Requirements of s 87 of the nta
32 Section 87 of the NTA provides, in effect, that the Court may make a determination of native title by consent over part of an application area without holding a hearing where:
the period specified in the notice given under s 66 of the NTA has ended (s 87(1));
there is an agreement for a proposed determination of native title in relation to the proceeding (s 87(1)(a));
the terms of the proposed determination, in writing signed by or on behalf of all of the parties, is filed with the Court (s 87(1)(b));
the Court is satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, those terms would be within the power of the Court (s 87(1)(c)); and
it appears appropriate to the Court to make the orders sought (s 87(1A) and s 87(2)).
33 The s 66 condition is satisfied. The notification period referred to in s 66(8) and s 66(10)(c) of the NTA has ended.
34 There is an agreement in writing, signed by all of the parties to the Mayala Application and filed in the Federal Court of Australia, for a proposed determination of native title, the terms of which are reflected in the Minute.
35 The Mayala Applicant and the State submit that there is no reason why the Court should not be satisfied that an order consistent with the terms of the Minute is within the power of the Court.
36 First, the Mayala Application is valid.
37 Second, the Minute provides 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) of the NTA) and there remains no approved determination in relation to the area the subject of the proposed Determination (s 68 of the NTA).
38 Third, 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 proposed Determination which would otherwise require orders to be made under s 67(1) of the NTA.
39 Fourth, the form of the proposed Determination complies with s 94A and s 225 of the NTA.
40 Fifth, the requirements of s 87 of the NTA are otherwise satisfied.
41 Finally, the Court must consider it is appropriate to make the Determination sought by the parties as required by s 87(1A). The Mayala Applicant and the State submit that this condition is satisfied.
42 Section 87(1A) was introduced into the NTA by the Native Title Amendment Act 2009 (Cth). Prior to the amendment of the NTA in 2009 the requirement that the Court must consider it appropriate to make the determination sought by the parties was contained in s 87(1). Given the identical wording between s 87(1A) and the old s 87(1) in respect of this requirement, the exercise of the Court's discretion pursuant to s 87(1A) should be taken to import the same principles as those applying to the making of a consent determination of native title under the old s 87(1).
43 As noted by Bennett J in Hughes (on behalf of the Eastern Guruma People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 365 at [8] the:
… discretion conferred by s 87(1) must be exercised judicially and within the broad boundaries ascertained by reference to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Act. That includes the resolution of native title disputes by mediation and agreement.
44 Similarly, North J in Ward v State of Western Australia [2006] FCA 1848 at [6]-[9] observed that the NTA is designed to encourage parties to take responsibility for the resolution of native title proceedings, without the need for litigation. His Honour stated at [8] that:
The Act makes mediation the primary means of resolution of native title cases. It is designed to encourage parties to take responsibility for resolution of proceedings without the need for litigation. Section 87 must be construed in this context. The section provides a power which is exercisable only when an agreement has been made. The power must be exercised flexibly and with regard to the purpose for which the section is designed. The section should not be construed to require parties in agreement to produce evidence as if in a trial…
45 Accordingly, in order to make a consent determination of native title under s 87 of the NTA, the Court is not necessarily required to make findings or embark on its own inquiry on the merits of the claim made in the application or even to form a concluded view as to whether the legal requirements for proving native title have been met. Rather, the Court must be satisfied, among other things, that it is appropriate to make the orders sought. The indicia that will be sufficient to satisfy the Court of the appropriateness of making a consent determination will be determined on a case by case basis. In some cases it may be appropriate to make orders under s 87 where the Court has received no evidence of the primary facts substantiating native title if the Court is satisfied that the parties have freely and on an informed basis come to an agreement: see Hughes at [9] and Ward at [8].
46 Further, the requirements of s 87(1A) may, and will likely, be met where the Court is satisfied that a relevant government respondent (including the State), through competent legal representation, is satisfied as to the cogency of the evidence upon which the applicant relies. Generally this will not involve the Court making findings on the evidence on which the government respondent relies, but it might consider that evidence for the limited purpose of being satisfied that the government respondent is acting in good faith and rationally: see Munn (for and on behalf of the Gunggari People) v Queensland (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [29]-[30]; [2001] FCA 1229 (Emmett J) and Lovett on behalf of the Gunditjmara People v State of Victoria [2007] FCA 474 at [37] (North J).
47 In relation to this proceeding, the Mayala Applicant and the State have been legally represented throughout the consent determination negotiation process. All other respondent parties have also had the benefit of legal representation, other than the Shire of Derby/West Kimberley.
48 Further, the State has played an active role in the negotiation of the proposed consent determination, an important factor also referred to by Emmett J in Munn at [29]. In doing so, the State (acting on behalf of the community generally), having regard to the requirements of the NTA, has satisfied itself that the Determination is justified in all the circumstances.
49 The connection material is in the State's view, sufficient to demonstrate that the Mayala Application has a "credible or cogent basis" and that the Mayala Applicant is bound together by a normative system of laws and customs which, on the basis of known fact and reasonable inference, has continued to be observed by its members in a substantially uninterrupted manner since prior to the declaration of sovereignty over Western Australia. Further, the Mayala Applicant claim group has maintained a physical presence in the Determination Area since the acquisition of British sovereignty and evidence of their continuing physical or spiritual involvement in the Determination Area was sufficient to enable the State to conclude that this connection had not been severed. Taken together, the State is satisfied that the material presented was sufficient to evidence the maintenance of connection according to traditional laws and customs in the Determination Area.
50 The State has also conducted searches of land tenure, mining and petroleum registries to determine the nature and extent of "other interests" within the Determination Area, and those interests are included in the proposed Determination.
51 Accordingly, I consider, as the Mayala Applicant and the State submit, the Minute sets out a description of the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests and the "other interests" in relation to the Determination Area which complies with s 225 of the NTA.
52 For all these reasons, I am satisfied that an order under s 87 of the NTA is both within power and appropriate to be made.