© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2018] FCA 1120
Federal Court of Australia
2018-08-01
Mr J, Rangiah J
Original judgment source is linked above.
BEING SATISFIED that an order in the terms set out below is within the power of the Court, and it appearing appropriate to the Court to do so, pursuant to s 87 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth):
A. Description of Determination Area The Determination Area comprises all of the land and waters described in Parts 1 and 2 below, to the extent that they are within the external boundary described in Part 3 below, and depicted in the map, excluding the areas described in Schedule 2. Part 1 - Exclusive Areas, depicted in dark blue on the map All of the land and waters described in column 1 of the following table and shown on the determination plan described in column 2 of the following table: Lot on Plan Description Determination Map Sheet 151 on SP218280# Sheet 5 171 on CWL3596* Sheet 12 172 on CWL3318* Sheet 12 173 on CWL3318* Sheet 12 174 on CWL3318* Sheet 12 That part of Lot 18 on Plan NPW936 that was formerly described as Area A on Plan NPW401 Sheet 13 191 on SP218277* Sheet 9 192 on CWL649* Sheet 10 192 on SP218277* Sheet 9 193 on SP218277# Sheet 9 3152 on SP210282* Sheet 10 3153 on SP210282* Sheet 10 3 on C10412 Sheet 20 48 on CWL3117* Sheet 21 4 on C10412 Sheet 20 62 on CP855853 Sheet 20 63 on CP855853 Sheet 20 Those parts of Lot 72 on Plan NPW926 that were formerly described as Lot 15 on USL38662, former Area A on FTY1228, and that part of former Area A on Plan NPW74 excluding an area covered by former Lot 51 on Plan CWL373 Sheet 1, 5, 11 & 20 131 on SP218277# Sheet 9 132 on SP218277# Sheet 9 That part of Lot 8 on SP122539 commencing at the south-easternmost corner of that lot and extending generally north-westerly, then generally westerly to a point on the northern boundary of that lot that intersects with the western boundary of Abraham Muriata on his own behalf and on behalf of the Girramay People, Girramay People Aboriginal Corporation, Cassowary Coast Regional Council and State of Queensland ILUA (QI2009/067) at Longitude 146.005476° East and extends generally south-easterly along that boundary to a point that intersects with the southern boundary of Lot 8 on SP122539 at Longitude 146.005642° East and generally south-easterly along that boundary of that lot back to the commencement point. Sheet 21
Part 3 - External Boundary Description Commencing at the intersection of the High Water Mark and the centreline bank Five Mile Creek and extending generally south westerly along the centreline of that creek and an unnamed creek to its source at approximately Longitude 146.017867 East, Latitude 18.355085 South; then south westerly to the intersection of the Herbert River 100K river basin boundary at Longitude 146.013522 East; then generally north westerly and again generally westerly along that river basin boundary to, Longitude 145.816391 East, Latitude 18.293854 South; then westerly to the source of an unnamed creek at Longitude 145.813980 East, Latitude 18.292870 South; then generally north westerly generally south westerly, generally westerly and again generally north westerly along the centrelines of that creek, Yamamie Creek and the Herbert River to the centreline of Blencoe Creek; then generally northerly and generally north easterly along that centreline and the centreline of an unnamed creek to Longitude 145.656280 East (Latitude 18.130650 South); then generally north easterly passing through the following coordinate points: Longitude East Longitude South 145.658903 18.125505 145.679623 18.101425 145.705383 18.075292 145.722557 18.060545 145.748317 18.045798 145.772397 18.042625 145.802077 18.031985 145.835677 18.028065
Then north easterly to the intersection of the centreline of an unnamed creek and the Murray River at Longitude 145.851919 East, Latitude 18.016160 South; then generally easterly, generally south easterly, generally north easterly, generally easterly and generally southerly along the centreline of the northern channel of the Murray River to its mouth, being the boundary of native title determination application QUD308/2014 Gulngay People (QC2014/002); then generally southerly along the High Water Mark, crossing the mouths of any waterways between the seaward extremities of each of the opposite banks of each such waterway back to the commencement point. Exclusions The external boundary description excludes native title determination QUD6240/1998 Girramay People (QCD2009/004) as determined by the Federal Court on 10 December 2009. Note: Data Reference and source Reference datum Geographical coordinates have been provided by the NNTT Geospatial Services and are referenced to the Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (GDA94), in decimal degrees and are based on the spatial reference data acquired from the various custodians at the time. Use of Coordinates Where coordinates are used within the description to represent cadastral or topographical boundaries or the intersection with such, they are intended as a guide only. As an outcome to the custodians of cadastral and topographic data continuously recalculating the geographic position of their data based on improved survey and data maintenance procedures, it is not possible to accurately define such a position other than by detailed ground survey. B. Map of Determination Area Schedule 2 AREAS NOT FORMING PART OF THE DETERMINATION AREA The following areas of land and waters are excluded from the Determination Area. Part 1 - Excluded as PEPAs
RANGIAH J: 1 The applicant in the Girramay People #2 native title claimant application seeks a determination of native title over land and waters pursuant to s 61(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the Act) on behalf of the Girramay People. The claim area covers approximately 946.3 km2 encompassing the Mulga Guyurru (Murray Falls) area near Cardwell in Far North Queensland. 2 The parties agree that the Court should determine that the Girramay People are the holders of native title in the area covered by the application.
The Native Title Act 3 The Act was enacted for the purpose of protecting and recognising native title, to establish ways in which future dealings in relation to native title should proceed, to set standards for those dealings and to establish a mechanism for determining native title claims. 4 An objective of the Act is the resolution of claims for the recognition of native title by agreement. That objective has been enhanced by amendments to s 87 of the Act brought about by the Native Title Amendment Act 2009 (Cth). It is consistent with the objects of the Act that the parties have agreed to the terms of orders to be made by consent pursuant to s 87 of the Act. 5 In its preamble, the Act recognises on behalf of all people of Australia that the Aboriginal peoples of Australia inhabited the country for many years prior to European settlement and that the Aboriginal peoples were progressively dispossessed of their lands. It records that, by the overwhelming vote of the people of Australia, the Constitution was amended to enable laws such as the Act to be passed and to facilitate recognition by our shared legal system of native title rights and interests in land. 6 The Court is asked to make a determination that native title exists in the land and waters claimed and is held by the Girramay People. By the Court's orders, the Australian community collectively recognises that status. It is important to emphasise that the Court's orders do not grant that status. The Court is merely recognising what exists and what existed well before European settlement.
The agreement reached between the parties 7 The application was filed on 21 August 2015. The parties to the application have reached an agreement as to the terms of a determination and the form of the orders appropriate to recognise native title rights and interests held by the Girramay People. The parties ask the Court to make orders under s 87 of the Act in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties. 8 On 10 December 2009, Dowsett J made a consent determination in favour of the Girramay People in respect of 4,795 km2 of land and waters adjacent to the present claim area: Girramay People v State of Queensland [2009] FCA 1450. The Court ordered, consistently with the terms agreed by the parties, that the Girramay People were entitled to non-exclusive use and enjoyment of land and waters, in accordance with their traditional laws and customs. The parties agreed that non-exclusive native title rights and interests held by the Girramay People to use and enjoy the land and waters should be recognised. The native title is held on trust by the prescribed body corporate, the Girramay People Aboriginal Corporation. 9 In support of the agreement, the following connection material has been filed: (1) the Applicant's Nomination and Consent of the Prescribed Body Corporate filed 25 June 2018; (2) the Applicant's expert connection report of Associate Professor Sandra Pannell PhD filed 29 June 2018; (3) affidavits filed 24 August 2015 with the Form 1 on behalf of the Applicant from: (a) Claude Frank Beeron sworn 10 June 2015; (b) Abraham Muriata sworn 10 June 2015; (4) an affidavit filed 15 January 2018 on behalf of the Applicant from Abraham Muriata sworn 27 June 2017; (5) an affidavit filed 23 May 2018 on behalf of the Applicant from Abraham Muriata sworn 16 February 2018; (6) affidavits filed 29 June 2018 on behalf of the Applicant from: (a) Claude Frank Beeron sworn 25 November 2015; (b) Abraham Muriata sworn 27 January 2016; (c) Damien Dickman sworn 24 June 2016; (d) Tracey Dickman sworn 24 June 2016; (e) Abraham Muriata sworn 27 July 2016; (7) a Statement of Abraham Muriata filed 29 June 2018 sworn 9 August 2017. 10 The report of Associate Professor Pannell, an anthropologist, explains that the Girramay people identify themselves by reference to three elements of cultural and social identity: the Girramay language; an identifiable group of Aboriginal people claiming a kinship connection to forbears who were Girramay-speaking; and a defined area of land and waters. The word "Girramay" distinguishes the Girramay people from other Aboriginal peoples and other named native title claim groups due to language, antecedents and country. 11 Associate Professor Pannell considered oral testimony and written records to determine that the Girramay antecedents possess Girramay people connections, are linked to Girramay country, are recognised and accepted by neighbouring regional community, and continue to acknowledge and observe traditional laws and customs. Genealogical information indicates that the grouping of Girramay people in the present day is comprised of approximately 830 people, suggesting that the population of Girramay people may have recovered to some extent from the depredations of European colonization. Ultimately, Associate Professor Pannell concludes that contemporary Girramay people are connected to identified members of the pre-sovereignty group of Girramay people due to genealogical links and the acknowledgement and observation of traditional Girramay laws and customs. The contemporary Girramay people have a continuing connection to Girramay country. 12 Section 87 of the Act gives the Court the power, at any stage of the proceedings after the end of the period specified in any notice given under s 66 of the Act, 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 if it appears to be appropriate to do so. 13 The conditions under s 87 of the Act that enable the Court to make the determination without a hearing are: (1) the period specified in the notice given under s 66 of the Act in relation to the Application has ended and there is an agreement between all the parties on the terms of a proposed order of the Court in relation to the proceedings: s 87(1)(a); (2) 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); (3) the Court is satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, those terms would be within its power: s 87(1)(c); (4) the Court considers it appropriate to make the orders sought: s 87(1A) and (2). 14 The Act encourages parties to take responsibility for resolving the proceedings without the need for the Court to intervene by way of a hearing. Therefore, when the Court is examining the appropriateness of an agreement reached by 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 between the parties. In Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria [2007] FCA 474, North J said at [36] to [37]: 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. 15 It is not the role of the Court to inquire as to the merits of the claim. The Court must be satisfied that the orders sought are supported and in accordance with the law: Cox on behalf of the Yungngora People v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 588 at [3] per French J. However, the Court is to consider evidence only for the purpose of determining whether the State is acting in good faith and has made a rational decision: Munn (for and on behalf of the Gunggari People) v State of Queensland (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [29]- [30] per Emmett J. In reference to the "evidence upon which the parties have based their decision to reach a compromise", Greenwood J held in Wik and Wik Way Native Tile Claim Group v State of Queensland (2009) 258 ALR 306 at [16] and Kowanyama People v State of Queensland [2009] FCA 1192 at [22] that while it is not necessary for the Court to consider the body of material that would be available to it in the course of a contested hearing, it ought to have regard to sufficient material which is capable of demonstrating that the agreement and the proposed orders are "rooted in reality". 16 State and Territory governments are responsible for ensuring that community interests are protected by getting involved in a process that assesses the underlying evidence as to the existence of native title. In this case, the State is satisfied that the group is an appropriate one to be recognised as holders of native title rights and interests, that it is appropriate to recognise the rights and interests proposed and that it is appropriate for the State to enter into the determination. 17 Section 223 of the Act provides: Common law rights and interests (1) The expression native title or native title rights and interests means the communal, group or individual rights and interests of Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders in relation to land or waters, where: (a) the rights and interests are possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged, and the traditional customs observed, by the Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders; and (b) the Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders, by those laws and customs, have a connection with the land or waters; and (c) the rights and interests are recognised by the common law of Australia. Hunting, gathering and fishing covered (2) Without limiting subsection (1), rights and interests in that subsection includes hunting, gathering, or fishing, rights and interests. Statutory rights and interests (3) Subject to subsections (3A) and (4), if native title rights and interests as defined by subsection (1) are, or have been at any time in the past, compulsorily converted into, or replaced by, statutory rights and interests in relation to the same land or waters that are held by or on behalf of Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders, those statutory rights and interests are also covered by the expression native title or native title rights and interests. … Subsection (3) does not apply to statutory access rights (3A) Subsection (3) does not apply to rights and interests conferred by Subdivision Q of Division 3 of Part 2 of this Act (which deals with statutory access rights for native title claimants). Case not covered by subsection (3) (4) To avoid any doubt, subsection (3) does not apply to rights and interests created by a reservation or condition (and which are not native title rights and interests): (a) in a pastoral lease granted before 1 January 1994; or (b) in legislation made before 1 July 1993, where the reservation or condition applies because of the grant of a pastoral lease before 1 January 1994. 18 Section 225(a) of the Act requires that the determination set out who are the persons, in each group of persons, holding the common or group rights comprised by the native title area. That is satisfied in this application. 19 The requirement that the determination set out the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the area has also been satisfied, as required by s 225(b). 20 The Court has jurisdiction to make the orders sought pursuant to s 81 of the Act. 21 The formal requirements in s 87 of the Act have been satisfied: (1) the period for notification of the Application under s 66 of the Act has ended: s 87(1)(a); (2) the parties reached an agreement as to the terms of a determination of native title: s 87(1)(a)(i); (3) the parties have recorded their agreement in the Minute of Consent: s 87(1)(b); and (4) an order in terms of the Minute, or consistent with the Minute, would be within the Court's power because: (a) the application is valid and in accordance with s 61 of the Act; (b) 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); (c) the Minute agreed to by the parties complies with ss 94A and 225 of the Act: s 87(1)(c). 22 In addition, it is also appropriate for the Court to make the orders sought because: (1) the parties have had independent and competent legal advice and have freely entered into the agreement; (2) the parties have agreed that the nature and extent of interests and the proposed determination is unambiguous and certain as to the rights declared; (3) there are no proceedings before the Court relating to native title determination applications that cover any part of the area that is the subject of this application that would otherwise require orders under s 67(1) of the Act; and (4) the State has played an active role in the negotiation of the determination and, in doing so, has taken an interest in the proceeding on behalf of the community and given appropriate consideration to the connection material.
Prescribed Body Corporate 23 Section 55 of the Act requires the Court to make such determinations as required by ss 56 and 57 at the same time or as soon as practicable after the determination. 24 Paragraph 16 of the proposed determination provides that the native title is to be held on trust and the Girramay People Aboriginal Corporation (ICN: 4739) (the Corporation) is to be the prescribed body corporate. This accords with the purposes of s 56 of the Act. 25 In support of the agreement reached and the nomination of a prescribed body corporate, the affidavit of Cheryl Thomson sworn 5 July 2018 deposes to the steps taken to authorise the agreement reached regarding the nomination of a prescribed body corporate. 26 Annexure 'CT1' is a true copy of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, issued on 30 June 2010 in response to a name change. This Certificate states that the Corporation was first registered on 29 June 2007 and is incorporated under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth). The Corporation is the prescribed body corporate under the previous determination of native title in favour of the Girramay People on 10 December 2009. 27 On 25 June 2018, the applicant filed a Notice of Nomination and Consent of the Prescribed Body Corporate which nominates the Corporation. The Corporation is nominated as the Prescribed Body Corporate to perform the functions prescribed in s 56(3) of the Act, which satisfies s 56(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Corporation consents to the nomination, which satisfies s 56(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. 28 Accordingly, the Court determines that the Corporation is to be the prescribed body corporate for the purposes of s 56(1) of the Act.
Conclusion 29 For the reasons above, I will make the orders agreed upon by the parties. I certify that the preceding twenty-nine (29) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rangiah.
SCHEDULE OF PARTIES QUD 741 of 2015 Respondents Fourth Respondent: AURIZON PROPERTY PTY LTD ACN 145 991 724 Fifth Respondent: ERGON ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED ACN 087 646 062 Sixth Respondent: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED ACN 051 775 556 Seventh Respondent: JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY
Muriata on behalf of the Girramay People #2
State of Queensland