The Court's consideration of the issues
15 Where the parties reach agreement on the terms of an order, the Court may, if it appears appropriate to do so, make an order in those terms without holding a hearing.
16 In terms of s 87(1), the Court finds that the period specified in the notice under s 66 for notification of the Application has ended.
17 The Court also finds that an agreement has been reached between all the parties on the terms of an order in relation to the proceedings (s 87(1)(a)(i)) and the terms of that agreement, in writing signed by or on behalf of the parties, has been filed with the Court (s 87(1)(b)).
18 The Court is satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, those terms is within the power of the Court (s 87(1)(c)). The Court has jurisdiction, and the requirements of s 94A of the Native Title Act are satisfied because, as detailed further below, each of the requirements of s 225 of the Native Title Act are met by the Determination.
19 The Court is satisfied that the native title rights and interests to be determined are recognised by the common law of Australia. Having regard to the terms of s 223 of the Native Title Act, the Court finds that the agreement and the proposed orders are "rooted in reality": Kerindun (Wik and Wik Way Native Title Claim Group) v Queensland [2009] FCA 789; 258 ALR 306 at [16] per Greenwood J.
20 The submissions on behalf of the applicant set out the following issues which, it was submitted, the material before the Court needed to answer.
(a) Do the Gulngay people, as a society or community, presently observe and acknowledge traditional laws and customs that are normative rules that originate from a pre-sovereignty (in this case, prior to 26 January 1788) Gulngay society or community?
(b) Do the Gulngay People presently possess the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs?
(c) Taking account that some change to, or adaptation of, traditional law or custom or some interruption of enjoyment or exercise of native title rights or interests in the period between the Crown asserting sovereignty and the present will not necessarily be fatal to a native title claim, has the normative system of the Gulngay People had a continuous existence and vitality since sovereignty?
(d) Are the rights and interests in the Determination recognised by the common law of Australia?
21 The applicant presented the material necessary to answer these issues under the following categories:
(i) Identification of the native title Claim Group:
(a) Archaeological material
(b) Anthropological and Linguistic material and the Gulngay pre-sovereign society
(c) Evidence from the Gulngay group
(ii) Continuity of connection:
(a) Physical, cultural and spiritual connection
(b) Traditional concepts of ownership and responsibility
(c) Transmission of responsibilities
(d) Continuity of connection
(e) Continuity and transformation into the contemporary land tenure system
(f) Traditional law and customs substantially maintained
(iii) Normative system of traditional laws and customs
(iv) Rights and interests recognised by the common law of Australia
22 The Court finds that Aboriginal people who spoke the Gulngay language used and occupied Gulngay country prior to 1788. The Court finds there has been ongoing use of the Gulngay language and acquisition and transfer of Gulngay People's cultural knowledge throughout the twentieth century. The Court infers that the Gulngay People today are descended from a community of people who spoke the Gulngay language and who used and occupied Gulngay country prior to 1788. Gulngay identity and the Gulngay People today are linked to land and language through the application of normative rules associated with "dreaming stories". The evidence identifies Gulngay ancestors and locates them as a community of Gulngay People in the early days of sustained European contact in Gulngay People's country (ie from the 1880s). The Court infers that the Gulngay People are descended from a pre-sovereignty community of Gulngay People ancestors. The Court finds the Gulngay People today are, and were in 1938, an organised society that possesses native title rights and interests in accordance with observed and acknowledged traditional laws and customs. The Court finds there has been intergenerational transfer of those laws and customs and infers that they, as well as the rights possessed in accordance with them, have their origins in a pre-sovereignty Gulngay society.
23 The Court finds the material establishes the continuity of the Gulngay People as a society possessing native title in accordance with observed and acknowledged traditional law and custom. While there have been some adaptations of laws and customs as a result of the impacts of sustained European settlement, those changes have not affected the laws and customs of the Gulngay People such that it can no longer be said that the rights or interests asserted are possessed under their traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional customs observed. The Court infers the established laws and customs, as well as the rights possessed in accordance with them, have their origins in a pre-sovereignty Gulngay People society.
24 The Court finds the material establishes that the rights and interests in the Determination are not antithetical to fundamental tenets of the common law and, subject to permissible adaptation, existed at sovereignty, survived that fundamental change in legal regime, and now can be enforced and protected. As such, they are recognised by the common law of Australia.
25 In terms of the identification of the native title claim group, the applicant's submissions, which the Court accepts, refer to Dr Pannell's 2014 report, where it is noted that the identity and constitution of the native title claim group is confined to 7 individuals. In 1938, Norman Tindale specifically identified 23 individuals on his genealogies as belonging to the "Gulngai Tribe". Contemporary Gulngay People comprises one particular family group, whose current members cover 4 generations, and who are all descendants of Gulngay man Joe Kinjun (Ginydjubayil). Dr Pannell in reaching her conclusions relied on information from a number of sources, including statements from surviving Gulngay People, genealogical data and recorded information from a range of archaeological, anthropological, linguistic and historical data. Dr Pannell records that in the claimants' use, "Gulngay" denotes 3 elements of people's social and cultural identity: a way of speaking; a group of Aboriginal people who claim connection to Gulngay-speaking forebears; and a defined area of land and waters.
26 The Court accepts the archaeological material, limited though it is for the Tully River Valley, the anthropological and linguistic material and the evidence from the Gulngay group going to the group's identification. The Court notes the opinion of Dr Pannell as follows:
On the basis of the written record and Aboriginal oral testimony, and in accordance with the previously-discussed traditional laws and customs of Gulngay people regarding group membership, in my expert opinion the living descendants of Gulngay man, Joe Kinjun, clearly possess Gulngay ancestral connections, they are unequivocally recognised and accepted by neighbouring Girramay, Dyribal, Djiru and Mamu, who comprise the regional, Aboriginal jural community, and … they clearly continue to acknowledge and observe the traditional laws and customs of the group and those of the wider society of southern rainforest Aboriginal people.
… Gulngay identity, and membership in the Gulngay group, is based upon filiation with a known antecedent in the first ascending generation from ego, and not upon descent from a distant and unknown ancestor. Moreover … in the wider Aboriginal community, Joe Kinjun's name is exclusively regarded as being synonymous with Gulngay-speaking people, while in the broader European community, Joe Kinjun's name is synonymous with the original Aboriginal people of the Tully district.
27 In relation to the linguistic and anthropological material, the Court accepts the applicant's submission that the archival records, from Roth's 1900 report, research conducted by Tindale in 1938, Dixon's research in 1963, Henry's 1967 publication, Pedley's post-1995 book and Dr Pannell's contemporary research provide a record of the Gulngay People who have continued to acknowledge and observe the traditional custom of speaking Gulngay, the language of their ancestors.
28 The Court accepts the evidence establishing continuity of connection. The Court accepts the submission on behalf of the applicant that the Gulngay People have maintained a strong physical connection to Gulngay country which is clearly evidenced in the research conducted by Dr Pannell, and contained in the connection report. The physical connection of Gulngay People is embedded in the spiritual and cultural activities of Gulngay People which have been handed down through the generations to the present day native title holders.
29 The Court accepts the applicant's submission that in addition to the physical connection, the Gulngay People have maintained an ongoing cultural and spiritual connection to their lands. There are many sites in the Gulngay landscape that are culturally and spiritually important and to which the Gulngay People have a cultural and spiritual connection.
30 The laws and customs of the Gulngay People are "traditional" as:
they are said by Gulngay People to derive from the antecedents of the Gulngay group, whether deceased ancestors or living antecedents;
they are said by Gulngay People to have been passed from generation to generation of Gulngay People, in a continuous manner, in the form of oral accounts, common and observed practices, and/or as socially acknowledged prescriptions and taboos;
they are of sufficient antiquity and durability, that they were recorded by early European observers soon after sustained European contact and settlement in the region, and thus, they appear to have their origins in the pre-sovereignty laws and customs of the Gulngay People; and
they were recorded by European observers, including anthropologists and linguists, at various points in time in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, establishing the continuous existence and vitality of these laws and customs.
31 The Court accepts the applicant's submissions in relation to the traditional concepts of ownership and responsibility. Gulngay People's traditional laws and customs establish that, according to Dr Pannell's evidence which the Court accepts:
… [T]he traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed by Gulngay people circumscribe a system wherein an individual has possessory rights by virtue of their languagegroup or 'tribal' membership, established on the basis of their filial connections to Gulngay antecedents. In other words, the laws and customs observed by Gulngay people dictate that possession is a traditional birth-right articulated within the context of kin-referenced group membership. The principles of language-group or 'tribal' membership serve to establish a kin-based connection between Gulngay people, Gulngay country and Gulngay antecedents.
32 Dr Pannell recorded the Gulngay People as having a Gulngay system of local organisation which revolves around the ascription of the guwal or "language names", and the inalienable connection between these names and a story-place on Gulngay country.
33 Gulngay country is regionally identified as gambal, or "rain" country and Gulngay People, such as Joe Kinjun, are locally acknowledged as "rain-makers". Gulngay country is also regarded by Gulngay informants as ancestral landscape, replete with the former camp grounds and burial sites of Gulngay antecedents, as well as Girramay and Dyribal ancestors. In conjunction with the mythological landscape created by Girrugal, mayinggi, and other beings, the location of these sites also indicates to Gulngay People the identity of the lands and waters as part of Gulngay country.
34 The Court accepts the submissions on behalf of the applicant as to the transmission of responsibilities by an acknowledgement of an individual's Gulngay identity, the bestowal of a guwal name attached to country associated with an individual's antecedents and the right of families to speak for country generally. Gulngay People's acknowledgement and observation of their laws and customs regarding subsistence and material culture enables them to hunt, fish and gather, and to use a range of natural resources occurring on Girramay country to create shelters, fires, implements and art. The physical ingestion by Gulngay People of the faunal and floral species found on Gulngay country, and their physical use and transformation of these and other natural resources into a range of Aboriginal artifacts, establish a connection of "consubstantiality" between Gulngay People and Gulngay country. The ability of Gulngay People to continue to carry on these spiritual and cultural pursuits with relatively minor adjustments reflects very clearly that there has been and continues to be a successful transmission of responsibilities and knowledge. In Gulngay law and custom, the authority to speak for country is transmitted from previous generations.
35 The Court accepts the submissions on behalf of the applicant as to the continuity of connection. The continuity of this connection is evidenced by the laws and customs the Gulngay People have in connection with their traditional lands and waters. Connection to country for Gulngay People is not singular in nature, and Gulngay People acknowledge and express a spiritual and cultural connection to Gulngay country.
36 The Court accepts the submissions on behalf of the applicant as to continuity and transformation into the contemporary land tenure system: the Connection Material shows that the Gulngay People's contemporary traditional land tenure system has its roots firmly in the traditional land tenure system that existed pre-sovereignty.
37 The Court accepts the submissions on behalf of the applicant that the traditional laws and customs have been substantially maintained, as summarised by the applicant under the topics "identity", "physical connection", "cultural connection", "spiritual connection" and "culturally significant places".
38 The Court accepts the submissions on behalf of the applicant as to the normative system of traditional laws and customs: the laws and customs which continue to be practised by the Gulngay People on their country today.
39 The Court accepts the submissions on behalf of the applicant that the rights and interests in the Determination are not antithetical to fundamental tenets of the common law and, subject to permissible adaptation, existed at sovereignty, survived that fundamental change in legal regime, and now can be enforced and protected. As such, they can be recognised by the common law of Australia.
40 In terms of the issues identified at [20] above, the Gulngay People, as a society or community, do presently observe and acknowledge traditional laws and customs that are normative rules that originate from a pre-sovereignty (in this case, prior to 26 January 1788) Gulngay society or community. The Gulngay People do presently possess the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs. The normative system of the Gulngay People has had a continuous existence and vitality since sovereignty. The rights and interests in the Determination are recognised by the common law of Australia.
41 As to s 225(a), paragraph [5] of the Determination provides that the persons holding the native title are the Gulngay People described in Schedule 1. The Court accepts the applicant's submission that the description provides a clear identification of the Gulngay People as a group and the means by which Gulngay People can be identified as native title holders through descent from an identified ancestor.
42 As to s 225(b), the native title rights and interests are described in paragraphs [6] and [7] of the Determination. Paragraph [8] of the Determination provides that the native title rights and interests are subject to, and exercisable in accordance with, the traditional laws acknowledged, and traditional customs observed, by the native title holders. The Court accepts the applicant's submission that s 225(b) is satisfied.
43 As to ss 225(c)-(d), the Court finds that paragraphs [11] and [12] together with Schedule 2 of the Determination satisfy these paragraphs. They clearly identify all other interests in relation to the Determination Area and establish that, to the extent that there is an inconsistency between those other interests and the determined native title, the other interests will prevail.
44 As to s 225(e), the native title rights and interests are clearly described as "exclusive" or "non-exclusive" in paragraphs [6] and [7] of the Determination and the Court accepts the applicant's submission that they therefore satisfy s 225(e).
45 The Court notes that the Gulngay People rely on s 47B of the Native Title Act in relation to certain of the parcels listed as Exclusive Areas under Part 1 of Schedule 4 of the Determination. In this respect the parties agree that the provisions of s 47B(l) of the Native Title Act have been satisfied in relation to the s 47B areas, so that any prior extinguishment should be disregarded pursuant to s 47B(2).
46 In addition to areas to which s 47B of the Native Title Act applies, there are a number of other parcels described in the Determination as being Exclusive Area. The Court accepts the applicant's submission that it is appropriate for the Court to make an order, in the terms of the Determination, recognising exclusive native title in relation to those parcels on the basis of the State's tenure research, provided to the parties as part of the consent determination negotiations, which did not reveal any prior extinguishing tenures over those parcels.
47 The Court finds that the requirements of s 94A of the Native Title Act are satisfied because each of the requirements of s 225 of the Native Title Act are satisfied.
48 Turning to s 56 of the Native Title Act, paragraph [14] of the Determination provides that the native title is not to be held on trust and the Gulngay Kinjufile Aboriginal Corporation (ICN: 8802) is to be the prescribed body corporate for the purposes of s 56.
49 There is in evidence a true copy of the Certificate of Incorporation of the corporation, issued on 19 March 2018. The Certificate states that the Gulngay Kinjufile Aboriginal Corporation was registered on 19 March 2018, and is incorporated under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth). The Gulngay Kinjufile Aboriginal Corporation's Rule Book (the Rules) provides that membership is only open to persons over the age of 18 years and who fall within the definition of "Gulngay People". The definition of Gulngay People set out in paragraph [3.9] of the Rules is the same as that contained in Schedule 1 of the Determination. The Court accepts this evidence.
50 On 24 January 2019, the Applicant filed a Notice of Nomination and Consent of the Prescribed Body Corporate which nominates the Gulngay Kinjufile Aboriginal Corporation for this role. At Part A of the Nomination and Consent, the Gulngay Kinjufile Aboriginal Corporation is nominated as the Prescribed Body Corporate to perform the functions set out in s 57(3), in accordance with s 57(2)(a)(i) of the Native Title Act. At Part B of the Nomination and Consent, the Gulngay Kinjufile Aboriginal Corporation consents to that nomination in accordance with s 57(2)(a)(ii).
51 The Court finds that the Gulngay Kinjufile Aboriginal Corporation satisfies the requirements of the Native Title (Prescribed Bodies Corporate) Regulations 1999 (Cth). It is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation (reg 4(1)). It is registered for the purpose of being the subject of a s 56 or s 57 determination and the Rules include reference to the purpose of becoming a registered native title body corporate (reg 4(2)(a)). Membership is only open to persons over the age of 18 years and who fall within the definition of "Gulngay People". That definition is consistent with the definition of Gulngay People contained in Schedule 1 of the Determination. The Rules do not allow membership of people other than Gulngay People. Therefore, all current members of the Gulngay Kinjufile Aboriginal Corporation are persons who are included in the Determination as native title holders (reg 4(2)(b)(i)). The Rules of the Corporation provide that membership is confined to Aboriginal persons who fall within the description of Gulngay People set out in the rules. The Rules do not provide for any other class of persons to be members. The Indigeneity requirement of s 29-5 of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act will therefore be met (reg 4(2)(d)).
52 The Court therefore finds that s 56 of the Native Title Act is satisfied.