IS IT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE THE ORDERS - S 87(1A)(a)
13 In the Part A reasons the approach taken by the Court to applications under s 87 of the Act was described as follows:
36 The focus of the section 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: 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. …
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.
14 Whilst the process adopted to reach agreement is a matter of central concern, the Court it is also able to take into account material before the Court which might support the making of the determination.
15 In relation to the connection of the Gunditjmara people to the Part A and Part B areas, the Court heard some early evidence on country in March and April 2005. This evidence is described in the Part A reasons at [16] - [18]. Those reasons explain how compelling the Court found that evidence.
16 The early evidence did not relate to the Eastern Maar people. However, the State has explained in its written submissions something of the history of the Eastern Maar people. They are one of the Aboriginal societies which existed in south-west Victoria at sovereignty. Historical materials by George Augustus Robinson, Isabella and James Dawson, Norman B Tindale, and Dr Clark bear testimony to the Aboriginal societies in that area at the time. Then, in the 1860s, missions were established at Framlingham / Purnim, and Lake Condah. Between the dates of sovereignty until the mid 1860s the Aboriginal population declined by more than 90 per cent. The eastern people, including the Eastern Maar, tended to live at Framlingham / Purnim, and the western people tended to live at Lake Condah. The Eastern Maar people included the families of the Abrahams, Alberts, Austin, Bert, Chatfield, Clark, Clarke, Couzens, Harradine, Lowe and Rose. The connection material provided to the State established that the Eastern Maar people exercise their rights at and have particular connections with a number of locations in the Part B area, as well as lands to the east of it. For example, the Eastern Maar fish at places like Yambuk Lake and Port Fairy. The Couzens family express a strong connection to Penshurst which is just east of the northern section of the Part B area. Those connected with Frank Clarke identify with the area around the Eumeralla River and many Eastern Maar people speak of both Yambuk and Deen Maar as spiritual places from which people's spirits ascended to the sky.
17 This material about the Gunditjmara people and the Eastern Maar people provides some basis for the Court to assess the appropriateness of the orders sought. However, it is also necessary to consider the process which led to the present agreement between the parties.
18 The lengthy process which led to agreement in relation to the Part A area is relevant to the agreement made in relation to the Part B area because the State conducted a thorough examination of the connection of the Gunditjmara people to the entire area in that original process. It is described in the Part A reasons ([11] - [33]).
19 After the making of the Part A determination there were two outstanding issues relating to the Part B area. First, the area in the east-north-east of the Part B area required further anthropological assessment, and second, there was a dispute between the Gunditjmara people and the Framlingham Trust which had cultural heritage responsibilities under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Protection Act 1984 (Cth).
20 The material provided by the Gunditjmara people to the State to establish their connection to the whole of the Part A and Part B areas included reference to a broad Maar speaking society. In 2007, Native Title Services Victoria (NTSV), which represented the Gunditjmara people, commissioned external anthropological research into a broader society extending east beyond the application area. That research was to investigate whether the Eastern Maar hold native title rights and interests not only in the greater area, but particularly in relation to the Part B area which was located next to the Part A area in which the Gunditjmara people held native title rights and interests.
21 In March 2010, the State received anthropological and historical materials from the Gunditjmara people and Eastern Maar people which were intended to show that both the Gunditjmara people and the Eastern Maar people separately have the same rights in the Part B area. The written submissions of the State described the nature of the materials as follows:
12. In broad terms, the materials advanced the theses that, at sovereignty, there was an Aboriginal society (sometimes described as the society of Maar-speaking society) whose territory included the land the subject of the Gunditjmara Part A Determination, the area of Part B was a very substantial area of land extending for to the east of Part B. The Gunditjmara and the Eastern Maar were said to form two discrete domains within this socio-geographic area. Part B was said to be the overlap area of the domains of the Gunditjmara and the Eastern Maar. Within it, each group asserted the same native title rights and interests, and recognised the coextensive rights and interests of the other.
22 The State assessed the materials against the requirements of s 225 and s 223 of the Act as explained by the substantial case law on the subject. In summary those requirements are that there was, at sovereignty, a body of persons united in their acknowledgment and observance of a body of laws and customs, who held rights and interests in land and waters pursuant to those laws and customs, and by which they were connected to the land and waters. The group must have maintained its identity and its connection with the land and waters, and must continue to acknowledge the laws and observe the customs substantially uninterrupted, from sovereignty to the present.
23 In its written submissions the State described the process which led to the agreement as follows:
23. In coming to its position supporting the proposed consent determination, the State tested the Applicants' case against these requirements. For the purposes of an order under s 87(2) of the NTA, the State takes the view that it is unnecessary that these requirements be proven as if at trial. The benchmark adopted by the State was that of a reasonably arguable case.
The Process of Reaching Agreement to the Consent Determination
24. As noted above, the agreement of the parties to a consent determination is the product of a successful mediation process. The mediation involved various stages worth recording as they reveal the extensive and rigorous process which has resulted in the parties agreeing to seek a consent determination. For reasons which will become obvious from the discussion below, the Part B phase has built on the processes and conclusions that resulted in the Part A determination made on 30 March 2007.
25. At the time Part A was determined, the State had already concluded that the Gunditjmara had provided material sufficient to justify the State supporting a consent determination over most of Part B.
26. In assessing the material provided in relation to the Eastern Maar, the State adopted the same approach it had applied to the material received from the Gunditjmara Applicants. This included forming a view on whether the Eastern Maar's contentions that both groups shared Part B were consistent with the conclusions that underpinned the consent determination in 2007 over Part A. It was necessary to consider both whether the connection material received in 2010 met the requirement of s 225 of the NTA and whether it was consistent with the legal and anthropological basis articulated in the extensive connection material and evidence relied on for the 2007 determination and upon which the State had supported that determination.
27. On 27 August 2010, by order of the Court, two Federal Court Registrars convened a conference of experts to consider the new connection material. Similar to the conferences of experts that led to the Part A determination, the purpose of this conference was to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. The conference was attended by four independent expert anthropologists, one engaged by the State, one engaged by the Gunditjmara, one by the Eastern Maar and one engaged by both the Gunditjmara and Eastern Maar. Except for the expert engaged by the Eastern Maar, all had been involved in either producing or reviewing the Part A connection materials in the lead up to the 2007 determination.
28. The experts were required to consider a lengthy set of formal propositions which address the necessary elements for reaching a consent determination and which expressly sought reaffirmation of the propositions agreed to at the conference of experts held on 28-29 October 2005.
29. On 1 September 2010, the Registrars circulated a formal conference report that recorded that, subject to particular qualifications not here relevant, the experts unanimously agreed that all the propositions had been satisfied. Amongst other things, this satisfied the State that the basis on which the Part B claim was proceeding was congruent with the basis on which the Part A determination had been supported.
24 The State also examined the tenure details and history of each parcel of land in the Part B area. It presented the results of that investigation to the Gunditjmara people and disagreements and queries were worked through to reach an agreed position.
25 The non State respondents were briefed by the applicants and the State on 1 March 2011.
26 The process by which agreement was reached was thorough. It was focused on the legal requirements necessary to establish native title, but at the level of an arguable case. This is an appropriate approach to agreement making. The process involved assessment by professional anthropologists. The mediation was directed by Registrars Anderson and Irving of the Federal Court, both of whom have wide experience and qualifications for that role. The State, the Gunditjmara people and the Eastern Maar people were represented by counsel and often by senior counsel in the negotiations. Additionally, the Court is able to make some assessment of the validity of the case itself from the early evidence concerning the Gunditjmara people, and from the factual material in the written submissions concerning the Eastern Maar people.
27 For these reasons I am satisfied that it is appropriate as required by s 87(1A)(a) of the Act to make the consent determination sought by the parties.