Paddy v Northern Territory of Australia

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NTD 8 of 2010

BETWEEN: JIMMY PADDY ON BEHALF OF THE GAJERRONG-PULTHURU GROUP, THE GAJERRONG-NGALINJAR GROUP, THE GAJERRONG-GURRBIJIM GROUP, THE GAJERRONG-DJARRADJARRANY GROUP

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J DATE: 31 MAY 2011 PLACE: JINUMUM WALK

Introduction 1 The application the subject of this proceeding is for a determination of native title rights and interests in favour of the native title holders of land and waters within the bounds of the Bullo River Pastoral Lease (Perpetual Pastoral Lease 1071) in the Northern Territory. It is made under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (Native Title Act). 2 The application is one of six applications being heard and determined together because they are geographically proximate. They are all in the north western section of the Northern Territory, more or less abutting the border with Western Australia, and just to the west of Timber Creek. There has been a determination of native title in relation to the township of Timber Creek. That occurred after an extensive hearing: Griffiths v Northern Territory (2006) 165 FCR 300. 3 One of the objectives of the Native Title Act is the resolution of claims for the recognition of native title by agreement. That has been facilitated by the amendments to s 87 by the Native Title Amendment Act 2009 (Cth). It is very appropriate, therefore, that this application and the related applications have resulted in the parties agreeing to the terms of orders to be made by consent pursuant to s 87 of the Native Title Act. 4 The Bullo River Pastoral Lease, the area over which the proposed consent determination will be granted is an area of about 1627 km2. It is described in more detail in the map which is Attachment B to the determination. The other areas over which the related determinations are to be made also encompass the areas of particular pastoral leases. They are: the application of Raymond Long (on behalf of the Miriuwung Larru Group, the Miriuwung-Mambitj Group, Miriuwung-Gudim Group, Malangin-Yunurr-Jurtakal) over the area of the Auvergne Pastoral lease, covering an area of some 4142 km2; the application of Riley Rosewood (on behalf of the Miriuwung Larru Group, the Miriuwung-Mambitj Group, the Miriuwung-Gudim Group, the Malngin-Yunurr-Jurrtakal) over the area of the Rosewood Pastoral Lease, covering an area of some 2768 km2; the application of Button Jones (on behalf of the Miriuwung-Damberal Group, the Miriuwung B-Nyawam Nyawam Group, the Miriuwung-Gudim Group, the Ngarinyman-Nyiwanawam Group) over the area of the Newry Pastoral Lease, covering an area of some 2467 km2; the application of Maurice Simon (on behalf of the Gajerrong-Wadanybang Group, the Gajerrong-Gurrbijim Group and the Gajerrong-Djarradjarrany Group) over the area of the Legune Pastoral Lease, covering an area of some 1788 km2; the application of Ronnie Carlton (on behalf of the Muriuwung-Nyawam Nyawam Group, the Miriuwung-Bindjen Group, the Gajerrong-Gurrbijim Group, the Gajerrong-Djarrdjarrany Group, the Gajerrong-Djandumi Group, the Gajerrong-Wadanybang Group) over the area of the Spirit Hills Pastoral lease, covering an area of some 3766 km2. 5 The total area encompassed by the six determinations is in excess of 16,500 km2, a very considerable area. 6 The preamble to the Native Title Act recognised, on behalf of all people of Australia, that the Aboriginal peoples of Australia inhabited this country for many many years prior to European settlement, and that the Aboriginal peoples had been progressively dispossessed of their lands. It recorded that, by the overwhelming vote of the people of Australia, the Constitution was amended to enable laws such as the Native Title Act to be passed, to facilitate the recognition by our shared legal system of the native title rights and interests in their land. This is an occasion when the Court is to make orders declaring that the groups of Aboriginal persons set out above were and are the traditional owners of that land. 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 declaring that it exists and has always existed at least since European settlement. 7 The Applicant has filed the following documents which have been signed by the parties: (a) Minute of Proposed Orders and Determination of Native Title by Consent dated 13 May 2011 (Minute); (b) Statement of Joint Agreed Facts of the Parties in Support of the Minute of Proposed Orders and Determination of Native Title over the Bullo River Pastoral Lease by Consent dated 13 May 2011; and (c) Joint Submissions of the Parties in Support of the Minute of Proposed Orders and Determination of Native Title by Consent.

B. Section 87 of the Native Title Act 8 Section 87 of the Native Title Act provides that the Court may make a determination of native title by consent over an area covered by a native title application and without holding a hearing where: (a) the period specified in the notice given under s 66 of the Native Title Act has ended (s 87(1)); (b) there is an agreement between the parties on the terms of an order of the Court in relation to the proceedings (s 87(1)(a)(i)); (c) the terms of the agreement are in writing and are signed by or on behalf of the parties and filed with the Court (s 87 (1)(b)); (d) the Court is satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, those terms would be within its power (s 87 (1)(c)); and (e) the Court considers that it would be appropriate to make the order sought (ss 87(1) and (2)). 9 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 by the parties. In Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria [2007] FCA 474 North J stated at [36]-[37] that: The Act [Native Title Act] is designed to encourage parties to take responsibility for resolving proceeding 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. 10 Therefore, the Court does not need to embark on its own inquiry of the merits of the claim made in the application to be satisfied that the orders sought are supportable 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, it might consider that evidence for the limited purpose of being satisfied that the State is acting in good faith and rationally: Munn for and on behalf of the Gunggari People v State of Queensland (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [29]-[30] per Emmett J. See also Smith v State of Western Australia (2000) 104 FCR 494 at [38] per Madgwick J: 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.

C. The application of s 87 to the Application 11 I am satisfied that the requirements of s 87 of the Native Title Act have been satisfied in the present case. In particular: (a) the period specified in the notice given under s 66 ended on 2 February 2011 (s 87(1)); (b) the parties have reached an agreement as to the terms of a determination of native title (s 87(1)(a)(i)); (c) the parties have recorded their agreement in the Minute (s 87 (1)(b)); (d) an order in terms of or consistent with the proposed orders would be within the Court's power because: (i) the application is valid and was made in accordance with s 61 of the Act; (ii) the application is for a determination of native title in relation to an area for which there is no approved determination of native title (s 13(1)(a)); (iii) the proposed orders comply with ss 94A and 225 of the Native Title Act (s 87 (1)(c)); and (e) it is appropriate that the Court make the orders sought because: (i) all parties are legally represented; (ii) the Northern Territory as First Respondent obtained searches of land tenure and mining and other relevant interests to determine the extent of "other interests" within the proposed determination area and provided copies of those searches to all parties; (iii) the Second Respondent, the holder of Perpetual Pastoral Lease 1071, provided all parties with a list of pastoral improvements on Perpetual Pastoral Lease 1071 which affect native title; (iv) the Parties have agreed the nature and extent of interests in relation to the determination area and those interests are described in paragraph 10 and Schedules C and D of the Minute (s 225(c)); (v) there are no other proceedings before the Court relating to native title determination applications that cover any part of the area the subject of the Application which would otherwise require orders to be made under s 67(1) of the Act (ss 87(1) and (2)); (vi) the Northern Territory as First Respondent has played an active role in the negotiation of the consent determination. In doing so, the Northern Territory, acting on behalf of the community generally, having had regard to the requirements of the Native Title Act and having conducted a thorough assessment process, is satisfied that the determination is justified in all the circumstances. 12 That assessment process has included the production and assessment of extensive material to show the connection of the claim group with the country covered by the Bullo River Pastoral Lease. The material included that prepared by Andrew McWilliam and Wendy Asche anthropologists engaged on behalf of the Applicant and addressed the Northern Territory's Minimum Connection Material Requirements for Consent Determinations dated 6 May 2009. It was then considered by the First and Second Respondents. The First Respondent sought advice about that material from another anthropologist Basil Sansom. The First Respondent raised various matters about that material with the Applicant and subsequently addressed those matters. Ultimately, the parties reached agreement that the native title claim group named in Schedule A of the Application and in the Connection Material are the persons who hold the claimed native title rights and interests in the Determination Area. That primary material has been filed. In my view, it clearly justifies the approach taken by the First and Second Respondents. 13 Accordingly, it is appropriate to make the proposed orders which recognize: (1) that the claim group comprises a society united in and by their acknowledgement and observance of a body of accepted traditional laws and customs; and (2) that the present day body of accepted laws and customs of the society in essence is the same body of laws and customs acknowledged and observed by the ancestors or members of the society adapted to modern circumstances; and (3) that the acknowledgment and observance of those laws and customs has continued substantially uninterrupted by each generation since sovereignty, and that the society has continued to exist throughout that period as a body united in and by its acknowledgment and observance of those laws and customs; and (4) that the claim group still possesses rights and interests under the traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional customs observed by them, and that those laws and customs give them a connection to the land. 14 There is one aspect of the proposed determination upon which it is necessary to comment. Section 55 of the Native Title Act requires the Court, either at the time of the Determination or as soon as practicable after it, to make such determinations as are required by ss 56 and 57 of the Native Title Act. They respectively relate to holding the native title on trust and with the non-trust functions of prescribed bodies corporate. The proposed determination provides that the native title is not to be held on trust. It provides for an Aboriginal corporation to be nominated to the Court within 12 months or such further time as the Court may allow to be the prescribed body corporate for the purposes of s 57(2) and to perform the functions outlined in s 57(3) of the Act after becoming a registered native title body corporate. The Court, of course, must act in accordance with s 55, so it anticipates that those steps will be taken following the Determination in a timely manner and certainly within the 12 month period specified. There would need to be persuasive reasons why the Court should allow further time having regard to the terms of s 55. 15 For the reasons given, the Determination is now made. I certify that the preceding fifteen (15) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Mansfield.