JAGOT J
1 On 25 June 2015 I said this in Yaegl People #1 v Attorney General of New South Wales [2015] FCA 647:
Today, at last, the Yaegl People will be recognised as having that which they always in truth had - but which remained unrecognised by the common law of Australia - native title rights and interests in the land within the claim area.
2 As we know these words related to the land within the area claimed in the claims of the Yaegl People filed in 1996 and 2011, but not the waters identified in the 2011 claim over which the Yaegl People claimed native title rights and interests under their traditional laws and customs.
3 Accordingly, as at 25 June 2015, it was acknowledged and declared in the orders of the Court that all of the land in the claim area to the immediate west of the mean high water mark of the ocean bordering the land within the claim area was, at sovereignty, the land of the Yaegl People and had continued thereafter to be the land of the Yaegl People under the Yaegl People's traditional laws and customs, with the consequence that under the laws of Australia, specifically the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the NTA), the continuing native title rights and interests of the Yaegl People could be recognised. The continuation of the claimed native title rights and interests in the waters to the immediate east of the mean high water mark alone remained for future determination.
4 The sea claim, as it was called, was supported by extensive material. For example, Deidre Russell was taught by her elders that the waters bordering Yaegl land were also Yaegl country. She described dreaming stories relating to these waters including about the Dirrangun which all Yaegl People know and which explains the rocks you can see offshore. She explained traditional fishing customs and rules, and protection of the beach and the reef from degradation which was a necessary part of caring for Yaegl country. She explained the rules about being on country including the beaches and waters. She explained why certain sites have spiritual significance. Her evidence of the continuing connection of the Yaegl People to the sea was detailed and convincing. The same can be said of the statements of others, including Carmel Charlton and Ferlin Laurie.
5 The evidence of the Yaegl people which supported the claim thus showed how the sea forms part of their lives, permeates their culture, and is an integral part of their rich traditional customs and laws, explaining how this landscape was created and how it must be treated and cherished. The Yaegl People have their own laws and customs of the sea and those laws and customs continued to inform and enrich their daily lives. The Yaegl People ensure these laws and customs continue through their oral tradition, speaking elder to younger.
6 The existence, nature and extent of the claimed rights remained in issue, however. Various orders were made and, as has regrettably become common place in native title matters in New South Wales, extensions of time were granted to clarify the positions of the State and the Commonwealth about the sea claim. By 2 December 2016 a negotiated agreement had been achieved recognising that the traditional connection of the Yaegl People had continued in relation to the inter-tidal zone, 200 metres east of the mean low water mark, and in the vicinity of the Dirrangun 920 metres east of the mean low water mark and within 350 metres of all points surrounding the Dirrangun. Tenure issues were also effectively resolved by 2 December 2016.
7 Despite this, and the parties being ahead of schedule at this time, the kinds of problems we see frequently in native title matters in New South Wales meant that the due date for the filing of all material also had to be extended. On 4 October 2016, I ordered the parties to file all material on which they wished to rely for the making of the consent determination by 17 July 2017. This was extended until 4 August 2017. By 4 August 2017, however, it was apparent that the parties would not comply despite the extension. Three matters were listed for urgent directions on that day, this proceeding, that of the Barkandji People, and that of the Western Bundjalung People. All were scheduled for consent determination hearings. The course of that case management hearing disclosed what I have referred to in my reasons for judgment in relation to the Western Bundjalung native title claim (Western Bundjalung People v Attorney General of New South Wales [2017] FCA 992) as apparently systemic incapacities, primarily on the part of the State, to comply with orders in native title proceedings. Senior counsel appeared for the first respondent and, based on his submissions, another extension of time for the filing of all relevant material was granted until 9 August 2017. While the agreement and proposed consent determination were filed as ordered, the material in support from the applicant was not. I should say that this delay, by the applicant represented by NTSCORP Limited, strikes me as atypical of NTSCORP's approach to compliance with Court orders.
8 Nevertheless, while the exigencies of litigation resulting in occasional delays is accepted, the timely filing of material necessary to enable the Court to consider whether it can and should make a consent determination is essential. While nothing that has occurred in this matter appears to approach the circumstances of the Western Bundjalung case, the following should not be overlooked because it discloses the operation of a system consistent with that identified in the Western Bundjalung reasons for judgment:
(1) The applicant provided connection material accompanying its claim in 2011. Further material was filed relating to the sea claim in November 2014 and yet further material again (some of which is referred to above) was filed in April 2016, including historical and anthropological reports.
(2) Three sets of submissions were provided by the applicant to the State in support of the sea claim between September and November 2016, including another outline of evidence.
(3) The State commissioned no less than five reports or papers from its in-house experts about the sea claim between April and October 2016.
(4) The State obtained no less than six advices from counsel, including four involving senior counsel, between April and November 2016.
9 The consent determination recognises native title rights and interests of the Yaegl People in two areas, referred to as the Inner Extent Native Title Area and the Outer Extent Native Title Area. The rights in both areas are non-exclusive rights in the Yaegl People to access, remain on and traverse the areas (accompanied by certain other persons) and to maintain and protect places, objects and areas of importance or significance under traditional laws and customs of the Yaegl People, with the only difference between the two areas being the recognition of the additional native title right in the Inner Extent Native Title Area to access resources in the area for non-commercial purposes.
10 The significance of the recognition of these rights of the Yaegl People, the first consent determination relating to the sea in New South Wales, cannot be overstated. It is a manifestation of the stated intention in the Preamble to the NTA to "rectify the consequences of past injustice" to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and to "ensure that Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders receive the full recognition and status within the Australian nation to which history, their prior rights and interests, and their rich and diverse culture, fully entitle them to aspire". The Preamble to the NTA leaves us in no doubt about what those past injustices were, identifying that:
The people whose descendants are now known as Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders were the inhabitants of Australia before European settlement.
They have been progressively dispossessed of their lands. This dispossession occurred largely without compensation, and successive governments have failed to reach a lasting and equitable agreement with Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders concerning the use of their lands.
As a consequence, Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders have become, as a group, the most disadvantaged in Australian society.
11 All of this occurred under the doctrine of terra nullius, rejected in its application to Australia by the High Court in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1.
12 As I have said before, this context places a special obligation on those involved in the resolution of native title claims to ensure they discharge their duties consistently with the overarching purpose of the civil litigation procedures.
13 The overarching purpose of the procedures for civil litigation is to facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to law as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible (s 37M(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)). By s 37M(2) the overarching purpose includes the following objectives:
(a) the just determination of all proceedings before the Court;
(b) the efficient use of the judicial and administrative resources available for the purposes of the Court;
(c) the efficient disposal of the Court's overall caseload;
(d) the disposal of all proceedings in a timely manner;
(e) the resolution of disputes at a cost that is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matters in dispute.
14 Section 37N of the Court Act provides that:
(1) The parties to a civil proceeding before the Court must conduct the proceeding (including negotiations for settlement of the dispute to which the proceeding relates) in a way that is consistent with the overarching purpose.
(2) A party's lawyer must, in the conduct of a civil proceeding before the Court (including negotiations for settlement) on the party's behalf:
(a) take account of the duty imposed on the party by subsection (1); and
(b) assist the party to comply with the duty.
15 In Yaegl #1 I said this at [5]:
The kind of delays which have been experienced in native title matters entrench injustice over generations. How sad, indeed how shameful it is, that in many of these matters the people who started the claim often become too aged or infirm to see the matter through or pass away, never having seen their labours bear fruit. Delay of this kind saps away any sense of justice or fairness in the process. It erodes confidence in the institutions which are meant to serve our common interests. It can instil a sense of despair and incapacity in those who should be actively engaged in and empowered by the process.
16 Has this dispute been resolved in an efficient and timely manner and at a cost that is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matters in dispute? Given that it took from 2011 until 2017 for the sea claim to be resolved, and resolution appears to have involved such a substantial commitment of resources, I doubt it. An ultimate outcome which is substantively just is nevertheless unjust if to get to it takes too long or consumes too many resources. As I said in the Western Bundjalung reasons for judgment it would be wrong to conceive of the State's duty as one of protecting the public interest as if the public interest excluded the legitimate interests of native title claimants; claimants are part of the community for which the State is responsible and to whom it owes its duties and to conceive of the public interest as if it were in opposition to native title rights and interests is contrary to the provisions of the NTA, particularly the stated object in the Preamble.
17 One other matter should be noted at this stage. The agreement in question is made under s 87A of the NTA which applies to an agreement "in relation to an area (the determination area) included in the area covered by the application" (s 87A(1)(b)). This section is to be understood with s 64(1B) of the NTA which provides that:
An application is taken to have been amended to reduce the area of land or waters covered by the application if an order is made under section 87A by the Federal Court. The area of land or waters is reduced by the area in relation to which the order is made.
18 These provisions indicate that where there has been a determination over part of a claim area and all that remains to be determined is the balance of the claim area, the applicable provision is s 87 rather than s 87A of the NTA. This indication is supported by s 87A(3) which requires "notice to the other parties to the proceeding that the proposed determination of native title has been filed with the Court", the assumption apparently being that in the case of an agreement under s 87A the parties to the agreement may not be all of the parties to the proceeding (an assumption that cannot be correct where, as here, the agreement relates to all land in the extant claim area). Needless to say after seven years of negotiations between the parties, I am prepared to proceed under s 87A, the requirements of which are satisfied but I raise this for consideration as different practices exist around Australia.
19 In terms of s 87A, all pre-conditions are satisfied. There is a proceeding. The notification period which was 27 July 2011 to 26 October 2011 has expired. Agreement has been reached on a proposed determination of native title in relation to an area included in the area covered by the application. All of the parties to the proceeding are parties to the agreement. The agreement has been filed, as have the terms of the proposed consent determination. The Federal Court Chief Executive Officer has given notice to the other parties to the proceeding that the proposed determination of native title has been filed with the Court. The orders are consistent with the agreement and are within the power of the Court and are appropriate. The native title rights and interest in the waters off the coast of Yaegl country should be recognised in Australian law consistent with the provisions and objectives of the NTA.
20 Otherwise, the terms of the determination satisfy the requirements of s 225 of the NTA. The requirements of ss 55 and 56 of the NTA are also satisfied in that the Yaegl Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC will hold the determined native title in trust for the common law holders and will perform the functions of a registered native title body corporate under the NTA.
21 The final matter I will say is this. The claims pursued by the Yaegl People since November 1996 are at last resolved today. But for the fortitude, tenacity and courage of the Yaegl People, and those who have assisted them, they could not have achieved this outcome. But should we be surprised? The Yaegl People are part of a continuous culture which has occupied this continent for 60,000 years. They were here for millennia before European settlement. They developed their connection with country over those millennia. The injustices to which they have been subjected as a result of the legal and practical dispossession effected by European settlement did not bring their connection to an end. The land and waters the subject of these determinations are recognised to be Yaegl country over which the Yaegl People have rights and interests under their traditional laws and customs. The Yaegl People have endured. May this and the previous determination from 2015 go some way to achieving the object of the NTA that the Yaegl People "receive the full recognition and status within the Australian nation to which history, their prior rights and interests, and their rich and diverse culture, fully entitle them to aspire".