COLVIN J:
1 Mr Bill Williams and Mr Kennedy Finlay are authorised persons for a registered application for the determination of native title over six noncontinguous areas along the western boundary of lands in the central north of Western Australia in respect of which there is an existing determination of native title. The application has been given the name the Martu #3 claim. It is made on behalf of an applicant claim group that identify by the description Martu People.
2 The parties to the Martu # 3 claim propose the making of consent orders for the determination of native title pursuant to s 87 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The consent orders are proposed on the basis that findings made as to an adjacent area in James on behalf of the Martu People v State of Western Australia [2002] FCA 1208 (Martu #1 Determination) at [5]-[11] also pertain to the land the subject of the proposed determinations of native title. The parties also propose that the native title holders be described in terms that are consistent with the Martu #1 Determination and the terms of the Martu #3 claim.
3 The proposed consent orders are supported by a statement of agreed facts and joint submissions filed by the applicant and the State of Western Australia. I am satisfied that notice has been given of those documents to other parties and that it is appropriate to accept the agreed statement of facts pursuant to s 87(10).
4 The Court has power to make a determination as to the outcome of an application for native title where the parties have reached agreement as to the terms in which the application should be determined: see s 87(1A). The following conditions must be met before a determination of native title may be made pursuant to s 87 based upon the agreement of the parties. They are:
(1) Notice of the application for determination of native title must have been given as required by s 66 of the Native Title Act and the notice period must have expired.
(2) The agreement of the parties must relate to an area which is included in the area covered by the application.
(3) The terms of the proposed agreement must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of each of the parties and filed with the Court.
(4) There must have been no previous determination of the extent of native title over the area (or the order must be justified as a variation of the previous determination pursuant to s 13(1)(b) of the Native Title Act).
(5) The Court must be satisfied that an order in the proposed terms would be within the power of the Court. In that regard, the Federal Court has jurisdiction as to matters arising under the Native Title Act and must make any determination of native title in accordance with the procedures in the Act (see s 213). Those procedures require any determination of native title to set out the matters stated in s 225 (see s 94A). They require the determination to reflect the state of the common law as to the nature and extent of such interests and for there to be a factual basis for the making of an order and the determination must specify:
(a) the persons, or each group of persons, holding the common or group rights comprising native title;
(b) the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests;
(c) the nature and extent of any other interests;
(d) the relationship between the native title interests and any other interests; and
(e) whether the native title rights and interests confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment to the exclusion of all others.
(6) It must appear to the Court that it is appropriate to make the order.
(7) If a determination of the existence of native title is to be made based on agreement then (as required by s 55 of the Native Title Act) the Court must at the same time or as soon as practicable thereafter make the determination required by s 56 as to how the native title interest will be held.
5 The resolution of applications for determination of native title by agreement reached through a process of mediation is the preferred means for the resolution of controversies as to the existence of native title: The Nyamal Palyku Proceeding (No 7) [2023] FCA 528 at [102]-[108]. Further, the support of the State will provide a basis upon which a consent determination will be made and the State is 'not required to obtain proof from an applicant which would demonstrate to a civil standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, that the native title rights claimed by the applicant exist': Widjabul Wia-Bal v Attorney General of New South Wales [2020] FCAFC 34; (2020) 274 FCR 577 at [51] (Reeves, Jagot and Mortimer JJ); see also Lander v State of South Australia [2012] FCA 427 at [11]-[13] (Mansfield J); Drury on behalf of the Nanda People v State of Western Australia [2018] FCA 1849 at [52]-[56] (Mortimer J); and Munn for and on behalf of the Gunggari People v State of Queensland [2001] FCA 1229; (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [29]-[30] (Emmett J).
6 In addition to the joint submissions and agreed facts, the making of the proposed consent orders is supported by an affidavit from Mr Malcolm O'Dell, the principal lawyer at Central Desert Native Title Services Limited, the solicitor for the applicant in the Martu #3 claim.
7 For the following reasons, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the proposed consent orders to be made.
8 First, the relevant notification period ended on 26 April 2022.
9 Secondly, the proposed orders relate to areas the subject of the Martu #3 claim.
10 Thirdly, agreement has been reached on the terms of the proposed order between all of the parties to the Martu #3 claim and those terms have been recorded in the proposed consent orders signed by all of the parties.
11 Fourthly, there has been no previous native title determination of native title over the areas the subject of the Martu #3 claim.
12 Fifthly, the application was authorised by the Martu people in accordance with a traditional decision-making process as described in the affidavit of Mr O'Dell.
13 Sixthly, the terms of the proposed determination accord with the requirements of s 94A and s 225 of the Native Title Act.
14 Seventhly, both the applicant and the State have had competent independent legal advice in considering the terms of the proposed consent orders.
15 Eighthly, the joint submissions record the State's view that there is connection material that is sufficient to demonstrate that the Martu #3 claim has a credible basis, that the Martu people and their predecessors have maintained a presence in, and a connection to, the areas the subject of the application in accordance with traditional laws and customs since the acquisition of British sovereignty and their physical and spiritual involvement in the land has continued since then such that their connected has not be severed.
16 The connection material comprises the following:
(1) Martu Native Title Claim Connection Report, co-authored by Mr Robert Tonkinson, Mr Stephen Bennetts and Ms Sarah Bell, dated May 2011, which was also provided in support of the Martu #1 Determination;
(2) the affidavit of Mr Darryl Jones dated 24 June 2022; and
(3) the affidavit of Anne Mitchell dated 24 June 2022.
17 As has been mentioned, the State also accepts that there is a credible basis to conclude that the findings made in the Martu #1 Determination also apply to the area the subject of the proposed orders.
18 On the basis of that material, the applicant and the State jointly submit that:
(1) The Martu # 3 claim lies on the western side of the area known as the Western Desert.
(2) The concept of Tjukurrpa is a central feature of the belief system of members of the Western Desert, including the Martu People, which encompasses all aspects of their lives. For Martu People, a fundamental belief in the Tjukurrpa provides an understanding of all that is. It is the source of the laws and customs to which the Martu People adhere, and governs their religious practices, social rules, systems of land tenure and other aspects of their lives. The Tjukurrpa explains the formation of the landscape, and is evidenced by particular features of the landscape.
(3) Martu People visit parts of the area the subject of the Martu #3 to conduct a number of activities, including camping, caring for country activities such as cleaning out rockholes, hunting and gathering bush foods, and activities aimed at inter-generational transfer of knowledge.
(4) Many Martu People live within the area the subject of the Martu #1 Determination at the communities of Parngurr, Punmu and Kunawarritji, or in Jigalong community or Newman, both of which are to the west of the Martu #3 claim area. Portions of the claim area are regularly traversed when claim group members travel back and forth between Newman or Jigalong, and Parngurr, Punmu or Kunawarritji. These trips provide opportunities, and sometimes make necessary, the sourcing of different bush foods, including large game, from country within (and near to) the area the subject of the Martu #3 claim.
19 The State has also accepted that the connection material provides sufficient evidence of occupation to support the application of s 47A of the Native Title Act to that portion of Reserve 41265 that falls within Martu #3 claim and s 47B of the Native Title Act to the portions of unallocated Crown Land identified in the proposed orders as parcels UCL 1, UCL 2, UCL 3, UCL 4, UCL 5, UCL 6 and UCL 7.
20 Finally, the Commonwealth Minister has not sought to intervene in the proceedings and therefore is not a necessary party.
21 As has been noted, where a native title determination is made, the Court must also determine whether the native title is to be held in trust and if so by whom: s 56(1). There is provision in s 56(2) as to the steps to be taken by the Court in that regard. They begin with a request to be made by the Court for a representative of the native title holders to indicate whether they intend to have the native title held in trust.
22 The applicant requests that the determined native title be held in trust for the Martu people by Jamukurna-Yapalikurnu Aboriginal Corporation (Western Desert Lands) RNTBC which is a registered native title body corporate which holds the native title determined in the Martu #1 Determination and another determination of native title. I am satisfied by the terms of the affidavit of Mr O'Dell that the requirements for its appointment have been satisfied.
23 For those reasons I will make the orders sought. I commend the parties and their representatives for bringing this matter to a conclusion by way of agreement.
I certify that the preceding twenty-three (23) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Colvin.