Logan J
In this matter, the Court recognised the native title rights and interests of the Tagalaka people over lands in and around the township of Croydon in the Gulf Country of north-west Queensland. The Court heard two claims, ‘Tagalaka People’ (QUD 6109/1998) and ‘Tagalaka People #2 Part A’ (QUD 6020/2001) together as they concerned geographically proximate areas and required consideration of materially the same anthropological evidence. The parties had agreed about the existence of native title in these areas, and so the determination was made by consent. The remaining area, ‘Tagalaka People #2 Part B’, was set down for a later hearing because the parties had not reached agreement (see Busch on behalf of the Tagalaka People #2 v State of Queensland [2012] FCA 1489).
Evidence
The connection report prepared for the applicants showed that there were Aboriginal people in the Croydon area in the pre-sovereignty period and at the time of first contact, confirmed by archaeological records. The evidence further demonstrated that ‘Tagalaka’ broadly represents three elements of the claimants’ social and cultural identity: the ‘Dagalag’ dialect of the Southern Pama language group; a defined area of lands and waters; and a largely kin-related people who claim a connection to Tagalaka-speaking forebears. The Court found that, while there had been some adaptation of laws and customs as a result of sustained European settlement, it was clear that the dialect and cultural knowledge of the Tagalaka people had continued throughout the 20th Century. Logan J was also satisfied that the procedural requirements under ss 87 and 87A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) had been met in relation to both Tagalaka People claim and Tagalaka People #2 Part A claim respectively.
Rights and interests
The Court determined that, other than in relation to the water, exclusive native title existed in relation to an area of about 1024 hectares within the broader determination area. Non-exclusive rights were held to exist in relation to the water in this same area, including the rights to: hunt, fish and gather from water; to take and use the water; to take and use the natural resources of the water. In the remaining parts of the determination area (about 3281 hectares), the Court recognised the following non-exclusive native title rights: to access and travel over; to camp on and erect temporary shelters; to hunt, fish and gather on the lands and waters; to take, use, share and exchange water and natural resources; to light fires for domestic purposes, and; to conduct ceremonies, teach on the area and maintain areas of significance.
Excluded areas
The determination set out two small parcels of land within the determination area where native title was found not to exist, and also identified other interests that existed in the determination area, including the rights and interests of: various parties to Indigenous land use agreements; the Croydon Shire Council; Telstra Corporation Ltd; Ergon Energy Corporation Ltd. The Tagalaka Tribal Aboriginal Corporation was named as the prescribed body corporate, and will manage the native title as agent for the Tagalaka people.
In his judgment, Logan J repeated his observation made in earlier judgments, that cases which linger unresolved on the Court list are an affront to the system of justice. With reference to the decision by the Attorney-General to limit funding to native title respondents as of 2013, His Honour said there was scope for misunderstanding and unnecessary delay in the absence of responsible legal representation of all interested parties.