The BMM Part A Determination Area
19 The BMM Part A Determination Area amounts to approximately 1032.13 square kilometers of land and waters in the north-west of the Kimberley region of Western Australia. The area is predominantly comprised of the waters and islands of the lower King Sound. The northern boundary of the BMM Part A Determination Area runs from a point north of the Fraser River on the Dampier Peninsula, across the King Sound to a point north-west of Derby.
20 The BMM Part A Determination Area abuts the northern boundary of the Nyikina Mangala Determination, as defined in Watson on behalf of the Nyikina Mangala People v State of Western Australia (No 6) [2014] FCA 545 (Gilmour J).
21 The BMM Part A Determination Area is an extension of the Nyikina native title holders' claim to areas adjoining the area the subject of the Nyikina Mangala Determination (Nyikina Mangala Determination Area). Although the Nyikina Mangala Determination Area comprises country that is shared by both Nyikina People and Mangala People, the BMM Part A Determination Area is considered to be the country of Nyikina People only.
22 The parties have by their joint submissions provided the following informative background to the link between the BMM Part A Determination and the Nyikina Mangala Determination:
(1) The BMM Part A Determination Area was subject to the Derby Port Area as vested in the Western Australian Minister for Transport by proclamation on 5 February 1982 under the Marine and Harbours Act 1981 (WA). Although the BMM Part A Determination Area was initially included in the Nyikina Mangala native title application, the parties to that proceeding agreed, by way of consent order made on 12 February 2013, that any extant native title rights and interests in the Derby Port Area were extinguished by that vesting proclamation and that the area 'is not, and never has been, claimed in the Nyikina Mangala Application' (see Watson at [12]).
(2) The Derby Port Area was therefore defined as an 'Excluded Area' in the Nyikina Mangala Determination and the external boundary of the Nyikina Mangala Determination Area was withdrawn to reflect this exclusion. A number of islands in King Sound, which were not covered by the Derby Port Area vesting, were nonetheless also excluded from the Nyikina Mangala Determination by reason of the boundary withdrawal.
(3) Subsequent to the original vesting of the Derby Port Area on 5 February 1982, the vested area has been amended from time to time by various proclamations, including a proclamation dated 16 April 2013 and published in the Western Australian Government Gazette on 23 April 2013. The effect of the April 2013 proclamation was to reduce the area of the Derby Port, with the result that s 47B of the Native Title Act could potentially apply by disregarding extinguishment in certain areas previously covered by the port. These areas, as well as the islands in King Sound referred to above, are now included in the BMM Part A Determination Area.
Assessment of connection material by the State
23 The Applicant and the State agreed that an anthropological report dated August 2012, authored by Dr Kingsley Palmer (Palmer Report) and filed by the Kimberley Land Council in this Court on 16 November 2012 in the Nyikina Mangala proceeding, would be of considerable relevance to the BMM Part A Application. The Applicant obtained permission from the Kimberley Land Council and the Nyikina Mangala native title holders for the release and use of the Palmer Report by the Applicant and the State in this proceeding.
24 Given the previous determinations of native title involving Nyikina People, the Applicant and the State agreed that it would be appropriate to narrow the focus of the connection enquiry relating to the BMM Part A Determination area to the following issues:
(a) was the BMM Part A Determination Area part of Nyikina country at sovereignty?
(b) if so, have the BMM claimants maintained a connection, by acknowledgement of their traditional laws and observance of their traditional customs, to the BMM Part A Determination Area from sovereignty to the present?
(c) how should any differences between the apical ancestors or ancestral sets listed in the BMM Application and the Nyikina apicals referred to in the Nyikina Mangala Determination be reconciled?
(d) what native title rights and interests should be recognised in the BMM Part A Determination area?
25 In order to assist with resolving those issues, the Applicant provided the State with a report by Dr Daniel Vachon, entitled Supplementary Anthropological Report Boorroola Moorrool Moorrool (WAD 598/2016) Native Title Claim (Unoverlapped Area) dated June 2020 (Vachon Report).
26 As I have not sighted either report, it is appropriate to recite those parts of the joint submissions that address Dr Vachon's report:
Dr Vachon's primary research involved interviews during field trips to sites on the BMM Application area and in the communities in which the BMM claimants live. Dr Vachon also took recordings of informant statements. During these trips, Dr Vachon observed social and cultural activities. Participant observation methodology within the anthropology discipline was used to record the ethnographic information.
The Vachon Report 2020 also included evidence of occupation, as required by sections 47A(1)(c) and 47B(1)(c) of the Native Title Act. This evidence was supplemented by a witness statement of BMM claimant, Rona Charles, dated 11 September 2020.
On 5 August 2020, a meeting was convened between the legal representatives for both the Applicant and the First Respondent, as well as Dr Vachon, in order to discuss a number of queries arising from the First Respondent's consideration of the Vachon Report 2020 (August meeting).
27 The parties informed me that the Palmer Report and the Vachon Report, together with the preservation evidence of Frank Davey and Annie Milgin and correspondence from Arma Legal (together the Connection Material) were considered by the State in determining whether there is a credible or cogent basis to conclude that the requirements of s 223 of the Native Title Act can be satisfied in relation to the BMM Part A Application.
28 In each step of this process, the State's assessment was informed by legal advice from the State Solicitor's Office.
29 The State has agreed to the terms of the BMM Part A Determination on the basis that the Connection Material evidences the connection of Nyikina People to the BMM Part A Determination Area. Details of that connection are addressed below.
30 The State had indicated that it has also accepted that the Connection Material provides sufficient evidence of occupation to support the application of s 47A or s 47B (as relevant) of the Native Title Act to various areas covered by the BMM Part A Determination. As a result, the prior extinguishment of native title rights and interests by the creation of prior interests, including the original vesting of the Derby Port, over the respective areas can be disregarded.
Agreement as to Native Title holders
31 Schedule A of the original BMM Application states that the claim group consists of people known as the Nyikina People, being those Aboriginal people who are descended (including via adoption in accordance with Nyikina traditional law and custom) from a defined list of apical ancestors or ancestral sets. Some, but not all, of the BMM apicals were identified as apical ancestors in the Nyikina Mangala Determination. There were also a number of additional Nyikina apicals included in Schedule A who were not referenced in the Nyikina Mangala Determination.
32 Considerable care was therefore required to reconcile what the parties describe as anomalies with respect to the Nyikina apicals for the purpose of identifying the BMM Part A Determination apicals. The joint submissions refer to detailed work carried out by Dr Vachon in order to consider the anomalies. Dr Vachon had carried out investigations since 2016 when assisting the registered native title body corporate for the Nyikina Mangala Determination, including updating genealogies. That work assisted Dr Vachon in linking the BMM Part A Claim Group to Nyikina apicals and informed the Vachon Report.
33 The parties also had the opportunity to consider the Vachon Report and discuss it with Dr Vachon at the August meeting, to which reference is made in the extract from the joint submissions at [26] above.
34 The parties then settled on the description of the native title holders that is contained in Schedule 8 of the determination, being those Aboriginal persons who are the biological or adopted descendants of the following apical ancestors:
(a) Charlie Mangurl
(b) Ninya Philomena
(c) Ngurkwan, Yayika and Minyang
(d) Polly Wurrayin and Charlie Djawali
(e) Polly Jambo
(f) Kitty Kujaja
(g) Lucy Muninga and Edward Yedawarra and Wadadarl (mother of Fulgentius Fraser)
(h) Maggie Nimbanirl
(i) Dim
(j) Bobby Ah Choo (Gadjigar)
(k) Bundangurra and Mabel Ah Chee
(l) Gurupirin
(m) Nani
(n) Balbarra (husband of Nani)
(o) Jinangkal and Nyuntunga
(p) Kanjuka and his siblings, Mona Yabali and Alec Munganji
(q) Ngamariny
(r) Kudij
(s) Charlie Jalabanany
(t) Rimarrangudu
(u) Bulu
(v) Butcher Joe Nangan
(w) Jerry Wandamarra
35 In a case management hearing before me on 11 November 2020 the Applicant and the State confirmed that they remain of the view that the above list accurately comprises the relevant apical ancestors.
Connection to country
36 The joint submissions provided considerable detail regarding the connection to country, which I respectfully adopt and summarise as follows:
(1) The words 'Borroloola Moorrool Moorrool' are derived from two Nyikina place-names. 'Boorroola' is said to be a Nyikina soak-water located within the BMM Application area, the name being derived from the Nyikina word meaning 'bubbling up'. 'Morrool Moorrool' is a freshwater billabong along the shore of an inlet on the eastern side of Opening Bay at the mouth of the Fitzroy River, within the BMM Part A Determination Area.
(2) The Connection Materials support the existence of a group of Aboriginal people who identify as Nyikina and who are likely to have occupied the BMM Part A Determination Area since sovereignty. The evidence in this regard included:
(a) the accounts of early researchers in the West Kimberley insofar as they made observations concerning tribal and linguistic territory boundaries;
(b) genealogical information collated by Norman Tindale in 1953 whilst he was in Derby and surrounds; and
(c) how the known 'country' areas of some of the BMM apical ancestors and other early Nyikina People relate to the BMM Application area.
(3) Evidence of the Nyikina People's traditional ties with the BMM Part A Determination Area was also demonstrated by their key oral tradition called 'Woonyoomboo'. This distinctive Nyikina belief is intrinsically tied to Nyikina country and reinforced by oral transmission, ceremony and song, which is still practised and observed by Nyikina People today. The Palmer Report refers to Woonyoomboo as the 'Nyikina foundation Law' because it forms a central tenet of Nyikina customary belief and practice. Woonyoomboo is called a 'scout', a 'hunter for his people' and a 'map-maker': he 'made the landmarks and named the places he visited in Nyikina country'. Woonyoomboo is credited with creating Raba-raba - the Fitzroy River itself. Many place-names are in the song-verses of Woonyoomboo, which is still known by BMM claimants today. Importantly, Moorrool Moorrool is said to be the place from which Woonyoomboo started his song.
(4) Pastoral settlement in the region of the BMM Part A Determination Area has meant that, whilst Nyikina People suffered losses as a result of conflict with settlers, they have also worked together on pastoral stations such as Yeeda (which intersects the BMM Part A Determination Area). This has given rise to a social history of habitual interaction amongst Nyikina People, the notion of a Nyikina self as a collective self, and the collective idea of Nyikina as a territorial entity.
(5) Nyikina People continue to have a physical presence on land within the BMM Part A Determination Area, as well as a spiritual connection with the land. Nyikina People have a rich knowledge of the natural environment and particular sites in the BMM Part A Determination Area (including mythological sites and stories, restricted, ceremonial and totemic sites). Native resources including flora, fauna and water continue to be important to Nyikina People and they actively engage in ceremony, hunting, fishing and gathering, using natural resources and protecting culturally significant places in accordance with their traditional laws and customs.
(6) Dr Vachon observed that many of the BMM Part A Claim Group are fluent speakers of the Nyikina language. As a group, they have continued to observe a system of laws and customs which has been acknowledged and observed substantially uninterrupted since sovereignty, and pursuant to which native title rights and interests in the BMM Part A Determination Area are possessed.
Authorisation of the consent determination
37 Section 61(1) of the Native Title Act permits the making of a native title determination application by those persons who are authorised by 'all the persons (the native title claim group) who, according to their traditional laws and customs, hold the common or group rights and interests comprising the particular native title claimed, provided the person or persons are also included in the native title claim group'. Where more than one person is appointed, the persons who comprise the applicant are appointed jointly: s 61(2)(c).
38 Section 62A of the Native Title Act relevantly provides that in the case of a claimant application, 'the applicant may deal with all matters arising under this Act in relation to the application'. This includes consenting to a determination of native title pursuant to s 87A of the Native Title Act.
39 The role of an applicant appointed under s 61(1) is therefore quite distinct from that of the claim group (although members of the applicant must be members of the claim group). The reason for appointment of a designated applicant is to assist in dealings by the claim group with third parties. It is the applicant who may authorise the making of an application for a determination of native title and make decisions relating to it. The powers granted to the applicant by the Native Title Act are such that it is imperative that the evidence clearly disclose that the applicant has had the opportunity to properly consider the nature of any proposed consent determination and has properly authorised it on behalf of the claim group: see generally as to the role and powers of an applicant Gomeroi People v Attorney-General of New South Wales [2016] FCAFC 75; (2016) 241 FCR 301 at [69]-[82] (Barker J); see also Butchulla People v State of Queensland [2006] FCA 1063; (2006) 154 FCR 233 at [38]-[40] (Kiefel J); and Brown v State of South Australia [2009] FCA 206 at [21]-[24] (Besanko J) and cases cited therein.
40 In the present case Mr Edwards has addressed the authorisation process in his affidavit. He states that (in effect) the BMM Part A Claim Group met at the Civic Centre in Derby on Wednesday 21 October 2020 and considered and authorised the components of the consent determination which were reflected in the Minute, thus authorising the Applicant to consent to the Court making a determination in, or consistent with, the terms of the Minute.
41 I am satisfied that the Applicant is authorised to consent to the Court making a determination consistent with the terms now sought.
The seven conditions in s 87A
42 The power of the Court to give effect to the agreement reflected in the Minute is found in s 87A of the Native Title Act. That section sets out some seven conditions which must be met before the Court may make an agreed determination of native title, where (as in this case) that agreement relates to a part of the claim area covered by an application (s 87A(1)(b)).
43 The first condition is that the notice period under s 66 of the Native Title Act must have ended (s 87A(1)(b)). As is already mentioned above (at [8]-[9]), the notice period running after the National Native Registrar's notification of the BMM Application ended on 27 September 2017. That condition has therefore been met.
44 The second condition 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)). The BMM Part A Determination Area is included in the BMM Application area. Accordingly, this condition has also been met.
45 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. Having examined the Minute, I am satisfied this condition has been met.
46 In particular:
(a) there are no other registered native title claimants in relation to the BMM Part A Determination Area (s 87A(1)(c)(ii));
(b) the parties submit and I accept that there are no other persons who claim to hold native title in relation to the BMM Part A Determination Area (s 87A(1)(c)(vi));
(c) the Commonwealth of Australia is a party to the BMM Application and has signed the agreement but the Commonwealth Minister individually is not a party (s 87A(1)(c)(vii));
(d) the State is a party to the BMM Application and has signed the agreement but the State Minister individually is not a party (s 87A(1)(c)(viii));
(e) there is neither a representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander body (s 87A(1)(c)(iv)), nor a local government body (s 87A(1)(c)(ix)) for the BMM Part A Determination Area that is a party to the BMM Application; and
(f) the other respondent parties have not signed the Minute and are not required to do so having regard to s 87A(1)(c)(v) for the following reasons:
(i) Yeeda is a respondent to the BMM Application and is represented by the Pastoralists & Graziers Association of WA Inc. Whilst Yeeda holds a pastoral lease in the BMM Part A Determination Area, the parties have agreed that native title has been completely extinguished in the area of the lease by reason of the 1982 Derby Port Area vesting. Yeeda has therefore not signed the Minute on the basis that its interest will not be affected by the proposed Determination;
(ii) Jock Hugh Maclachlan, Kimberley Prawn Company and Telstra are also all respondents to the BMM Application, but their respective interests lie in the overlap area only (see [3], [10] above]) and therefore will not be affected by the BMM Part A Determination; and
(iii) Del James Roe is an Indigenous respondent to the BMM Application. However, it is accepted by the parties that Mr Roe is descended from the apical ancestor, Bulu, and so Mr Roe is a native title holder for the BMM Part A Determination Area. No separate execution by him of the Minute is required. The acceptance by the claim group and the Applicant of Bulu as an apical ancestor is addressed by the affidavit of Dr Vachon referred to at [16] above.
47 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. The Minute is in writing and it is apparent from the counterpart Minutes filed with the Court that each of the persons required to sign the Minute has done so by themselves, or someone has signed it on their behalf.
48 The fifth condition concerns s 87A(3) and (8). Section 87A(3) requires notice of the filing of a copy of the consent determination minute to be given to the other parties to the proceeding. Section 87A(8) provides that the Court must take into account any objections made by the other parties to the proceedings. I am satisfied that the requisite notice has been given by the Registrar of this Court and that no objections have been received.
49 The sixth condition is that the Court must be satisfied that an order in the terms of the Minute, or an order consistent with those terms, would be within the power of the Court (s 87A(4)(a)). Subject to the observations I have made about s 56 and s 57 below (at [67]-[70]), 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.
50 I am satisfied on the evidence before me that there is no other determination of native title in existence over any part of the BMM Part A Determination Area.
51 Having examined the native title rights and interests of the BMM Part A Claim Group described in the Minute, I am satisfied that they are recognisable by the common law of Australia.
52 Section 94A of the Native Title Act 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.
53 I am satisfied that the form of the proposed determination is such that the requirements of s 225(a) are addressed.
54 The seventh condition is that pursuant to s 87A(4)(b) the Court must be satisfied that it is appropriate to make the determination sought by the parties. This requires some attention.