiry as to the merits of the claim to be itself satisfied that the orders are supported and in accordance with law: Cox on behalf of the Yungngora People v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 588 at [3] per French J. However, the Court will consider evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether the State has made a rational decision and is acting in good faith: Munn for and on behalf of the Gunggari People v State of Queensland (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [29]-[30] per Emmett J.
30 State and Territory governments have the responsibility of ensuring that the community's interests are protected by involving themselves in a process which can assess the underlying evidence as to the existence of native title. In this case, the Northern Territory is satisfied that the group to be recognised as the holders of native title rights and interests is an appropriate one, that it is appropriate to recognise the native title rights and interests proposed, and that in other respects it would be appropriate for the Northern Territory to enter into the determination.
31 On 25 June 2013, the applicant provided the first respondent with its first anthropological report and Dreaming and Site Map by Dr Anna Kenny ("the Anthropological Report"). This was peer reviewed by Mr Jeffery Stead, a consultant anthropologist engaged by the first respondent. In response to comments made by Mr Stead, the applicant provided the first respondent with a Supplementary Anthropological Report of Dr Anna Kenny dated 15 September 2015 ("the First Supplementary Anthropological Report"). This was also reviewed by Mr Stead. In response to comments made by Mr Stead about the First Supplementary Anthropological Report, the applicant provided the first respondent with a further Supplementary Anthropological Report of Dr Anna Kenny dated 4 June 2015 ("the Second Supplementary Anthropological Report"). Ultimately, the parties reached agreement regarding all outstanding anthropological issues.
32 The Anthropological Report and the Supplementary Anthropological reports and other materials were assessed against criteria agreed by the parties as satisfying the requirements of s 223 of the Act. The Anthropological Report also complied with Federal Court Practice Note CM7, including as to the completeness of the enquiries made in relation to preparing the report.
33 The applicant and the first respondent reached agreement that the native title claim group is comprised of persons who hold non-exclusive native title rights and interests within the meaning of s 223(1) of the Act in the Determination Area, with the exception of NT Portion 1607 where the native title rights and interests are exclusive in nature.
34 On 26 November 2013, the first respondent provided to the applicant a letter attaching the "Tenure and Public Works Extinguishment Table" which contained an analysis of the extinguishment of native title in the Determination Area based upon the grant of tenure and public works (the "First Respondent's Extinguishment Contentions"). The first respondent and the applicant subsequently exchanged further correspondence in relation to various land tenure and public works issues.
35 The applicant and the first respondent reached agreement as to those parts of the Determination Area in which native title does and does not exist.
36 The applicant and the first respondent have agreed to a list of commonly occurring government constructed public works within the Determination Area which were constructed or established or commenced to be constructed or established on or before 23 December 1996 and that wholly extinguish native title (including over adjacent land or waters as defined in s 251D of the Act). That list is included in Schedule C of the orders.
37 The applicant and the first respondent agree that s 47B applies in relation to NT Portion 1607, such that the native title rights and interests over that part of the Determination Area are exclusive in nature.
38 The second and third respondents do not dispute any of the matters I have referred to.
39 The Act refers to the rights and interests as defined in s 223 as being in relation to land and waters, which are the subject matter of the application. The characteristics of the native title rights and interests are:
(a) the rights and interests that are possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional customs observed by the peoples concerned;
(b) those traditional laws and customs must have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application; and
(c) the rights and interests must be recognised by the common law of Australia.
40 Section 225(a) prescribes one criterion for the determination, namely that it sets out who are the persons, in each group of persons, holding the common or group rights comprised in the native title area. I accept the submission of the parties that, by the details referred to in paragraphs 16 and 17 and in the determination, that prescription is satisfied.
41 I am also satisfied that the determination identifies the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the Determination Area, as required by s 225(b).
42 It is also necessary, by reason of ss 225(c), (d) and (e), to ensure that the determination identifies the nature and extent of any other interests in relation to the Determination Area and the relationships between the native title rights and interests and those other interests. It clearly does so.
43 The material shows that those matters have also followed from a careful process. It has involved consideration of the respective positions of the applicant, the respondents, and others including Crossland Nickel Pty Ltd, Legend International Investment Pty Ltd, Paradigm Investments Pty Ltd, Panconoz Pty Ltd and Telstra Corporation Ltd, over a period of time. Ultimately agreement was reached on those issues.
44 As to the more formal matters, I am satisfied that s 87 of the Act has been satisfied in relation to this application. In particular, I note that:
(a) the period specified in the notice given under s 66 ended on 24 December 2013 (s 87(1));
(b) the parties have reached an agreement as to the terms of a determination of native title (s 87(1)(a)(i));
(c) the parties have recorded their agreement in the Minute presented to the Court (s 87(1)(b)); and
(d) an order in terms of or consistent with the Minute would be within the Court's power because:
(i) the application is valid and was made in accordance with s 61 of the Act;
(ii) the application is for a determination of native title in relation to an area for which there was no approved determination of native title (s 13(1)(a));
(iii) the Minute agreed to by the parties complies with ss 94A and 225 of the Act (s 87(1)(c)).
45 In my opinion, it is also appropriate that the Court make the orders sought because:
(a) the parties are legally represented;
(b) the Northern Territory obtained searches of land tenure and mining and other relevant interests to determine the extent of "other interests" within the Determination Area and provided copies of those searches to all parties;
(c) the parties have agreed the nature and extent of interests in relation to the Determination Area and those interests are described more particularly above;
(d) there are no other proceedings before the Court relating to native title determination applications to cover any part of the area the subject of the application which would otherwise require orders to be made under s 67(1) of the Act (s 87(1) and (2));
(e) the Northern Territory has played an active role in the negotiation of the determination and, in doing so, the Northern Territory acting on behalf of the community generally, is satisfied that the determination is justified in all the circumstances.