© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2021] FCA 718
Federal Court of Australia
2021-06-29
White J
Original judgment source is linked above.
A. On 1 August 2017, the Applicant filed a native title determination application over the land and waters within the bounds of the Nathan River Pastoral Lease (Pastoral Lease No. 756) (the "Application"). This land now comprises Crown Land comprising part of the Limmen National Park. B. The Applicant and the Respondents to this proceeding (the "Parties") have reached agreement as to the terms of a proposed determination of native title in relation to the land and waters covered by the Application. C. Acting under ss 87(1)(a)(i) and 87(1)(b) of the Act, the Parties have filed in the Court their agreement in writing (the "Determination"). D. The external boundaries of the area subject to the Determination are described in Schedule A of the Determination and are depicted on the map comprising Schedule B of the Determination (the "Determination Area"). E. The terms of the Parties' agreement involve the making of consent orders pursuant to ss 87 and 94A of the Act, that native title exists in relation to the Determination Area as provided by the Determination. F. The Parties acknowledge that the effect of making the Determination will be that the members of the native title claim group are, in accordance with the traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional customs observed by them, recognised as the native title holders for the Determination Area as provided by the Determination. G. The Parties request that the Court determine this proceeding in accordance with their agreement. BEING SATISFIED that a determination of native title in the terms of the Determination in respect of the proceeding is within the power of the Court and, it appearing to the Court appropriate to do so, pursuant to s 87 of the Act and by the consent of the Parties:
Relationship between the native title and other interests
Description of Determination Area The Determination Area comprises the following areas of land:
Areas where native title exists The areas of land and waters in respect of which the native title rights and interests in clauses 9 and 10 apply are:
Areas where native title does not exist Native title rights and interests have been wholly extinguished in the following areas of land and waters:
Map of interests granted under the Mineral Titles Act (NT) and the Petroleum Act (NT)
Parties NTD 43 of 2017 (Nathan River Pastoral Lease) Applicants: Second Applicant: Grace Daniels Third Applicant: Yvonne Forrest Fourth Applicant: Damien Tonson Fifth Applicant: Julie Limmen Sixth Applicant: Denis Watson Seventh Applicant: David John
Respondents: Second Respondent: Imperial Oil & Gas Pty Ltd (ACN 92 002 699 578)
WHITE J: 1 On 1 August 2017, the Applicant filed an application for a determination of native title over the land and waters within the boundaries of the former Nathan River Pastoral Lease (Perpetual Pastoral Lease No. 756). The parties have now agreed that a determination of native title over the area of the former Nathan River Pastoral Lease may be made by consent and apply to the Court, under s 87 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the NT Act), for such a determination. 2 The Applicant filed an amended application on 23 September 2020 and a further amended application on 12 May 2021. 3 The Nathan River Lease area is approximately 3,690 km2 and is located in the Gulf region of the Northern Territory. It was declared part of the Limmen National Park in July 2012 and the pastoral lease was surrendered in June 2014. It is nevertheless convenient to continue to refer to the application by the name by which it has been known in the Court, namely, the "Nathan River Pastoral Lease Claim". 4 I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the determination sought by the parties. I set out my reasons for that conclusion below.
Section 87 of the NT Act 5 Section 87 of the NT Act permits the Court to make a determination by consent if it is satisfied that: (a) the period specified in the notice given by the Native Title Registrar under s 66 has ended (s 87(1)); (b) there is agreement by all parties to the proceeding on the terms of a determination of native title in respect of a claim area (s 87(1)(a)); (c) the terms of the proposed determination are in writing and have been signed by or on behalf of the parties, and a copy filed with the Court (s 87(1)(b)); (d) an order in, or consistent with, the agreed terms would be within the Court's power (s 87(1)(c)); and (e) it is appropriate to make the determination (s 87(1A)).
Approach to the application of s 87 6 An evident policy of the NT Act is the encouragement of parties to reach agreement with respect to claims for native title, without the necessity for a formal trial. Sections 87 and 87A reflect that policy by permitting the Court to give effect to the parties' agreement without itself conducting a trial of the merits of an application. 7 As a determination of native title binds not only the parties to the proceeding in which it is made, but everyone else in the community, the NT Act also requires the Court to be satisfied that the determination which the parties ask it to make by consent is supportable and is in accordance with the law: Cox on behalf of the Yungngora People v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 588 at [3]. 8 The approach of the Court in these circumstances has been described in a number of cases. In Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria [2007] FCA 474, North J said: [36] The focus of [s 87] is on the making of an agreement by the parties. This reflects the importance placed by the Act on mediation as the primary means of resolving native title applications. Indeed, Parliament has established the National Native Title Tribunal with the function of conducting mediations in such cases. 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. [37] 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 … 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 … There is a question as to how far a State party is required to investigate in order to satisfy itself of a credible basis for an application. One reason for the often inordinate time taken to resolve some of these cases is the overly demanding nature of the investigation conducted by State parties. The scope of these investigations demanded by some States is reflected in the complex connection guidelines published by some States. [38] The power conferred by the Act on the Court to approve agreements is given in order to avoid lengthy hearings before the Court. The Act does not intend to substitute a trial, in effect, conducted by State parties for a trial before the Court. Thus, something significantly less than the material necessary to justify a judicial determination is sufficient to satisfy a State party of a credible basis for an application. The Act contemplates a more flexible process than is often undertaken in some cases. These comments relate to the requirements of s 87, and are not intended to reflect on the conduct of the State in this case. (Citations omitted) 9 As is apparent, North J emphasised the role of the relevant State or Territory in investigating and assessing claims for determinations of native title, and the weight which the Court is entitled, when considering applications under ss 87 and 87A, to give to the State or Territory's evaluation of claim and its consent to the determination. 10 In Nelson v Northern Territory of Australia [2010] FCA 1343; (2010) 190 FCR 344 at [12]-[13], Reeves J referred to the significance of the role of the State or Territory in agreements leading to proposed consent determinations. His Honour said: [12] It is appropriate to make some comments about the difficult balance a State party needs to strike between its role in protecting the community's interests, including the stringency of the processes it follows in assessing the underlying evidence going to the existence of native title, and its role in the native title system as a whole, to ensure that it, like the Court and all other parties, takes a flexible approach that is aimed at facilitating negotiation and achieving agreement. In Lovett North J commented: … There is a question as to how far a State party is required to investigate in order to satisfy itself of a credible basis for an application. One reason for the often inordinate time taken to resolve some of these cases is the overly demanding nature of the investigation conducted by State parties. The scope of these investigations demanded by some States is reflected in the complex connection guidelines published by some States. The power conferred by the Act on the Court to approve agreements is given in order to avoid lengthy hearings before the Court. The Act does not intend to substitute a trial, in effect, conducted by State parties for a trial before the Court. Thus, something significantly less than the material necessary to justify a judicial determination is sufficient to satisfy a State party of a credible basis for an application. The Act contemplates a more flexible process than is often undertaken in some cases. [13] I respectfully agree with North J in these observations. In my view, it would be perverse to replace a trial before the Court with a trial conducted by the State party respondent and I do not consider that is what is intended by the provisions of s 87 of the Act. 11 Madgwick J emphasised the responsibility of the State or Territory in assessing claims for native title in Smith v Western Australia [2000] FCA 1249; (2000) 104 FCR 494 at [38]: … State governments are necessarily obliged to subject claims for native title over lands and waters owned and occupied by the State and State agencies, to scrutiny just as carefully as the community would expect in relation to claims by non-Aborigines to significant rights over such land. The State is faced with a good many such claims. A deal of proper caution is to be expected … 12 Finally, the following passage in the reasons of Keane CJ in King on behalf of the Eringa Native Title Claim Group v State of South Australia [2011] FCA 1386; (2011) 285 ALR 454 at [19] has been influential: More recently, the Court has been prepared to rely upon the processes of the relevant State or Territory about the requirements of s 223 being met to be satisfied that the making of the agreed orders is appropriate. That is because each State and Territory has developed a protocol or procedure by which it determines whether native title (as defined in s 223) has been established. It acts in the public interest and as the public guardian in doing so. It has access to anthropological, and where appropriate, archaeological, historical and linguistic expertise. It has a legal team to manage and supervise the testing as to the existence of native title in the claimant group. Although the Court must, of course, preserve to itself the question whether it is satisfied that the proposed orders are appropriate in the circumstances of each particular application, generally the Court reaches the required satisfaction by reliance upon those processes. They are commonly explained in the joint submissions of the parties in support of the orders agreed … 13 The approach set out in these passages has been applied by the Court in a number of cases and I am satisfied that it is appropriate to apply it presently.
Consideration 14 The Joint Written Submissions and the Joint Statement of Agreed Facts provided by the Applicant and the Northern Territory indicate that regard has been had to an extensive range of material. In particular, they indicate that, in mid-2017, the Applicant provided to the Northern Territory a short-form anthropological report prepared by the anthropologist, Dr Stephen Bennetts, that identified the Aboriginal groups which, under traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional customs observed, possess primary and secondary rights in the claim area, the nature and extent of those rights, matters of connection and site and dreaming tracks. The Territory assessed Dr Bennetts' report and referred it to Professor Basil Sansom for review. The parties then considered matters raised by Professor Sansom as well as other issues. 15 On 10 February 2018, the Applicant provided to the Northern Territory a second anthropological report from Dr Bennetts, an anthropological report from Mr Stead, who had also been retained by the Applicant, concerning a large area including the area of the Nathan River Pastoral Lease, and witness statements from two senior claimants, Walter Golbong Rogers and Gordon Nawundulpi. 16 In the preparation of their reports, the anthropologists drew on an extensive amount of material including material contained in five reports of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner prepared under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. 17 The Applicant and the Northern Territory then engaged in further evaluation of the claim which led to the Applicant providing the Northern Territory with the report of Ms Gay English, an anthropologist, in March 2020. Ms English's report related to the description of the Mambali Walangara estate group. 18 As a result of the consideration of all the material, the Applicant and the Northern Territory are agreed that the native title claim group is comprised of persons who hold native title rights and interests in the determination area and have agreed upon the content of those rights and interests. 19 The Northern Territory has extracted details of tenure within the determination area and they too have been the subject of agreement. 20 The second respondent does not dispute any of the matters on which the Applicant and the Northern Territory have greed. 21 I am satisfied that each of the "procedural" requirements of s 87 has been satisfied: the period specified in the notice issued by the Native Title Registrar under s 66 has expired; each of the current parties to the proceeding is a party to the agreement; the terms of the proposed determination have been reduced to writing and signed by or on behalf of each party; and the terms of the agreement have been filed in the Court. The proposed determination is to be made on an application which is valid under the NT Act and is within the Court's jurisdiction under s 61 of the NT Act. 22 Section 94A of the NT Act requires that an order of the Court determining a native title claim set out details of the matters mentioned in s 225. Section 225 provides: 225 Determination of native title 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. Note: The determination may deal with the matters in paragraphs (c) and (d) by referring to a particular kind or particular kinds of non-native title interests. 23 The requirements of s 223(1) were considered by the High Court in Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria [2002] HCA 58; (2002) 214 CLR 422. The relevant principles were also reviewed by Mansfield J in Risk v Northern Territory of Australia [2006] FCA 404. Those principles require that there be a recognisable group or society which presently recognises and observes traditional laws and customs in the area of the proposed determination. 24 The parties are agreed that eight estate groups hold native title rights and interests in the determination area: (a) the Guyal Manaburru estate group; (b) the Burdal Mingkanyi estate group; (c) the Burdal Riley estate group; (d) the Murrungun Wunubari estate group; (e) the Murrungun Baluganda/Langgabany estate group; (f) the Mambali Walangara estate group; (g) the Mambali Ngubayin estate group; and (h) the Mambali Nangguya estate group. 25 The agreed facts identify the apical ancestors from whom each estate group is descended. It also contains details of the knowledge of the estate groups of the land, their responsibility for it, as well as other matters supporting their connection to the land. 26 I am satisfied that the proposed determination satisfies the elements of s 225 as required by s 94A of the NT Act. Clause 1 and Schedules A and B set out with appropriate particularity the area in which native title exists. Clauses 5-6 define the group of native title holders and the criteria by which group membership is determined. Clauses 7-8 indicate that the members of neighbouring estates also have native title rights and interests in the determination area but those rights and interest are subject to those of the estate groups. 27 Clauses 9-13 set out the nature of the native rights and interests in the determination area. Clause 15 sets out in an appropriate way the nature and extent of the other interests in the determination area and clauses 16 and 17 define the relationship of those "other interests" with the determined native title rights and interests. 28 By ss 55 and 56 of the NT Act, the Court must determine whether the native is to be held in trust and, if so, by whom. Order 2 specifies that the native title is not to be held in trust.
Conclusion 29 The matters reviewed above indicate that it is appropriate for the Court to make the consent determination. In addition, I take into account that the parties are legally represented and there is no reason to suppose that any party has been disadvantaged by a lack of legal representation. There are no other proceedings before the Court relating to native title determination applications over the area which is the subject of the proposed determination. 30 Accordingly, I make the orders in the terms proposed by the parties. In doing so, I emphasise that the order of the Court does not amount to a grant of native title to the estate holders. The order is instead a public and formal recognition that the native title rights and interests of the estate groups exist, and have always existed, at least since European settlement. I certify that the preceding thirty (30) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice White.
Lansen on behalf of the Guyal Manaburru, Burdal Mingkanyi, Burdal Riley, Murrungun Wunubari, Murrungun Baluganda/Langgabany, Mambali Walangara, Mambali Ngubayin and Mambali Nangguya Estate Groups
Northern Territory of Australia
(2011) 285 ALR 454
(2002) 214 CLR 422
(2010) 190 FCR 344
(2000) 104 FCR 494