Rangiah J
The Court dismissed the interlocutory application of Ms Mary Harald seeking to be joined as a party to the Gaangalu claimant proceeding under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA).
Ms Harald’s Claim
The application for joinder was brought under s 84(4) NTA.
Ms Harald filed a brief affidavit in which she deposed that she is a Kanolu woman whose traditional country includes the western part of the area claimed by the Gaangalu peoples. Ms Harald provided evidence confirming her descent from Lizzie Tiger/ Blackwater, who is named as an apical ancestor of the Gaangalu in their application. In her statement, Ms Harald claimed that within the claim area there was a sanctuary and a number of significant sites for the Kanolu people.
Gaangalu applicant’s response
This application was opposed by the Gaangalu applicant. The Gaangalu applicant submitted that Ms Harald failed to demonstrate that she has an interest that may be affected by a determination in the proceedings. Rangiah J noted that this claim was inconsistent with their further submission that Ms Harald is actually a member of the Gaangalu claim group by reason of her descent from Lizzie Butcher/Tiger/Blackwater. Ms Harald denied that she is a member of the Gaangalu claim group, asserting instead to be a member of the Kanolu group. However, Rangiah J found that on the basis of the description of the Gaangalu claim group’s application, Ms Harald is a member of that claim group by reason of her descent. Therefore, his Honour contended that “Ms Harald is one of the people who hold native title interests in the claim area, and those interests will be affected by a determination in the proceeding”. Rangiah J made a further comment stating that if Ms Harold wished to assert the interests of the Kanolu, she may do this intramurally.
Conclusion
Rangiah J contended that the application for joinder turned upon the question of whether it was in the interests of justice for Ms Harald to be joined as a party.
In assessing this question, Rangiah J discussed Ms Harald’s late application in relation to the stage of the proceedings. His Honour noted that the Gaangalu claim would be bringing together a conference of anthropological experts within the next week who would be considering the evidence already presented. Additionally, this claim overlapped with several other claims. The evidence presented in those cases were also to be considered at the conference. If Ms Harald was joined it would be necessary to allow her to file evidence which would delay the experts’ conference, the Gaangalu proceedings and the related proceedings. As such the joinder of Ms Harald would likely cause prejudice to the parties in this claim and other overlapping claims.
Ms Harald made an additional claim that she believed a Kanolu claim had already been made but did not explain why she thought this when the last Kanolu claim was discontinued in 2014. His Honour stated that Ms Harald did not explain whether she took steps to discover if such a claim had been filed, concluding that she failed to provide an adequate explanation for her delay.
It was for these reasons that Rangiah J dismissed the application for joinder.