REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an application for a consent determination of native title rights and interests held by the Ngurrara people in respect of land and waters within the Kimberley region of Western Australia that has been designated "Determination Area A". The parties have agreed to deal with areas of exclusive possession in Determination Area A separately from reserve, and former reserve, areas which will be dealt with in Determination Area B. They agree that mediation should continue in relation to Determination Area B and that no determination of native title should presently be made in respect of that area.
2 The area for which the determination is sought covers some 77,810 square kilometres and is located in the vicinity of the Great Sandy Desert, between the Southern extent of the Kimberley pastoral leases and the Percival Lakes. The area is comprised largely of unallocated crown land.
3 The Ngurrara application was first lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal on 22 March 1996 pursuant to section 61 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) as it stood prior to the commencement of the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth) ("the old Act"). In accordance with the 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ("the Act"), the application was deemed to be filed in the Federal Court of Australia in Perth on 30 September 1998.
4 Through mediation in the National Native Title Tribunal ("NNTT") the parties to the application have recently reached an agreement which, amongst other things, recognises the pre-existing native title rights and interests of the claimants and contemplates that this Court will make a determination of native title by consent and without the need for a hearing, pursuant to s 87A of the Act.
5 Section 87A of the Act sets out several pre-conditions that must be met in order for the court to make the orders sought, by consent. These conditions are:
(a) the period specified in the notice given under section 66 of the Native Title Act has ended (s 87A(1)(b));
(b) there is an agreement for a proposed determination of native title in relation to part of an area covered by the native title application (s 87A(1)(b));
(c) the terms of the proposed determination are in writing, signed by or on behalf of all of the parties required to be parties to the agreement pursuant to s 87A(1)(c) and are filed with the Court (ss 87A(1)(c), 87A(1)(d) and 87A(2));
(d) the Registrar of the Federal Court has given notice to the other parties to the proceeding who have not become, or are not required to be, parties to the agreement that the proposed determination of native title has been filed with the Court (s 87A(3));
(e) the Court is satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, those terms would be within the power of the Court (s 87A(4)(a));
(f) it appears appropriate to the Court to make the orders sought (s 87A(4)(b)); and
(g) the Court has taken into account any objection made by the other parties to the proceeding (s 87A(5)).
6 The first three pre-conditions have been met in the present case. The period of notification referred to in s 66 of the Act expired on 11 November 1996. The agreement between the Ngurrara applicants and the three other respondents is in writing and has been signed on behalf of the parties by their legal representatives of by the parties themselves. It was filed with the Court on 26 October 2007 in the form of a Minute of Proposed Consent Determination of Native Title Area "A" ("the Minute") annexed to a signed Minute of Consent Orders.
7 All parties to the proceeding are parties to the agreement the subject of the Minute and the Minute of Consent Orders and therefore the Registrar need not give notice to any party under s 87A(3). It follows that there are no objections for the Court to take into account under s 87A(5).
8 The Court's jurisdiction to hear and determine native title applications is specifically provided for by the Act in s 81. This jurisdiction expressly includes the power to make orders by consent pursuant to s 87A. These statutory provisions make it clear that the Court's jurisdiction is enlivened. It should, however, be noted that the agreement in this case relates to part of the land and waters the subject of the Ngurrara application. The making of a determination of native title in respect of part of an application is a matter that falls within both s 87(3) and s 87A of the Act. It follows that the Court may make orders determining that native title exists in relation to Determination Area A while leaving the issues outstanding in relation to Determination Area B for resolution at a later date (Munn (for and on behalf of the Gunggari People) v State of Queensland (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [6]). This approach has been taken in a number of cases in Western Australia under s 87 (Nangkiriny v State of Western Australia (2002) 117 FCR 6; Nangkiriny v Western Australia [2004] FCA 1156; James on behalf of the Martu People v State of Western Australia [2002] FCA 1208; Hughes (on behalf of the Eastern Guruma People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 365)and under alternatively s 87 and s 87A (Brown (on behalf of the Ngarla People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025).
9 In Brown's case at [15], Bennett J noted that s 87(1)(d) had not been repealed. That subsection provided in effect that an order could not be made under s 87 unless the Court was satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, the terms of the agreement reached between the parties could not be made under s 87A.
10 Section 87(1)(d) has now been repealed and accordingly has no application to this case. In my opinion, the relevant order in this matter may be made under either s 87(1)(a)(ii) and (3) or s 87A. I accept the joint submissions of all the parties that it is preferable to proceed under s 87A because the balance of the application which concerns Determination Area B will then be deemed to be amended to remove the area covered by the proposed determination: s 64(1B).
11 The application will remain registered following the amendment and the Registrar will be obliged to amend the Register of Native Title Claims even though the registration test has not been re-applied: s 190(3)(a).
12 Section 94A of the Act provides that an order made by the Court for a determination of native title "must set out details of the matters mentioned in section 225". Section 225 specifies the matters which must be addressed in a determination of native title and provides:
'A determination of native title is a determination whether or not native title exists in relation to a particular area (the determination area) of land or waters and, if it does exist, a determination of:
(a) who the persons, or each group of persons, holding the common or group rights comprising the native title are; and
(b) the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the determination area; and
(c) the nature and extent of any other interests in relation to the determination area; and
(d) the relationship between the rights and interests in paragraphs (b) and (c) (taking into account the effect of this Act); and
(e) to the extent that the land or waters in the determination area are not covered by a non‑exclusive agricultural lease or a non‑exclusive pastoral lease - whether the native title rights and interests confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of that land or waters on the native title holders to the exclusion of all others.'
13 The proposed determination submitted by the parties deals with each of the specified matters, and therefore meets the requirements of s 94A of the Act. In conclusion, the Court has jurisdiction to make the orders sought and there is nothing in the agreed terms that would suggest that the power of the Court would be exceeded by making those orders.
14 It therefore remains only to consider whether it would be "appropriate" to make the orders sought. The discretion conferred by s 87A is in substance the same as that which applies in the exercise of the Court's discretion under s 87 and must, of course, be exercised judicially and within the broad boundaries ascertained by reference to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Act (see Brown at [22]). The matters to be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion, and the weight to be given to those matters, may vary according to the particular circumstances of each case.
15 Justice North observed in Ward v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 1848 at [6]-[9] that the Act is designed to encourage parties to take responsibility for the resolution of native title proceedings, without the need for litigation. The Court's power must be exercised flexibly and with this purpose in mind. Orders may be made where the Court is not provided with all of the evidence or the primary facts substantiating native title where the Court is satisfied that the parties have freely and on an informed basis come to an agreement (Brown at [23] in respect of s 87A and Hughes at [9] in respect of s 87).
16 If, of course, an agreement were reached where there was nothing to support the claimed connection of the applicants to their country, or the determination appeared to be unfair or unjust, the Court might conclude that a determination would be inappropriate and decline to make the orders sought (James at [4]). That is not the case here.
17 In the present case, the applicants, the State and the Martu People have had independent legal advice and although the Shire of Derby/West Kimberley has not been legally represented, the Shire Planner has requested that access rights for the Shire's employees and agents to the Determination Area be recognised, particularly as regards access to upgrade the roads and infrastructure of the Kurlku and Purlawarla communities. These rights have been specifically recognised as "other interests" in Schedule 4 to the Minute.
18 The State has taken an active and significant part in the negotiation of the consent determination. This was said by Emmett J to be an important factor: Munn at [29]. The State has had regard to the requirements of the Actand applied a rigorous and detailed assessment process. It has satisfied itself that the consent determination is justified in all the circumstance.
19 There is no suggestion that the agreement was not freely made. The agreed terms of the proposed orders are unambiguous and are appropriate in the circumstances.
20 The continuous connection of the Ngurrara people with Determination Area A is acknowledged by all parties. There is also evidence to support that connection. The Ngurrara Native Title Claim WC96/32 Supplementary Consent Determination Report dated January 2006 by Daniel Aime Vachon (amended in October 2007) ("the Report") describes the enduring connection of the native title claimant group to their country within the claim area and, on the basis of the material contained in the Report, supports their claim to a native title right to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of Determination Area A to the exclusion of all others.
21 The members of the Ngurrara claim group are the persons who have native title rights and interests in the Ngurrara application area under traditional law and custom, and are descended from the inhabitants of the claim area at the time of settlement. The Ngurrara native title claim group is comprised of those persons, identified by reference to descent and other culturally-relevant heads of connection to country, who are, in accordance with the normative system of traditional law and custom, responsible for the care and maintenance of country within the claim area and for the transmission of that responsibility to successive generations.
22 The overarching system of jila law shared by all members of the Ngurrara claim group is a system unique to the application area, and recognised as such by neighbouring groups. Jila law is still recognised and practiced, and by this law the applicants' demonstrate their ongoing connection to the Application area. This ongoing connection is, for example, demonstrated through the maintenance of traditional practices such as painting country. Many of the traditional owners paint the places within their ngurrara where they were born/ found and grew up.
23 The State has had regard to the Report together with additional written and audiovisual material provided by the applicants, as set out in the affidavit of Christy Hawker affirmed on 30 October 2007, in addition to a variety of other records held by State Government departments or in publicly available records. It commissioned an independent anthropologist to review that material. Ms Hawker in her affidavit affirms that the State, which represents the community generally, has had regard to the requirements of the Act and is satisfied that the material provided on behalf of the applicant's demonstrates the applicants' traditional connection with the Ngurrara application area and satisfies ss 223 and 225 of the Act.
24 The parties are to be congratulated for reaching agreement and I also acknowledge the significant contribution to this result made by the NNTT.
25 The preference of settling matters as opposed to litigating them has been recognised as a desirable public objective by the High Court and this Court on numerous occasions and its is always heartening when native title claims are settled by agreement rather than through litigation. As the Chief Justice said in Mark Anderson on behalf of the Spinifex People v State of Western Australia [2000] FCA 1717, at [8]: 'The courts have always encouraged parties to settle their claims amicably'. Agreement is especially desirable in native title cases due to the importance, complexity and sensitivity of the issues involved. Agreement between the parties minimises cost and distress and establishes goodwill between the parties for future dealings: North Ganalanja Aboriginal Corporation v Queensland (1996) 185 CLR 595.
26 In these circumstances I am satisfied that it would be appropriate to make an order in the terms agreed between the parties.