The seven conditions in s 87A of the Act have been met
20 It is well accepted that s 87A contains seven conditions which must be met before the court can make a consent determination in a proceeding in relation to an application for a determination of native title. Reeves J described and addressed each of them in O'Connor at [16]-[35].
21 In considering whether each of the conditions is satisfied, I rely on the joint submission filed by the Palyku applicants and the State. It is appropriate to do so in circumstances where the court is satisfied, as it is here, that the State, in its capacity as the party charged with looking after the interests of the community generally, has given appropriate consideration to the evidence available in order to reach the compromise that is proposed. The court must also be satisfied, and is here, that the State, through competent legal representation, is satisfied of the cogency of the evidence on which the applicants rely: see Munn for and on behalf of the Gunggari People v State of Queensland [2001] FCA 1229; (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [29]. In the context of a consent determination it is not necessary for the court to make findings of fact on the issues that may have arisen had the claim been contested: see Munn at [30].
22 The first condition that needs to be satisfied is that the period specified in the notice under s 66 for the application must have ended by the time the agreement that is the foundation of the consent determination is made: s 87A(1)(b). The s 66 notices are described in the summary of the procedural history given above; this condition is satisfied here for both Palyku #1 and Palyku #2.
23 Second, agreement must have been reached on a proposed determination of native title to an area that is included in the area covered by the application: s 87A(1)(b). As I have said, one of the areas the subject of the agreement that has been reached here is part of the area of Palyku #1, and the remaining two areas are part of the area of Palyku #2.
24 Third, s 87A(1)(c) describes a number of different categories of parties, and requires all persons or bodies who fall into one of those categories to be party to the agreement. I have examined the agreement and am satisfied that it is expressed to be the agreement of all such parties applicable here. They are:
Palyku #1
(1) Tammy O'Connor, Peter Jaffrey, Cheryl Mackay and Kevin Stream (applicant);
(2) State of Western Australia;
(3) Keydrive Pty Ltd;
(4) Startline Nominees Pty Ltd;
(5) Vanguard Enterprises Pty Ltd; and
(6) Hillside Station (WA) Pty Ltd;
Palyku #2
(1) Kevin Stream, Tammy O'Connor, Peter Jaffrey, Cheryl Mackay and Walter Stream (applicant);
(2) State of Western Australia;
(3) FMG Pilbara Pty Ltd;
(4) Mt Stewart Resources Pty Ltd;
(5) Nullagine Gold Pty Ltd;
(6) Witx Pty Ltd; and
(7) Mr Murray Jackamarra (who has signed in his capacity as an indigenous respondent to Palyku #2).
25 It is relevant to note that the applicant in Nyamal #1 is a respondent to Palyku #1. However because the areas which are the subject of the consent determination are not overlapped by the Nyamal claim, it is not necessary for that respondent to be a party to the agreement, and it is not: see s 87(1)(c)(ii) and s 87(1)(c)(vi). It is also relevant to note that while the Commonwealth Minister intervened in Palyku #1 in December 2017, that minister ceased to be an intervener on 8 February 2019, so there is no need for him to be a party to the agreement, and he is not.
26 Fourth, the terms of the proposed determination must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of each of the parties referred to in s 87A(1)(c). The minute of consent here records the agreement of each party to the orders and the determination contained in the minute, and it has been signed by or on behalf of each of the parties who are listed above. This condition has been met.
27 Fifth, s 87A(3) requires the Federal Court Chief Executive Officer to give notice to the other parties to the proceeding that the proposed determination of native title has been filed with the court, and s 87A(8) provides that in considering whether to make an order, the court must take into account any objections made by the other parties to the proceeding. As has been recounted in the procedural history, this notice has been given in each of Palyku #1 and Palyku #2 and no objections have been received.
28 Sixth, the court must consider that an order in, or consistent with, the terms of the proposed determination would be within its power: s 87A(4)(a). It will be within the power of the court to make a determination in the terms of the minute if the minute complies with s 94A of the Native Title Act, 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: O'Connor at [25].
29 Section 94A requires any order in which the Federal Court makes a determination of native title to set out details of the matters mentioned in s 225. Section 225 is:
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.
30 The first requirement in s 225(a) raises an issue which was also raised in O'Connor as to divergence between the claim group described in the application in Palyku #1, and the group designated in these reasons as the Palyku People. The determination will state that it is the latter group which will hold the native title. The description of that group is identical to the description of the native title holders in O'Connor (the determination of Part A of Palyku #1) and identical to the description of the claim group in Palyku #2. It is a group defined by descent from some 20 named apical ancestors, including adoption by the descendants of those ancestors. But the schedule to the application in Palyku #1 described the application as being brought on behalf of a closed group of 64 named people.
31 As is recorded in O'Connor at [29]-[31], recognition that defining the claim group in Palyku #1 that way was problematic led to agreement that a different description of the Palyku People should be used in the determination for Part A. If the court takes the same approach in this consent determination, then it will be making a determination of native title held by a group different to the group defined in the application for Palyku #1. But the court is not limited to making a determination in the terms of the application; it can make a determination in the terms it sees fit on the basis of the evidence before it (and in the case of a consent determination, other materials): Billy Patch on behalf of the Birriliburu People v State of Western Australia [2008] FCA 944 at [18]; Sharpe v State of Western Australia [2013] FCA 599 at [19]; O'Connor at [31]. I agree that the description of native title holders proposed is appropriate, in particular because it does not provide for a closed group which will cease to exist after its last member passes away, and because it is consistent with the determination made in Part A and the application in Palyku #2. There is evidence that the description of the Palyku People included in the minute was approved at a meeting of members of the Palyku claim group on 22 September 2020, and that the members of the group of 64 who were present at the meeting unanimously assented to the consent minute.
32 As for the other requirements of s 225, having read the minute I am satisfied that the determination will meet each of them and so will comply with s 94A.
33 The other matters necessary to fulfil the sixth requirement, that the rights and interests described in the consent determination are recognisable by the common law of Australia, and there is no other determination in existence over the Determination Area, are also satisfied here.
34 The seventh and final requirement is that the court considers it appropriate to make an order in, or consistent with, the terms of the proposed determination of native title without holding a hearing: s 87A(4)(b). The principles which guide the court in the exercise of this discretion are the same that apply to consent determinations under s 87: Brown (on behalf of the Ngarla People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025 at [22]. The discretion is to be exercised judicially by reference to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Native Title Act, including the importance placed in the scheme of the Act on resolving native title claims by mediation and agreement: Hughes (on behalf of the Eastern Guruma People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 365 at [8]. Orders may be made when the court is satisfied that the parties have come to an agreement freely and on an informed basis: Ward v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 1848 at [9]. 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: Nelson v Northern Territory of Australia [2010] FCA 1343; (2010) 190 FCR 344 at [14]. Also critical are 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: Nelson at [14].
35 I am satisfied that the parties here have arrived at the agreement in the consent determination freely and on an informed basis. I have already alluded to the importance of the role of the State, acting on behalf of the community as a whole. The State has taken an active part in the process of negotiating the agreement here. Also, the Palyku People have had legal representation throughout the negotiation, as have the other parties who have signed the agreement (apart from Mr Jackamarra). The court has also maintained oversight of the process through active case management and the supervision of native title registrars. The terms of the consent determination are unambiguous and clear. Both Part B (in Palyku #1) and Palyku #2 have been the subject of extensive mediation.
36 The Palyku People have provided materials to the State to demonstrate their connection to the Determination Area and the State has assessed those materials. Much of that material formed the basis of the determination the court made in relation to Part A. It includes anthropological reports of Dr Jitendra Kumarage, a summary of evidence regarding the ongoing occupation by the Palyku claimants of certain lands by Zsuzsanna Gonda dated April 2018, and witness statements of Terry Jaffrey, Margaret Derschow and Sally Morgan. In addition to those materials, the State has had regard to a letter from the legal representative of the Palyku #2 applicant dated 2 May 2020 and a further witness statement of Ms Derschow.
37 The State has confirmed that the description of that connection given in the submissions in O'Connor, which Reeves J set out at [36], is true in relation to the Determination Area just as it was in relation to Part A. It is appropriate to set it out again here to acknowledge the connection between the Palyku People and their country:
28. … 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.
38 That being so, there is cogent and credible material to demonstrate that the Palyku People have rights and interests that are possessed under the traditional laws they acknowledge and the traditional customs they observe, and that by those laws and customs, they have a connection with the land and waters comprised in the Determination Area. Those rights, interests, laws and customs existed before British sovereignty and (with some necessary modification) have existed ever since then. The connection has not been severed.
39 The State has conducted searches of land tenure, mining and petroleum registries to determine the nature and extent of the 'other interests' in relation to the Determination Area, which must be referred to in the determination (see s 225(b), quoted above). These are described at Schedule 4 to the proposed determination.
40 The consent determination also correctly reflects the outcome of the answers to the separate questions that were given in Nyamal Palyku. Accordingly, in the part of the Determination Area which is within Palyku #1, the area covered by Reserve 2804 is shown in the consent determination as an area where native title does not exist. As I have said, Special Purpose Lease SL 3116/2485 expired in 1978 and the area it covered is now part of the Bonney Downs pastoral lease and a different reserve. The consent determination shows native title as existing over that area.