THE SEVEN CONDITIONS IN SECTION 87A HAVE BEEN MET
16 The power of the Court to give effect to the agreement reflected in the consent determination minute is founded on s 87A of the NTA. That section sets out the conditions which must be met before the Court may make an agreed determination of native title, where that agreement relates to a part of the claim area covered by an application (s 87A(1)(b)). In this matter, s 87A sets seven such conditions, some of which contain multiple requirements.
17 The first condition is that the notice period under s 66 of the NTA must have ended (s 87A(1)(b)). As is already mentioned above (at [9]), the NNTT's notification of the combined Palyku Application was completed in the year 2000. That condition has therefore been met.
18 The second condition has already been alluded to above. It is that the agreement of the parties must relate to an area which is included in the area covered by the application (s 87A(1)(b)). As has also already been mentioned above, in this instance, the Determination Area relates to Part A of the combined Palyku Application claim area (see at [12] above). Accordingly, this condition has also been met.
19 The third condition is that all of the parties described in s 87A(1)(c), who were parties to the proceeding at the time the agreement was made, must be parties to the agreement. In this matter, those parties are:
(a) the Palyku Applicant (s 87A(1)(c)(i));
(b) the Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation, as the representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body for the proposed determination area (s 87A(1)(c)(iv));
(c) each person who holds an interest in relation to land or waters in the Determination Area (s 87A(1)(c)(v)). Those persons are set out in the immediately succeeding paragraph below;
(d) the State of Western Australia, noting that the State Minister individually is not a party (s 87A(1)(c)(viii)); and
(e) the Shire of Ashburton, as a Local Government body for the Determination Area (s 87A(1)(c)(ix)).
20 The persons referred to in (c) above are as follows:
(a) the following mining interests:
(i) BHP Billiton Minerals Pty Ltd; and
(ii) Auvex Resources Pty Ltd;
(b) the following pastoralists:
(i) Balfour Downs Pastoral Co Pty Ltd;
(ii) Keydrive Pty Ltd;
(iii) Anne Catherine Paull;
(iv) Startline Nominees Pty Ltd;
(v) Vanguard Enterprises Pty Ltd; and
(vi) Hillside Station (WA) Pty Ltd.
21 Having examined the consent determination minute, I am satisfied that each of the above parties is a party to the agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the third condition in s 87A has been met.
22 There are, however, three matters concerning this condition that should be recorded. First, while the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia intervened in the combined Palyku Application, he ceased to be an intervener and, therefore, a party by order made on 12 February 2019 (see s 87A(1)(c)(vii)). Secondly, while the Nyamal #1 Applicant is a party to the combined Palyku Application, it is not a registered native title claimant in relation to any part of the Determination Area (s 87A(1)(c)(ii)); and it does not claim to hold native title in relation to the land or waters in that area (s 87A(1)(c)(vi)). This conclusion is reinforced by its failure to lodge any objection to the Court making a determination in terms of the consent determination minute (see at [14] above). Accordingly, there is no requirement for the Nyamal #1 Applicant to be a party to the agreement. Finally, on 18 February 2019, Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd and G H Rinehart ceased being a party to the combined Palyku Application.
23 The fourth condition is that "the terms of the proposed determination are in writing and signed by or on behalf of each of [the] parties" (s 87A(1)(d)). This condition has been met because, as is already mentioned above, the consent determination minute is in writing and it is apparent from the copy of that minute filed with the Court that each of the parties described above (at [19] and [20]) has signed that minute themselves, or someone has signed it on their behalf.
24 The fifth condition concerns the provisions of ss 87A(3) and (8). The former requires notice of the filing of a copy of the consent determination minute to be given to "the other parties to the proceeding". That requirement is linked to the latter provision, which provides that "the Court must take into account any objections made by the other parties to the proceedings". As is recorded in the procedural history of the combined Palyku Application above (at [14]), the notice required by the former provision has been given. Further, given that the Nyamal #1 Applicant is the only party to this proceeding who is not a party to, and has not signed, the consent determination minute and it has not responded to either the general or specific notice that was given to it as described above (at [14]), I infer that it has no objections to the Court making a determination in the terms of the consent determination minute. I am therefore satisfied that condition five has been met.
25 The sixth condition is that the Court must be satisfied that an order in the terms of the consent determination minute, or an order consistent with those terms, would be within the power of the Court (s 87A(4)(a)). For present purposes, and subject to the observations I have made about ss 56 and 57 below (at [37]-[38]), it will be within the power of the Court to make a determination in the terms of the consent determination minute if that minute complies with s 94A of the NTA, if the rights and interests described in it are recognisable by the common law of Australia and if there is no other determination in existence over the Determination Area.
26 Addressing these matters in reverse order, first, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that there is no other determination of native title in existence over any part of the Determination Area. Secondly, having examined the native title rights and interests of the Palyku People described in the consent determination minute, I am satisfied that they are recognisable by the common law of Australia. As for s 94A of the NTA, it requires the Court, when making a determination of native title, to set out the details of the matters mentioned in s 225. That section 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.
27 Section 225(a) above requires consideration of an issue raised in the joint submissions which concerns the way in which the Palyku native title holders have been described in the consent determination minute.
28 Schedule A to the original Form 1 of the combined Palyku Application described a claim group consisting of a closed group of 64 people. However, according to the joint submissions filed by the Palyku Applicant and the State, during the course of negotiations for the agreement reflected in the consent determination minute, it was agreed that this description of the Palyku claim group "was problematic, principally because of the absence of any reference to the descendants of those named individuals. That description wrongly implies, firstly, that the claim was made by the [Palyku] Applicant on behalf of individuals holding individual rights and, secondly, that native title will cease to exist on the death of the last surviving individual". As a consequence, it was decided to adopt the following description which, it is contended, accurately reflects the position described in the connection and other ethnographic materials and which captures all of the members of the Palyku native title claim group:
A Palyku person is someone who:
(a) is an Aboriginal person who is the cognatic descendant of, or adopted by a cognatic descendant of, one or more of the 20 apical ancestors or ancestral couples referred to in the Schedule; and
(b) identifies themselves, and is recognised by a substantial number of the descendants of the apical ancestors as, a Palyku person; and
(c) has rights and interests in, and a connection with, the land and waters of the Palyku Part A Determination Area, in accordance with the traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional customs observed by the Palyku People.
29 The 20 apical ancestors or ancestral couples referred to in the Schedule are as follows:
(a) Pitawanu;
(b) Pupu;
(c) Winnie;
(d) Wilyarpirna;
(e) Puyungayi;
(f) Yurramara;
(g) Munjarnpirna and Jukukayi;
(h) Jujuna;
(i) Fannie, Annie Patawani and Chinaman Janjanamarlu;
(j) Pijipangu;
(k) Kijiempa;
(l) Maggie Kuntuwarrpangu;
(m) Peter Long Wayalpa;
(n) Julimanga;
(o) Wantungu;
(p) Kalurru;
(q) Alec Weatherall;
(r) Major and Judy;
(s) Mary Barrdi; or
(t) Sophie Bunbry.
30 According to the affidavit of Mr Cameron Trees filed in support of this application, this description of the Palyku native title claim group was approved at a meeting of the Palyku People held on 17 September 2018. At the same meeting, the Palyku Applicant was authorised to consent to the Court making a determination in favour of those persons. As a consequence, that description of the Palyku native title holders is included in the consent determination minute (Paragraph 3 and Schedule Six).
31 While this description does not precisely correspond to the description of the native title claim group set out in the original combined Palyku Application, the Palyku Applicant and the State contended in the joint submissions that the Court may make a determination in that form provided that it is supported by the evidence before it, relying on Billy Patch and others on behalf of the Birriliburu People v State of Western Australia [2008] FCA 944 at [18] and Watson on behalf of the Nyikina Mangala People v State of Western Australia (No 6) [2014] FCA 545 at [33]. I agree and, having regard to the matters set out above, I am satisfied it is appropriate to use this description of the Palyku native title holders in this determination.
32 As for ss 225(b) to (e) above, having perused Attachment A to the consent determination minute, particularly Paragraphs 4 to 11, I am satisfied that this determination sets out the matters mentioned in those subsections in compliance with s 94A.
33 Having regard to all these matters, I am therefore satisfied that this sixth condition has been met.
34 The seventh and final condition concerns the operation of s 87A(4)(b) of the NTA. That section requires the Court to be satisfied that it is appropriate to make a determination in terms of the consent determination minute. In Nelson v Northern Territory (2010) 190 FCR 344; [2010] FCA 1343 (Nelson) (at [5]-[13]), I canvassed the authorities that identified the factors that the Court will routinely have regard to in determining this question of "appropriateness" under s 87. For the reasons canvassed in Bigambul Part A (Doctor on behalf of the Bigambul People v State of Queensland [2016] FCA 1447) (at [14]), the same factors apply equally to s 87A. It is not necessary for me to repeat all those observations here. It will suffice to set out the concluding summary as follows (Nelson at [14]):
It follows from all these considerations that the central issue in an application for a consent determination under s 87 is whether there exists a free and informed agreement between the parties. In this respect, the process followed by the State party respondent, particularly how it goes about assessing the underlying evidence as to the existence of native title, is critical. Other critical factors, all directed to the processes that lead to the agreement and what was agreed, that have been previously identified by the Court include: whether the parties have independent and competent legal representation ...; whether the terms of the proposed order are unambiguous and clear …; and whether the agreement has been preceded by a mediation process …
35 In considering whether this condition has been met, I have been assisted by the joint submissions filed by the Palyku Applicant and the State. Having regard to those submissions, I am satisfied that there exists a free and informed agreement between the parties. In reaching this conclusion, I have had particular regard to the fact that all parties have had the advantage of competent legal representation and that this proceeding has been supervised under intensive case management by a Registrar of the Court. Finally, I am satisfied that the terms of the consent determination minute are unambiguous and clear. I am therefore satisfied that this seventh condition has been met.
36 Notwithstanding this conclusion, and despite the lack of any necessity to do so (see Nelson at [12]-[13]), it is appropriate to set out the following excerpt from the joint submissions which summarises the Palyku traditional laws and customs and their connection to their traditional country comprising the Determination Area. This summary goes some way to explaining why the parties came to the agreement that this determination of the Palyku People's native title should be made:
28. Under Palyku traditional laws and customs, the Palyku Part A Determination Area is, and has been since prior to sovereignty, the traditional country of the Palyku People. Palyku is a unique socio-territorial language identity that has consistently been associated with the claim area since the late 19th century, commencing with the reports of pioneer pastoralists such as John G Withnell and other amateur observers such as Clement (1903) and Foster-Thompson (1907-14) and ethnographers and anthropologists such as Bates (1907-1940), Radcliffe-Brown (1911-1931) and Tindale (1940).
…
30. The Palyku system of traditional laws and customs connect the Palyku People to their country and the traditional spiritual beliefs of the Palyku People are firmly embedded within the physical landscape. The Palyku People believe that their laws and customs originate in a time beyond living memory known as Manygunpa. The term Manygunpa refers to a time when ancestral beings (Dreamings) such as rainbow snakes (Yurtulpa / Milurra) and the Two Men (Wati Kujarra / Wati Kutharra / Patu Kutharra Bugadjimbiri / Pakatjimbiiri) created the land and its features, gave language and country to the Palyku and neighbouring groups.
31. The Palyku's contemporary land tenure system is traditionally based, albeit with some modifications due to the effects of settlement. It appears to be derived from an earlier estate-based system which was typical of groups in the Pilbara at the time of sovereignty, with the estates having expanded or merged over time and now referred to as family blocks or runs.
32. Palyku social organisation is based on a classificatory form of kinship, the division of society into four named categories (sections, referred to by claimants as 'skin' or 'skin colours') and marriage rules which prescribe an individual's ideal partner in terms of both the section system and actual kin relationship. The Palyku laws and customs relevant to social organisation are, in most respects, the same as those observed by their neighbours, particularly the Nyiyaparli and Nyamal, and are generally consistent with those recorded in the earliest ethnographic records.
33. The Palyku People have a detailed knowledge of the natural environment and its resources, as well as sites within the Palyku Part A Determination Area. They are mindful of their responsibility to ensure that such knowledge is passed down to younger generations. Contemporary hunting, fishing and gathering practices are continuations of traditional practices that date back to sovereignty. The Palyku People also participate in regional initiation ceremonies.