REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 For the second time this year the Federal Court of Australia convenes in the northern part of Cape York Peninsula to explain the reasons for making orders under s 87 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ("the Act") that determine the traditional rights and interests of the Northern Cape York #1 native title claim group which is constituted by the Angkamuthi Seven Rivers, the McDonnell Atampaya and the Gudang/Yadhaigana people.
2 The application for a determination of native title was filed on 1 July 2011 and was amended on 29 July 2014 and 17 October 2014.
3 The proceedings are brought on behalf of the native title claim group by Larry Woosup, Asai Pablo, Charles Woosup, Walter Moses, Anzac McDonnell, Francis Brisbane, Meun Lifu, George Pausa and Bernard Charlie.
4 The native title claim group is comprised of all persons descended from the identified apical ancestors whose names are set out in Sch 3 to the orders made today.
5 The determination area covers a large area of the land and waters in northern, north-western and north-eastern Cape York Peninsula generally located north of the Scardon and Dulhunty Rivers and west of the western boundary and north of the northern boundary of Heathland Resources Reserve and extends on the seaward side, to the high water mark. The area is properly described in Pt A of Sch 1 to the orders and depicted on the maps in Pt B of Sch 1.
6 The Cape York Land Council Aboriginal Corporation is the native title representative body for the region and is the legal representative for the claim group in relation to this application.
7 On 1 March 2012, the application passed the registration test pursuant to s 190A of the Act and since that date the application, amended on 29 July 2014 and again on 17 October 2014, has remained on the Register of Native Title Claims. The application was notified by the Native Title Registrar and the notification period for the purposes of s 66 of the Act ended on 15 August 2012.
8 The parties who remain respondents to the application are the State of Queensland, the Northern Peninsula Area Regional Council, Cook Shire Council, Apudthama Land Trust, Old Mapoon Aboriginal Corporation, Ergon Energy Corporation Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited, Alcan South Pacific Pty Ltd, RTA Weipa Pty Ltd, the Island Industries Board and Harrison Atu, Ron Atu, Baticoy Bamaga, Gibson Gowa, Dick Joel Jacob, Ron Jawai, Jacqueline Elizabeth Mulholland, John Michael Mulholland, Timacoy Ober, John Tabuai, Gerald Tamwoy and Clifford Wasiu. Sadly, one of the former individual respondents recently died and with his death he ceased to be a person whose interests might be affected by a determination of native title: see Order made on 28 October 2014.
9 The Commonwealth of Australia is no longer a party to these proceedings.
10 In what is a relatively short timeframe in the native title jurisdiction of the Court, the parties have negotiated the agreement that has been filed under s 87 of the Act. The parties have participated in intensive case management to resolve outstanding issues with some of the intra indigenous issues requiring judicial resolution (see Woosup on behalf of the Northern Cape York Group #1 v State of Queensland & Ors (No 2) [2014] FCA 1086). The parties are to be congratulated on the co-operative approach to the efficient conduct of the matter and the Court recognises and acknowledges their efforts in this regard.
11 On 23 October 2014, the parties filed an agreement under s 87 of the Act seeking the orders that I make today. Section 87 provides, relevantly, that the section applies if, at any stage of the proceedings (after the expiration of the period specified in the notice given under s 66 of the Act), an agreement is reached between the parties on the terms of an order the Federal Court might make in relation to the proceedings; and the terms of the agreement in writing signed by, or on behalf of, the parties are filed with the Court; and the Court is satisfied that an order in, or consistent with, those terms would be within the power of the Court.
12 Once those preconditions are satisfied, the Court may, if it appears to the Court appropriate to do so, make an order in, or consistent with, the terms of the agreement without holding a hearing of questions of fact and law in relation to the application: ss 87(1)(a), (b) and (c), 87(1A) and 87(2).
13 The Court is satisfied, on the affidavit evidence filed by the parties, that orders consistent with the terms of the s 87 Agreement would be within power and that it would be appropriate to make orders in and consistent with those terms without holding a hearing.
14 The Court is also satisfied for the purposes of ss 13(1) and 61(1) (which falls within Pt 3 of the Act) that there is no approved determination of native title in relation to the land and waters the subject of this proceeding.
15 I am satisfied that in determining whether it is appropriate to make the proposed orders, emphasis is to be placed upon whether the s 87 Agreement has been genuinely and freely made on an informed basis by all parties represented by experienced independent lawyers and, in the case of the State of Queensland, whether appropriate consideration has been given to the precise content of the applicant's claim. As to this latter matter, I note that the State has been a participant in all of the processes earlier described and has raised questions which have been the subject of a supplementary expert anthropological report.
16 Having regard to the history of the State's engagement in the analysis of native title rights and interests in relation to land and waters throughout Queensland and the resources and expertise available to the State in determining the legal status of particular land and waters, the State's legal advisers are in a strong position to examine the precise content of an applicant's determination application under the Act. Although, in my view, it is not necessary for the applicant to file a substantial body of evidence that would otherwise be required to satisfy the Court of the merits of the claim as though findings of fact and law were required to be made, it remains necessary, in my view, for the Court to be satisfied that the terms of the agreement reached between the parties (which provide the foundation for the determination orders) are, as Chief Justice French has observed, "rooted in reality": Native Title - A Constitutional Shift?, University of Melbourne Law School, JD Lecture Series, French CJ, 24 March 2009; Kerindun v Queensland (2009) 258 ALR 306 at [16]; Kuuku Ya'u People v State of Queensland [2009] FCA 679 at [12] - [15].
17 The question of whether the terms of the agreement are rooted in reality simply requires some material to be before the Court upon which it can act in reaching the statutory state of satisfaction as to the appropriateness of the making of the orders. The parties have been represented by experienced lawyers. The terms of the s 87 Agreement have emerged out of the processes earlier described undertaken by the participants as represented. Although there were, at an earlier stage of this matter, a number of unrepresented indigenous respondents, all of the indigenous parties who remain as respondents to the application today are represented by experienced lawyers.
18 Section 94A of the Act requires that an order for determination of native title must set out details of the matters mentioned in s 225 of the Act which must be read together with s 223 of the Act. These sections give meaning to the terms "determination of native title" and "native title" and "native title rights and interests". In Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422 ("Yorta Yorta") at [76], Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ treated the statutory elements contained in s 223 as central.
19 The mandatory requirements for a determination of native title are these. The native title rights and interests must be communal, group or individual rights and interests. They must be rights and interests in relation to land or waters. They must be possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged, and the traditional customs observed, by Aboriginal peoples, relevantly, for these proceedings. Aboriginal peoples by their law and customs must have a connection with the land or waters, and the rights and interests must be recognised by the common law of Australia. Orders under s 87 of the Act take effect not only inter-parties in the resolution of claims made in the proceedings but represent an independent judicial determination, in the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth, that may be asserted, as a matter of law, against anyone.
20 A determination of native title expresses the recognition and protection of those rights and interests in relation to land and waters defined and described in s 223 of the Act which find their origin in traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed by Aboriginal peoples: Yorta Yorta at [75] and [76], Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ.
21 A determination of native title requires the Court to determine who are the persons or group of persons who hold the common or group rights comprising the native title; the nature and extent of those rights and interests in the Determination Area; the nature and extent of any other interests; and the relationship between the native title rights and interests and those other interests, in the Determination Area (s 225 of the Act).
22 In determining those matters and the matters mentioned earlier at [15] of these reasons, I have had reference to the following reports that were exhibited to the affidavit of Dr Anthony Redmond filed on 1 September 2014: A Northern Cape York Peninsula Regional Society: Identifying the regionally shared level of society for the NCY#1, NCY#2 and proposed NCY#3 Native Title Claimant Groups, Dr Anthony Redmond, June 2012 (the "Society Report"); Northern Cape York #1 QUD157/11 Native Title Connection Report, Dr Anthony Redmond, August 2012 (the "NCY#1 Connection Report"); NCYP #1 and #2 Native Title Claims: Supplementary Report - Anthropologist's response to the State of Queensland's assessment and request for further information in regard to the connection materials, Dr Anthony Redmond, 26 June 2013 (the "Supplementary Report"). I have also had reference to Dr Redmond's report of 21 May 2014 entitled Northern Cape York Peninsula Regional Aboriginal Society: Summary of Evidence and Opinion, and the updated genealogical charts and final list of apical ancestors.
23 I have had the benefit of reading the applicant's submissions filed on 3 October 2014. Much of the evidentiary material I have considered in this application was previously considered by me in relation to the orders I made in relation in the Northern Cape York #2 claim: Coconut on behalf of the Northern Cape York #2 Native Title Claim Group v State of Queensland [2014] FCA 629 ("NCY #2"). In NCY #2, I made the following observations on the evidence presented to the Court in the context of that matter:
[24] Dr Redmond is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University. He is an Australian Research Council Fellow who undertook a joint project entitled "Aboriginal Involvement in the inter-cultural frontier Economy". Dr Redmond has conducted a wide-range of research activities in the discipline of anthropology with particular emphasis upon the foundation for communal, group or individual cultural rights, practises and interests of Aboriginal people. Dr Redmond has undertaken extensive research on this topic in Northern Cape York. Dr Redmond has conducted research in relation to native title claims on behalf of the Northern Cape York Group #2 ("NCY #2") and also in relation to the claim made by the Northern Cape York Group #1 ("NCY #1") claimants.
[25] Having regard to that research, Dr Redmond says this:
I came to the professional opinion that the set of regionally shared socio-cultural features and regular interactive patterns characteristic of the groups traditionally associated with the NCY #1 and #2 claim areas indicated that the claimants' predecessors shared membership of a single society constituted through a body of shared traditional laws and customs, all of which had degrees of bearing upon the allocation of landed rights and interests. …
[emphasis added]
[26] Dr Redmond sets out extensive analysis which represents the foundation for that view. It is not necessary to repeat in these reasons the content of that analysis. Dr Redmond, in forming his professional opinion, also had regard to a wide body of anthropological research work concerning the peoples of Northern Cape York. That body of anthropological research work includes the work of Lauriston Sharp in 1933, 1934 and 1935. It includes the results of field research expeditions to Cape York in 1928 and in 1932/1933 by Donald Thomson including fieldwork in Weipa and Mapoon, with particular reference to Thomson's papers in 1934, 1939 and 1972. It includes reference to the work of Ursula McConnel who travelled extensively throughout Cape York between 1927 and 1934 and conducted fieldwork to produce a series of reference papers in 1936, 1939 and 1950. It also includes reference to the work of Terrence Crowley, a linguist who undertook field work in Cape York in the 1970s and who produced two publications in 1981 and 1983 of relevance to regionally shared socio-cultural features and patterns of interaction of Aboriginal peoples within the Determination Area the subject of the present claim.
[27] More contemporary work has also been reviewed by Dr Redmond and that work includes the work of Thompson and Chase of 2006 and 2009; the work of Chase, Smith and Thompson of 2005 and the work of Rigsby in 1995 and 1999.
[28] As a result of an analysis of all of this work and Dr Redmond's own work, he has prepared a map which demonstrates an "overlay" of anthropological data demonstrating considerable overlap of Northern Cape York Peninsula "socio-cultural-linguistic features" and, from the research and data, Dr Redmond identifies an area in which the indigenous people of Northern Cape York shared "an overwhelming preponderance of shared laws and customs in regard to local and social organisation, language affinities, kinship and marriage customs, ceremonial and cosmological beliefs, ritual prohibitions on eating of totemic species, emic perspectives on their relative sameness and difference with their neighbours [perspectives on the language and culture of the peoples in terms of their internal functioning within the group] and regional dispute resolution practices".
24 In the NCY #1 Connection Report, Dr Redmond refers to his extensive research in relation to the NCY #1 claimant families and their ancestors and at [36] he concludes that:
The forty-eight sources listed in the genealogical database incorporate my own field research as well as drawing upon a wide range of secondary sources including the field-notes of Sharp (1933-4) and Hinton (1963), as well as the more recent reports of Fuary and Greer (1993), Kwok (1998), Elias (1998), McKeown (1996), Taylor and Powell (2008), Powell (2004; 2010), Thompson (2009). The genealogies also incorporate parts of the database compiled by Peter Blackwood and his associates which mostly pertains to the people of the NCY#2 claim area but also contains various relevant information for the current NCY#1 claimant group. The sources cited in the genealogies also include extracts from the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and those drawn from the records of the Presbyterian Church at Mapoon, as well as extracts from information provided by the Community Personal Histories (CPH) section of the Queensland Government.
25 In NCY #2, I noted Dr Redmond's conclusion that, in his opinion, the data "all point towards the existence of a single regional society uniting the NCY #1 and #2 claimant groups under a shared body of laws and customs" [emphasis added], in respect of which he wrote:
My field research with contemporary claimants in the NCY #1 claim, in conjunction with my study of the research materials pertaining to the NCY #2 claim, strongly indicate that a continuing observance and acknowledgement of the traditional laws and customs of the region continues to unite the peoples of both the NCY #1 and #2 claim areas within a single society. This contemporary social unity is entirely congruent with my findings regarding the [Northern Cape York Peninsula] regional society at the time of sovereignty.
26 Dr Redmond, in the Supplementary Report, refers again to this single "regional Northern Cape York society" that is differentiated in terms of territories most closely associated with the claim group under a regional body of law and custom. He concludes that:
[68] The extensive affinal and kin networks established through the long history of customary intermarriage between the Angkamuthi, Atampaya and Gudang Yathaikeno peoples has engendered a situation in which all of the claimants in the NCY#1 claim have close relatives from each of the three language identified groupings. Indeed, the NCY#1 genealogies show that it would be extremely difficult to identify a single claimant who does not possess socially recognised connections to each of these three language groups …
[69] These patterns of customary intermarriage between the three constituent groupings of the NCY#1 claimant group are considerably more marked than those with their southern neighbours making up the NCY#2 claimant group.
[70] This cultural institution of customary marriage between each of the three NCY#1 language groupings became further intensified in the period of Indigenous settlement into permanent communities and long-term, large-scale camps. This phenomenon of large encampments first emerged at Somerset in the mid-nineteenth century and extended to the major regional camps established at McDonnell and Moreton Stations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries before the establishment of the permanent village at Cowal Creek in about 1912-15 …
27 The land holding groups who possessed rights and interests under traditional laws and customs in relation to each part of the Determination Area at the time of "effective sovereignty" were composed of the ancestors of persons who today identify as members of the Angkamuthi Seven Rivers group, the McDonnell Atampaya group and the Gudang/Yadhaigana group. In the NCY#1 Connection Report at p 8, Dr Redmond describes those three "socio-territorial groupings" in these terms:
The Angkamuthi Seven River [sic] group are the descendants of ancestors whose traditional homelands include places located in the lower catchments of the west coast rivers of northern Cape York, commonly known as the Seven Rivers (an area which includes parts of the catchments of the Jardine River, Crystal Creek, Doughboy River, McDonald River, Jackson River, Skardon River and Ducie/Dulhunty River).
The McDonnell Atampaya group are descendants of ancestors whose traditional country includes the upland regions of Northern Cape York Peninsula in the forested highlands of the Great Dividing Range, between approximately the headwaters of the Jardine River in the north, south to Schramm and Nimrod Creeks, east to Catfish Creek and west to the Richardson Range. The group name derives from a place named Atampaya, near the long abandoned McDonnell Telegraph Station.
The Gudang/Yadhaigana people are descendants of ancestors whose traditional country includes the north eastern and parts of the north-west coast of Cape York. These two named groupings hold adjacent country, are extensively intermarried and commonly act as a single entity in regard to land and decision-making processes.
28 Dr Redmond concludes that the NCY #1 claim area is made up of the traditional lands and waters of these three major socio-territorial groups and the genealogical material relied on demonstrates that the contemporary members of the groups are descendants of those ancestors who are identified in Sch 3 of the orders as: Peter (Pahding) Pablo; Wymarra (Wymara Outaiakindi); Mathew (Charlie) Gelapa; Annie Blanco; Ela / Illa (father of Tommy Dodd, Polly Polly and Tommy Somerset); Woonduinagrun and Tariba (parents of Tom Redhead); Charlotte Ware; Queen Baki and Chief Tchiako/Tchiaku/Chiaku; Jipsit and Dolly; Mary McDonnell and Jack Snake; Ourinda and Emara McDonnell Charcoal (grandparents of Willy and Louisa Charcoal); Ralph Coconut; Charlie Nataki; William McDonnell; Charlie Otomo McDonnell and his wife, Agemo (parents of Charlie Woolhead (Pascoe)); Wondorognu Alligator McDonnell and Mary Brown; Wargo (father of Kitty McDonnell, Jacko, and Frank Doyle); Clara and Jimmy McDonnell; Epidin and Eteman (parents of Doris Harry); Kaio; Sambo Wooleye (father of Simon and Sarah Peter); Woobumu and Inmare; Bullock (father of Mamoose Pitt, husband of Rosie/Lena Braidley); Charlie Mamoose (father of Silas, Larry, Johnny and Harry Mamoose); Charlie Seven River; Toby Seven River (father of Jack Toby); Asai Charlie; Sam and Nellie (parents of George Stephen); Mammus/Mamoos/Mark/Mamoose plus his siblings Peter and Elizabeth; Charlie Maganu (husband of Sarah McDonnell); and Polly (wife of Wautaba Charlie Ropeyarn).
29 Sovereignty of mainland Australia was acquired by the Imperial Crown in 1788. Effective sovereignty did not occur in the claim area until many decades later. The arrival of the Jardines at Somerset in 1864 marked the beginning of a permanent European presence in the claim area. Dr Redmond concludes that the relationship between the Aboriginal people and the new settlers was deeply ambivalent and often violent. Sheep and cattle stations were established from the mid-1860's and the overland telegraph line was constructed in the 1880's. The McDonnell telegraph station was opened in 1887. Dr Redmond refers in the NCY#1 Connection Report at para 7 to a report from Archibald Meston (later the Protector of Aboriginals), who in 1896 wrote about the inhabitants of the claim area:
From Newcastle Bay south to Princess Charlotte Bay … are still in their original condition … There is no settlement whatever, nor is there a single white man resident over the whole of that extensive territory, except for a few miners on one locality … the tribes to the westward [of the east coast], between the coast and the telegraph line, are still absolutely wild, and … free from any intercourse or contamination by white men … the whole western coast north from the Mitchell to the Jardine River [is] in absolute possession of the wild tribes.
30 In Dr Redmond's view, effective sovereignty coincided with the establishment of the first permanent European presence at Somerset in about 1860 and says that the degree of disruption in the more southern reaches of the claim area appears to have been somewhat less intense than in the northern tip. Effective sovereignty is likely to have occurred in the proposed determination area at different points in time over a period of years, perhaps decades, from 1864.
31 In the reasons in NCY #2, reference was made to engagement with early explorers by the ancestors of the claim group:
In 1606 the Dutch vessel Duyfken sailed down the west coast of Cape York Peninsula and sighted land at the Pennefather River in the Determination Area and entered Port Musgrave and the Wenlock River where particular interactions occurred with Aboriginal peoples. In April and May 1623, Jan Carstenzoon led the Dutch vessels Pera and Arnehem on an exploratory mission from Torres Strait down the west coast of Cape York Peninsula to about the Staaten River in the south. Carstenzoon named the river now known as the Wenlock River as the Carpentier River. Carstenzoon's diaries provide some detail of huts and weaponry and native dwellings seen at the Skardon River. In 1802, Matthew Flinders in the Investigator sailed down the western side of Cape York Peninsula passing Port Musgrave and making particular observations.
32 The rights and interests that are recognised in the orders I make today are derived from the traditional laws and customs and their adaptation since sovereignty. Dr Redmond's Society Report examines the available evidence in relation to the cosmology, the role of regional elders, the linking of language, shared responsibilities for ceremony, trade and exchange, spiritual beliefs, laws and customs governing regional dispute resolution processes, and a regionally shared mode of aggregating local descent groupings under toponymic labels.
33 Dr Redmond has included various maps in the Society Report that demonstrate pictorially the areas associated with particular laws and customs, as found by Sharp, Thomson, McConnel, Crowley, Alpher and Hale. One of the maps includes is an aggregate of the earlier maps and is striking because of the broad commonality of areas associated with those laws and customs.
34 Dr Redmond comments on this particular map at para 193(n) of the Society Report:
It will be observed from this map that it is possible to delineate an area in which the Indigenous people of Northern Cape York Peninsula clearly shared an overwhelming preponderance of shared laws and customs in regard to local and social organisation, language affinities, kinship and marriage customs, ceremonial and cosmological beliefs, ritual prohibitions on eating of totemic species, emic perspectives on their relative sameness and difference with their neighbours and regional dispute resolution practices. In my opinion, these data all point towards the existence of a single regional society uniting the NCY#1, [NCY]#2 and proposed NCY#3 claimant groups under a shared body of laws and customs.
35 In terms of the contemporary situation, the NCY#1 native title claim group continues to be part of a wider regional society.
36 As Dr Redmond notes in the NCY#1 Connection Report:
The wider Aboriginal jural public of Northern Cape York Peninsula … which upholds the laws and customs in the claim region is more extensive than any single language group and lower-level divisions (including the patriclans recorded at the threshold of colonisation and their present incarnation in contemporary kin-based groupings). For this reason the claimant group can be distinguished from the wider regional society within which it is embedded.
37 Dr Redmond concludes that, at all relevant times, a normative system of traditional law and custom has governed the lives of the claimants and their ancestors:
The predecessors of the NCY#1 claimant group used, occupied and enjoyed a lawful and regulated jurisdiction over the NCY#1 Claim Area … prior to the assumption of effective sovereignty which coincides with the establishment of the first permanent European presence at Somerset in about 1860. That lawful use and occupation has been perpetuated across succeeding generations to the present day under a body of shared traditional laws and customs.
38 The NCY #1 claim group have provided extensive evidence of their continuing connection to the claim area. Members of the claim group live in the five communities within the external boundary of the determination area, Injinoo, Seisia, Bamaga, Umagico and New Mapoon and in semi-permanent camps and outstations. Dr Redmond refers to numerous statements from members of the claim group he has obtained attesting to various activities on country such as hunting, gathering, fishing, camping, manufacturing implements for hunting and fishing, burning country and protecting places. Continuity is expressed in terms of adherence to particular laws, customs, practices and beliefs.
39 I am satisfied having regard to the anthropological reports in evidence that the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the land and waters of the Determination Area are these.
40 As to the land and waters described in Pt 1 of Sch 1 otherwise known as the "Exclusive Areas" of exercise of the native title rights and interests, those rights and interests are, other than in relation to Water, the rights to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the area to the exclusion of all others, and in relation to Water, the non-exclusive rights to hunt, fish and gather from the Water of the area, take and use the Natural Resources of the Water in the area, and take and use the Water of the area, for cultural, personal, domestic and communal purposes. "Water" has the definition attributed to it as set out in Order 14 of the orders published today.
41 As to the land and waters described in Pt 2 of Sch 1, otherwise known as the "Non-Exclusive Areas" of exercise of the native title rights and interests, those rights and interests are the non-exclusive rights to:
(a) access, be present on, move about on and travel over the area;
(b) hunt and fish in or on, and gather from, the area;
(c) take, use, share and exchange Natural Resources on the area;
(d) take and use Water from the area for cultural, personal, domestic and communal purposes;
(e) live and camp on the area and for those purposes to erect shelters and other structures thereon;
(f) light fires on the area for cultural, spiritual or domestic purposes, including cooking, but not for the purpose of hunting or clearing vegetation;
(g) be buried and to bury native title holders within the area;
(h) conduct ceremonies on the area;
(i) hold meetings on the area;
(j) teach on the area the physical and spiritual attributes of the area;
(k) maintain places of importance and areas of significance to the native title holders under their traditional laws and customs on the area and to protect those places and areas from harm;
(l) be accompanied on to the area by those persons who, though not native title holders, are:
(i) spouses or partners of native title holders;
(ii) people who are members of the immediate family of a spouse or partner of a native title holder; or
(iii) people reasonably required by the native title holders under traditional law and custom for the performance of ceremonies or cultural activities on the area.
42 The native title rights and interests so described are subject to and exercisable in accordance with the laws of the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth, the traditional laws acknowledged and traditional customs observed by the native title holders, and the other interests in the Determination Area referred to in Sch 4 to the Orders.
43 As to the "other interests" recited at paras 7 to 11 of Sch 4, which are the rights and interests of the grantees and others (including beneficiaries) under five Deeds of Grant in Trust ("DOGIT") (and/or any Deed of Grant granted or re-granted in substitution for, replacement of or in succession to each Deed of Grant), the relationship between those interests and the interests of the native title holders, particularly in the context of the operation of the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 (Qld), was discussed in my reasons in Woosup on behalf of the Northern Cape York Group #1 v State of Queensland [2014] FCA 910.
44 The orders published today precisely set out the conditions upon which Orders 7 and 8 of the orders setting out the nature, scope and content of the native title rights and interests rest, and, in particular, Orders 10, 11 and 12. Order 12 sets out the nature and extent of other interests in relation to the Determination Area or parts of it, described by reference to Sch 4 of the orders. Order 13 sets out the relationship between the native title rights and interests described in Orders 7 and 8 and the other interests described in Sch 4.
45 The applicant has resolved that the native title rights and interests are to be held in trust by the Northern Cape #1 Aboriginal Corporation (ICN 8114) as prescribed body corporate. A written nomination and written consent required by s 56(2)(a) of the Act has been filed with the Federal Court. The orders provide that upon the determination taking effect, the native title is to be held in trust for the common law holders and Northern Cape #1 Aboriginal Corporation is to be the prescribed body corporate for the purposes of ss 56(2)(b) and 56(3) of the Act and is to perform the functions mentioned in s 57(1) of the Act after becoming a registered native title body corporate. The common law native title holders have notified the Court by an affidavit of Charles Thomas Woosup filed 10 October 2014 that the Northern Cape #1 Aboriginal Corporation is nominated as the prescribed body corporate to be the trustee of the native title determined in this proceeding. The determination will take effect according to the terms of Order 2 of the orders. No determination under s 57 of the Act is required having regard to the operation of s 56 of the Act.
46 On the basis of all of the matters described in these reasons, I am satisfied that the Court has power to make the determination in the terms proposed and that it will be appropriate to do so in all the circumstances.
47 The orders made today give recognition within the Australian legal system to the native title rights and interests of the claim group described as the Northern Cape York #1 claim group in relation to the Determination Area, borne out of traditions honoured and customs practiced by the ancestors of the claimants and observed and practiced by their descendants continuously over time as described in the report of Dr Redmond having regard to the detailed anthropological record of Aboriginal peoples and their engagement with the land and waters of the Determination Area.
48 The Court now publishes the orders comprising the determination.
I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Greenwood.