Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland

THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE COURT 5 The applications for consent determinations were supported by two sets of submissions filed by the applicant on 3 June 2024: one in relation to seven of the determinations, and another relating to the Southern Kaantju #2 determination. The State also filed submissions on 7 June 2024. The Court has been greatly assisted by the parties' submissions, and the material provided. 6 The applicant relied on a number of affidavits dealing with matters relevant to the determinations. First, an affidavit of Ms Kirstin Donlevy Malyon affirmed on 3 June 2024 (2024 Malyon affidavit). Second, an affidavit of Mr Parkinson Wirrick affirmed on 31 May 2024 (2024 Wirrick affidavit). Third, paragraphs [5] to [30] of an affidavit filed earlier in these proceedings by Ms Malyon on 27 October 2021 regarding the re-authorisation process undertaken by the applicant in the period from April to September 2021 (2021 Malyon affidavit). 7 Ms Malyon is the Principal Legal Officer at the Cape York Land Council, and has had carriage of the Cape York United #1 claim. In the 2024 Malyon affidavit, she deposes to the process undertaken for determining appropriate group and boundary descriptions for each determination, and describes the way in which the Kowanyama People #3 identified parcels s 87A agreement was approved, including pre-authorisation and authorisation meetings. She deposes to how the Abm Elgoring Ambung Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (ICN 7163) was nominated as the prescribed body corporate (PBC) for the Kowanyama People #3 identified parcels determination. She annexes to her affidavit the written consent of that PBC to act as the PBC for the Kowanyama People #3 identified parcels determination. 8 The applicant does not rely on any witness statements or affidavits nor any expert evidence in respect of the Kowanyama People #3 identified parcels determination. Instead, the applicant and the State refer the Court to the existing Kowanyama determination. I consider this below.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 9 The Cape York United #1 claim was filed in this Court in December 2014. It covers various types of tenure, including pastoral leases, protected areas, reserves and areas of unallocated State land. It is the largest native title claim currently before the Court, and covers most of the undetermined parts of Cape York. 10 The complex procedural history and nature of the Cape York United #1 claim is summarised in the Court's reasons for the Kuuku Ya'u and Uutaalnganu (Night Island) determinations made in November 2021: Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 2) (Kuuku Ya'u determination) [2021] FCA 1464 at [3], [12]-[19], [30]-[37]; Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 3) (Uutaalnganu (Night Island) determination) [2021] FCA 1465 at [3], [13]-[20], [28]-[35]. In addition to those determinations, there have been 16 further consent determinations made in this proceeding prior to this round of determinations, the most recent of which being the four determinations made in November 2023. The Court's reasons in each of those determinations also note the complex and individualised process leading to each determination within the overall Cape York United #1 claim.

The Kowanyama People #3 identified parcels section 87A agreement 11 Unlike the other determinations made by the Court in this round of determinations pursuant to s 87A, the traditional owner-led process conducted by the applicant to resolve group descriptions and boundaries (described as the Boundary Identification, Negotiation and Mediation Process) was not conducted in respect of the identified parcels the subject of this Kowanyama People #3 determination. Both the applicant and the State's submissions identify and accept that this did not occur. Nevertheless, both the applicant and the State support the making of the determination as described in the s 87A agreement. I accept that for these kinds of parcels, it has not been necessary or appropriate to go through either of the more extensive processes ahead of the s 87A agreement.

The authorisation of the Cape York United #1 applicant 12 The applicant's authority to enter into the Kowanyama People #3 identified parcels s 87A agreement stems from the re-authorisation process undertaken between April and September 2021, in respect of the claim as a whole. Ms Malyon describes this process in the 2021 Malyon affidavit, and the Court described and endorsed it in Kuuku Ya'u determination at [30]-[37] and Uutaalnganu determination at [28]-[35]. In those determinations, I agreed with the State's submission that the weight of authority supports the view that the Native Title Act affords flexibility to shape the content of an ultimate determination of native title, provided there is compliance with s 94A and s 225 of the Act. For that reason, I agreed with the State's submission that the re-authorisation process for the applicant was lawful, and compliant with the Native Title Act. The applicant's submissions also supported this approach, unsurprisingly. No objections were made by any other parties to the determinations. 13 Nevertheless, in Kuuku Ya'u determination at [38]-[50] and Uutaalnganu determination at [36]-[48], I explained why I considered it also appropriate to make orders under s 84D(4) of the Native Title Act to deal with any uncertainty arising from differences between the claim group description in the original Cape York United #1 application and those in the proposed s 87A determinations at a more local level, in light of the change in the way the claim was proceeding and the re-authorisation process. 14 Those orders were made under s 84D(4) out of an abundance of caution and to avoid any doubt about the validity of the s 87A determinations. At [50] in Kuuku Ya'u determination and [48] in Uutaalnganu determination, I said: It is plainly in the interests of the administration of justice to do so, in circumstances where the overall Cape York United #1 claim is gargantuan, and has already consumed seven years' worth of resources, mostly sourced from public funds. Substantial, dedicated and methodical efforts have been made to comply with the requirements of the Native Title Act in each step along the way to these first two determinations. Despite significant factual and legal challenges, the two key parties have navigated a consensual path to the recognition of native title for the Kuuku Ya'u and Uutaalnganu (Night Island) groups. All other respondents have been consulted and given opportunities to participate in the process as it has progressed. They have been included in steps in the complex timetables. All consent to the Kuuku Ya'u and Uutaalnganu (Night Island) determinations. If ever there was a situation in the Court's native title jurisdiction where a favourable exercise of discretion by the Court is appropriate to ensure resolution of a claim to which all parties agree, this is that situation. 15 Similar orders are sought in each of the eight determinations being made in July 2024. The State agreed with this proposal. I adopt the above reasons in each of the eight determinations now made. For the reasons given in the extract above, I continue to consider such orders are appropriate.

THE CONNECTION OF THE KOWANYAMA PEOPLE NATIVE TITLE GROUP TO THE DETERMINATION AREA 16 In relation to the Kowanyama People #3 identified parcels determination, the applicant submitted that the connection of the Kowanyama People to this determination area is supported by inferences that arise from the Kowanyama determination. The State also supported this submission and submitted that it had satisfied itself that there is a credible basis to enter the proposed consent determination in the terms of the Kowanyama People #3 identified parcels s 87A agreement. I accept those submissions. 17 As with the determination made on 11 July 2024 in Kowanyama People #2 (See: Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 26) (Kowanyama People #2 determination) [2024] FCA 742), the applicant and State note that the group description proposed for the Kowanyama People #3 determination is more extensive in its reference to apical ancestors than those contained in previous determinations in favour of the Kowanyama People made to date. Those apical ancestors are Bonbatable, Cecil (brother of Kangaroo), Dr Dick, Possensnek, Lily Goatboy (sibling of George Black), Moses and Nellie Highbury (Patterson). 18 Both the applicant and the State submit that the addition of those apical ancestors has been agreed on the basis of further research that has been undertaken since the earlier determinations and the further material that has been provided to the State supports those changes. The applicant submits that the more extensive group description is justified by the expert opinion of Ms Kate Waters. I accept the submissions of the State and the applicant.

THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 87A 19 Section 87A applies to an agreement reached "at any stage" of an existing proceeding for a proposed determination of native title in relation to an area (the determination area) that is "part of, but not all of", the area covered by the native title determination application under s 61 of the Native Title Act. 20 Sub-section 87A(1) requires: (a) the existence of a proceeding in relation to an application for a determination of native title; (b) after the period specified in a notice given under s 66 of the Act, an agreement in writing for a proposed determination of native title in relation to part, but not all, of the application area; (c) all those set out in sub-s 87A(1)(c) who are parties to the proceeding are also parties to the s 87A agreement; and (d) that the terms of the agreement are in writing and signed by, or on behalf of, the requisite parties to the proceeding. 21 Sub-section 87A(2) allows for the parties to file a proposed determination of native title, as they have done on this application. 22 Sub-sections 87A(4) to (6) provide: (4) The Court may make an order in, or consistent with, the terms of the proposed determination of native title without holding a hearing, or if a hearing has started, without completing the hearing, if the Court considers that: (a) an order in, or consistent with, the terms of the proposed determination would be within its power; and (b) it would be appropriate to do so. Note: As the Court's order involves making a determination of native title, the order needs to comply with section 94A (which deals with the requirements of native title determination orders). (5) Without limiting subsection (4), if the Court makes an order under that subsection, the Court may also make an order under this subsection that gives effect to terms of the agreement that involve matters other than native title if the Court considers that: (a) the order would be within its power; and (b) it would be appropriate to do so. (6) The jurisdiction conferred on the Court by this Act extends to making an order under subsection (5).

Sub-section 87A(1): pre-requisites 23 As the applicant sets out at [41]-[46] of its submissions, which the State adopts, each of the pre-requisites in s 87A(1) is satisfied. Each s 87A agreement has been signed by the requisite parties to the proceeding, after appropriate notification.

Sub-section 87A(4)(a): orders within power 24 For the reasons set out at [47]-[52] of the applicant's submissions, with which the State agrees, I am satisfied the orders sought are within the power of the Court. 25 The Cape York United #1 application is valid and there is no extant determination of native title in relation to the proposed determination areas. As the State notes, areas over which previous exclusive possession acts have occurred are expressly excluded. There are no other proceedings before the Court relating to native title applications that cover any part of the area the subject of the determinations that would otherwise require orders to be made under s 67(1) of the Act. I am satisfied that the form of the determinations complies with s 94A and s 225 of the Act and, for the reasons that follow, the requirements of s 87A of the Act are otherwise satisfied.

Sub-section 87A(4)(b): appropriate to make the orders sought 26 In reasons for a determination in favour of the Nanda People in Western Australia, I set out my approach to the question of "appropriateness" and the Court's function: see Drury on behalf of the Nanda People v State of Western Australia [2018] FCA 1849 at [52]-[56], by reference to earlier authorities. In Taylor on behalf of the Yamatji Nation Claim v State of Western Australia [2020] FCA 42 at [63]-[65], I explained the particular importance of the role of the State in the consent determination process. As I did in the Kuuku Ya'u and Uutaalnganu determinations, I adopt and apply the observations I made in Drury and Taylor here. 27 In relation to the eight determinations, I am satisfied all parties have adopted a methodical and careful approach to group description, boundary description and resolution of boundary disputes, connection and tenure, including for the Kowanyama #3 determination. The respective group members have had carefully planned opportunities to participate in decision-making about the proposed s 87A agreements, and especially about the boundary and group descriptions. Group members have been well supported to participate, if they chose to do so. Other active respondents have been consulted and given the opportunity to comment on matters affecting their interests. 28 The Court affords considerable weight to the position taken by the State in supporting the applications for determination of native title, on behalf of all members of its community. I described the importance of the State's role in Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 10) [2022] FCA 1129 at [6], [56]. I adhere to those views. The role of the State of Queensland in the detailed step-by-step process in the Cape York United #1 claim has involved considerable human and financial resources, and the Court acknowledges its dedication to assisting group members to secure determinations of native title wherever possible. Other respondents to the Cape York United #1 claim have also derived considerable benefit from the tremendous contribution by the State, which has relieved those respondents of a great deal of work. The Court can be confident the State has reached a carefully considered view before agreeing to these determinations.

NOMINATION OF A PRESCRIBED BODY CORPORATE 29 A PBC has been nominated under ss 56 or 57 of the Native Title Act for each of the eight determinations. In the 2024 Malyon affidavit, Ms Malyon describes how each PBC was nominated by the native title group concerned, and that each PBC has provided its consent to nomination. In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the nomination of each of the PBCs is appropriate. 30 In relation to the Kowanyama People #3 determination, the Kowanyama People resolved to nominate the Abm Elgoring Ambung Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (ICN 7163) to act as an agent prescribed body corporate for the Kowanyama #3 identified parcels determination pursuant to s 57(2) of the Native Title Act.

THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND AS A RESPONDENT 31 In Ross on behalf of the Cape York United #1 Claim Group v State of Queensland (No 24) (Olkola determination) [2024] FCA 740 at [53] to [106], I conclude there is nothing irregular or inappropriate, let alone unlawful, about the State of Queensland being named as a respondent to this proceeding, despite the literal terms of s 84(4) of the Native Title Act. I explain why I have reached that conclusion in some detail in those reasons, and I adopt the conclusion and reasoning in this determination.

CONCLUSION 32 Although this determination is relatively small in terms of the total area covered, these parcels include non-exclusive and exclusive possession native title over parcels within a township. These determinations have had tenure or other challenges associated with them, but the recognition of native title in these parcels assists in continuing the recognition of all of the native title of the Kowanyama People. The Court recognises that resolving tenure issues over relatively small parcels can take time and significant work and resources. The Court is grateful to the work of the parties and their legal representatives - this is another important step in finalisation of the Cape York United #1 claim. I certify that the preceding thirty-two (32) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Mortimer.

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES QUD 673 of 2014 Third Respondent: AURUKUN SHIRE COUNCIL Fourth Respondent: CARPENTARIA SHIRE COUNCIL Fifth Respondent: COOK SHIRE COUNCIL Sixth Respondent: DOUGLAS SHIRE COUNCIL Seventh Respondent: KOWANYAMA ABORIGINAL SHIRE COUNCIL Eighth Respondent: NAPRANUM ABORIGINAL SHIRE COUNCIL Ninth Respondent: PORMPURAAW ABORIGINAL SHIRE COUNCIL Tenth Respondent: WUJAL WUJAL ABORIGINAL SHIRE COUNCIL Eleventh Respondent: ERGON ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED ACN 087 646 062 Twelfth Respondent: FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND PORTS CORPORATION LIMITED (TRADING AS PORTS NORTH) Thirteenth Respondent: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED Fourteenth Respondent: ALCAN SOUTH PACIFIC Fifteenth Respondent: BRANDT METALS PTY LTD Nineteenth Respondent: LANCE JEFFRESS Twentieth Respondent: RTA WEIPA PTY LTD Twenty First Respondent: AUSTRALIAN WILDLIFE CONSERVANCY Twenty Second Respondent: MICHAEL MARIE LOUIS DENIS BREDILLET Twenty Fifth Respondent: GRAHAM EDWARD ELMES Twenty Eighth Respondent: MARGARET ANNE INNES Twenty Ninth Respondent: COLIN INNES Thirtieth Respondent: KIM KERWIN Thirty First Respondent: WENDY EVA KOZICKA Thirty Second Respondent: CAMERON STUART MACLEAN Thirty Third Respondent: MICHELLE MARGARET MACLEAN Thirty Fourth Respondent: BRETT JOHN MADDEN Thirty Fifth Respondent: RODNEY GLENN RAYMOND Thirty Sixth Respondent: EVAN FRANK RYAN Thirty Seventh Respondent: PAUL BRADLEY RYAN Thirty Eighth Respondent: SUSAN SHEPHARD Thirty Ninth Respondent: SCOTT EVAN RYAN Fortieth Respondent: BARBARA JOAN SHEPHARD Forty First Respondent: NEVILLE JAMES SHEPHARD Forty Second Respondent: THOMAS DONALD SHEPHARD Forty Fourth Respondent: THE TONY AND LISETTE LEWIS SETTLEMENT PTY LIMITED ACN 003 632 344 Forty Fifth Respondent: MATTHEW TREZISE Forty Sixth Respondent: BOWYER ARCHER RIVER QUARRIES PTY LTD ACN 603 263 369 Forty Ninth Respondent: GAVIN DEAR Fiftieth Respondent: SCOTT ALEXANDER HARRIS Fifty First Respondent: DEBORAH LOUISE SYMONDS Fifty Second Respondent: MICHAEL JOHN MILLER Fifty Fifth Respondent: ESTHER RUTH FOOTE Fifty Sixth Respondent: AMPLITEL PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE OF THE TOWERS BUSINESS OPERATING TRUST (ABN 75 357 171 746) Fifty Eighth Respondent: OLKOLA ABORIGINAL CORPORATION