Mortimer J
This matter concerned connection and extinguishment issues in relation to the Tjiwarl native title claim, made on behalf of a group of Western Desert people in relation to approximately 13,600 square kilometres of land and waters between the towns of Wiluna and Leonora in Western Australia. The respondents in this matter are the State of Western Australia, the Shire of Leonora and various pastoral and mining interests.
Connection
Mortimer J accepted that the applicants may claim the specified land and waters because of their shared status as Nguraritja with common custodial responsibilities for the land. This decision was based on the similar finding of group title within the Western Desert cultural bloc in De Rose v South Australia (No. 2) (2005) 145 FCR 290 at [44].
Mortimer J found that the claim area was occupied by Western Desert people at sovereignty and rejected the state’s contentions that the grandparent generation of the claimants had usurped the original owners’ rights to the land in the early 20th century. Her Honour found at [28]-[30] that members of the claim group were in and around the claim area at the time of sovereignty and later came into that country more permanently, to become recognised by the original inhabitants as Western Desert people. Mortimer J found that there was little reason to doubt the testimony of members of the claimant group regarding this historical connection to land, following the approach taken in Gumana v Northern Territory of Australia [2005] FCA 50 a [208]. Mortimer J concluded that certain rights and interests of the Tjiwarl claim group have been continuously recognised and observed since sovereignty including the rights to possess, occupy and use the land; engage in cultural activities; and receive a portion of any traditional resources taken from land or waters taken by other Western Desert people. Mortimer J found that the applicant had not established continuous acknowledgement and observance of other claimed rights to protect resources and habitats, or the claimed right to make decisions about the use of the area by other Western Desert people.
Her Honour considered that the adaptations of laws were within the existing legal principles of the Western Desert people and were not so extensive that continuity of connection had been broken. Her Honour found that there was a continuous observance of the requisite normative content of the law and customs as defined in Akiba v Queensland [2010] FCA 643 at [171]-[173].
Extinguishment
Her Honour’s findings in relation to connection to land were subject to the findings on extinguishment and a November 2015 agreement between the parties that exclusive possessory rights had been extinguished.
The applicant claimed 16 additional lots under s 47B of the NTA, submitting that each of those areas had been resumed by the Crown, and were occupied by Tjiwarl claimants at the date of filing the Tjiwarl #1 and #2 claims. One of these lots was a public road, 13 were subject to mining tenements, and the remaining two lots were unallocated Crown land not subject to mining tenements.
In relation to the public road claimed by the Tjiwarl group, Mortimer J rejected the applicant’s submissions that the resumption of the road gave rise to a prior interest in land created for the purposes of s 47B, applying the approach of the Full Court in Fourmile v Selpam Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 67 at [186]-[187].
Mortimer J found that mining tenements over the claimed land did not render s 47B of the NTA inapplicable, based on analysis of the term ‘mining lease’ and the decision in Banjima People v State of Western Australia [2015] 231 FCR 456.
Her Honour also applied Banjima when considering if the area had been occupied by the applicants under the meaning of s 47B(1)(c). Her Honour found that rather than occupy the claim lands and waters as a whole, occupation must be established with respect to each parcel of unallocated Crown land claimed, as do the conditions set out in s 47B(1)(b), for past extinguishment of native title to be disregarded.
After considering the above factors, her Honour determined that s 47B of the NTA only applied to two lots of land subject to mining tenements. Mortimer J held at [1222] that s 47B of the NTA did not apply to the remaining areas because the applicants had failed to prove that they were ‘established in place’ and therefore occupied the land in question.
The Court did not decide whether or not s 47B(2) allows for partial occupation of a block and therefore partial disregarding of extinguishment per Banjima at [88]-[92]. Mortimer J noted that the words used in s 47B do not suggest that vacant Crown land must correlate to cadastral boundaries. Her Honour also noted that given a lack of evidence there could be potential for partial application of s 47B to the Yakabindie lot. Mortimer J directed the parties to present further submissions on occupation in relation to that lot. Her Honour considered that to interpret occupation wholly beneficially may be inconsistent with the approach of the court in Rubibi Community v Western Australia (No. 7) [2006] FCA 459.
Mortimer J concluded that the renewals of pastoral leases on 1 July 2015 that overlapped with the claim area were valid future acts with effect against native title interests.
Her Honour directed that the parties must confer in order to draw up proposed minutes of orders and a determination in line with the Court’s reasoning.
The proceedings were adjourned to a date to be fixed.