Blackman on behalf of the Bailai, Gurang, Gooreng Gooreng, Taribelang Bunda People v State of Queensland

[2017] FCA 1621

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Blackman on behalf of the Bailai, Gurang, Gooreng Gooreng, Taribelang Bunda People v State of Queensland [2017] FCA 1621

File number:	QUD 6026 of 2001
Judge:	DOWSETT J
Date of judgment:	10 November 2017
Catchwords:	NATIVE TITLE – application to vacate a consent determination date and refer the issue of the name of the proceeding to mediation – application dismissed.
Date of hearing:	10 November 2017
Registry:	Queensland
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Native Title
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	4
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr A McAvoy SC
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Queensland South Native Title Services
Counsel for the State of Queensland:	Ms E Longbottom
Solicitor for the State of Queensland:	Crown Law
Solicitor for the Group 2(a) Respondent:	Mr A Buck of Holding Redlich
Solicitor for the Group 3(f) and (g) Respondents:	Ms G Carstensen of Ashurst Australia
Counsel for McBrides Holdings Pty Ltd (the applicant in respect of interlocutory application filed on 2 November 2017):	Mr A Preston
Solicitor for McBrides Holdings Pty Ltd (the applicant in respect of interlocutory application filed on 2 November 2017):	Preston Law
Counsel for Michael John Williams (the applicant in respect of interlocutory application filed on 7 November 2017):	Mr Williams appeared in person
Counsel for the Groups 1, 2(b), 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), 4, 5 and 6 Respondents:	The Groups 1, 2(b), 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), 4, 5 and 6 Respondents did not appear

ORDERS

QUD 6026 of 2001

BETWEEN:

KERRY BLACKMAN ON BEHALF OF THE BAILAI, GURANG, GOORENG GOORENG, TARIBELANG BUNDA PEOPLE (and others named in the Schedule)

Applicant

AND:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND (and others named in the Schedule)

Respondent

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 NOVEMBER 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.the interlocutory application filed by Michael John Williams on 7 November 2017 be dismissed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DOWSETT J:

1. This matter has been listed for consent determination in Gladstone on 28 November this year.  Today, a member of the Claim Group, Mr Michael John Williams, seeks an order vacating the consent determination date, and an order that the “issue of the name of proceeding is referred to mediation”.  I understand the second order to be sought because of a concern about the common use of the acronym “PCCC” in describing this application.  However the formal title of the proceedings is now as it appears above.  The second proposed order will serve no purpose.

2. As to the first order sought, the interlocutory applicant is a member of the Claim Group.  He has previously been part of the applicant group.  It is, I must say, very sad that at this stage, there should be a lack of unity within the Claim Group as to the determination.  However I do not understand Mr Williams to assert that there should be no determination as proposed.  He is rather concerned – and, I am sure, genuinely concerned – about the way in which the respective rights, interests, history and derivation of various groups within the Claim Group are to be recognized and recorded.  That is not a matter which I can address at this stage, nor need I do so.

3. Mr Williams claims that he and a number of other members of the Claim Group have absented themselves from, or have withdrawn from participation in the conduct of the business of the Claim Group because of dissatisfaction with the way in which they have been treated.  Mr Williams’ concern is undoubtedly genuine but, as I suggested to him in argument, the price that one sometimes pays for withdrawing from a deliberative process is that one must, in the end, put up with the consequences of it.  That is the present case. 

4. I can see no proper basis for vacating the consent determination date, particularly in the absence of any suggestion that the present applicant is not entitled to a determination in the form proposed.  In those circumstances, the application will be refused.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate: 

Dated:        11 January 2018

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

QUD 6026 of 2001
Applicants
LURLEEN BLACKMAN
MATTHEW COOKE
NEVILLE JOHNSON
RICHARD JOHNSON
NATHANIEL MINNIECON
DEAN SARRA
Group 1 Respondents
(a)	BUNDABERG REGIONAL COUNCIL
(b)	GLADSTONE REGIONAL COUNCIL
(c)	NORTH BURNETT REGIONAL COUNCIL
Group 2 Respondents
(a)	ERGON ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED
(b)	TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
Group 3 Respondents
(a)	CEMENT AUSTRALIA (EXPLORATION) PTY LTD
(b)	CEMENT AUSTRALIA (QUEENSLAND) PTY LTD
(c)	ESSO AUSTRALIA RESOURCES PTY LTD as operator of the Rundle Joint Venture
(d)	JEMENA QUEENSLAND GAS PIPELINE (1) PTY LTD
(e)	JEMENA QUEENSLAND GAS PIPELINE (2) PTY LTD
(f)	RIO TINTO ALUMINIUM LIMITED
(g)	RTA YARWUN PTY LTD
Group 4 Respondents
(a)	CRAIG BAUER
(b)	DIANNE BAUER
(c)	GRAHAM CHARLES BAUER
(d)	CALLIOPE CATTLE CO
(e)	EDWARD ROY GOODY
(f)	THOMAS MARSHALL GOODY
(g)	VERNON IAN GOODY
(h)	GEORGE WILSON MACKAY
(i)	HUGH WALKER MACKAY
(j)	DAVID GRICE MARLAND
(k)	MICHAEL MCGUIRE
(l)	MONTE CHRISTO PTY LTD
Group 5 Respondents
(a)	BRIAN MAXWELL CRONIN
(b)	DARREN JOHN CRONIN
(c)	SELWYN MAXWELL CRONIN
(d)	REDTRAIL PTY LTD
(e)	JANENE RUTH SCOTT
(f)	DAVID ALEXANDER SCOTT
(g)	DAVID CHARLES ZUNKER
(h)	JUDITH ANN ZUNKER
(i)	KEVIN EARLSTON ZUNKER
(j)	SUSAN JUDITH ZUNKER
Group 6 Respondents
(a)	AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA