M & S Shipman Pty Ltd v Matters
[2003] NSWWCCPD 19
•6 August 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Banjima People v State of Western Australia
[2015] FCAFC 84
Citation: Banjima People v State of Western Australia [2015] FCAFC 84 Appeal from: Banjima People v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2013] FCA 868
Banjima People v State of Western Australia (No 3) [2014] FCA 201
Parties: ALEC TUCKER ON BEHALF OF THE BANJIMA PEOPLE v STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS
(see Schedule of Parties at Appendix A for full list of parties)STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA v ALEC TUCKER ON BEHALF OF THE BANJIMA PEOPLE AND OTHERS
(see Schedule of Parties at Appendix A for full list of parties)File numbers: WAD 72 of 2014
WAD 73 of 2014Judges: MANSFIELD, KENNY, RARES, JAGOT AND MORTIMER JJ Date of judgment: 12 June 2015 Catchwords: NATIVE TITLE – right of exclusive possession – ability to effectively exclude other people – permission required to be or do things on country – observance of the custom of exclusion by the relevant society – where no enforcement of customs against non-indigenous persons – spiritual or physical sanctions for contravention – whether there can be no recognition of rights and interests under the common law of Australia – whether traditional rights and customs shared with non-claim group indigenous persons at sovereignty – where there is no continuity of connection to the land by non-claim group persons
NATIVE TITLE – whether the primary judge made conclusions against the weight of evidence – evaluation of the facts – advantage of the trial judge over an appellate Court – need for appellate caution – rights which find their origin in pre-sovereignty law and custom
NATIVE TITLE – proper construction of s 47B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – meaning of “area”, “covered by”, “in relation to an area” and “occupy the area” – whether mining exploration licenses were granted for a particular purpose
NATIVE TITLE – application of s 47B of the Native Title Act 1993( Cth) – occupation of an area – consideration of the evidence as a whole – significance of evidence of activities of a possessory nature in a particular area – establishment of occupation of a wider area which includes the particular area
NATIVE TITLE – application of s 23B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) – consideration of the nature of rights created by the act of reservation – whether an inquiry as to the use which has been made of a reserve can inform the nature of the rights conferred – construction of public works – authority of the Crown – when an act is attributable to the Crown – construction of buildings under a law of the State – where there is publication of the reserves on authenticated State maps
Legislation: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss 13(2)(b), 23(b)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) s 5
Land Act 1933 (WA) ss 29, 33, 34
Mining Act 1978 (WA) s 63
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ss 13(1), 23B, 23C, 23E, 47A, 47B, 61(1), 223(1), 225, 239, 251D, 253
Titles (Validation) and Native Title (Effect of Past Acts) Act 1995 (WA) s 12J
Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 (Cth)Cases cited: Australian Softwood Forests Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) Ex rel. Corporate Affairs Commission (1981) 148 CLR 121; [1981] HCA 49
Banjima People v State of Western Australia (No 2) (2013) 305 ALR 1; [2013] FCA 868
Bodney v Bennell (2008) 167 FCR 84; [2008] FCAFC 63
Commonwealth of Australia v Yarmirr (1999) 101 FCR 171; [1999] FCA 1668
Commonwealth of Australia v Yarmirr (2001) 208 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 56
Daniel v State of Western Australia (2005) 141 FCR 426; [2005] FCA 178
De Rose v State of South Australia (No 2) (2005) 145 FCR 290; [2005] FCAFC 110
Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96; [1998] HCA 58
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (2007) 165 FCR 391; [2007] FCAFC 178
Hayes v Northern Territory (1999) 97 FCR 32; [1999] FCA 1248
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1; [1992] HCA 23
Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422; [2002] HCA 58
Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v State of Victoria (2001) 110 FCR 244; [2001] FCA 45
Moses v State of Western Australia (2007) 160 FCR 148; [2007] FCAFC 78
Northern Territory v Alyawarr (2005) 145 FCR 442; [2005] FCAFC 135
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28
Risk v Northern Territory [2006] FCA 404
Sampi v Western Australia [2005] FCA 777
Western Australia v Brown (2014) 306 ALR 168; [2014] HCA 8
Western Australia v Sebastian (2008) 173 FCR 1; [2008] FCAFC 65
Western Australia v Ward (2000) 99 FCR 316; [2000] FCA 191
Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1; [2002] HCA 28
Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351; [1999] HCA 53Date of hearing: 24-26 February 2015 Date of last submissions: 5 March 2015 Place: Adelaide (heard in Perth) Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 170 In WAD 72 of 2014: Counsel for the Appellant: G McIntyre SC and S Wright Solicitor for the Appellant: Roe Legal Services (WA) Counsel for the First Respondent: K Pettit SC and M Pudovskis Solicitor for the First Respondent: State Solicitor’s Office In WAD 73 of 2014: Counsel for the Appellant: K Pettit SC and M Pudovskis Solicitor for the Appellant: State Solicitor’s Office Counsel for the First Respondent: V Hughston SC and T Jowett Solicitor for the First Respondent: Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation Counsel for the Fifth Respondent: A Read Solicitor for the Fifth Respondent: Civic Legal
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 72 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: ALEC TUCKER ON BEHALF OF THE BANJIMA PEOPLE AND OTHERS
AppellantsAND: STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS
RespondentsJUDGES:
MANSFIELD, KENNY, RARES, JAGOT AND MORTIMER JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
12 JUNE 2015
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE (HEARD IN PERTH)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The parties file an agreed minute of orders and amended determination of native title reflecting these reasons for judgment within 14 days.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 73 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
AppellantAND: ALEC TUCKER ON BEHALF OF THE BANJIMA PEOPLE AND OTHERS
RespondentsJUDGES:
MANSFIELD, KENNY, RARES, JAGOT AND MORTIMER JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
12 JUNE 2015
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE (HEARD IN PERTH)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The parties file an agreed minute of orders and amended determination of native title reflecting these reasons for judgment within 14 days.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
WAD 72 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: ALEC TUCKER ON BEHALF OF THE BANJIMA PEOPLE AND OTHERS
AppellantsAND: STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS
RespondentsWAD 73 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
AppellantAND: ALEC TUCKER ON BEHALF OF THE BANJIMA PEOPLE AND OTHERS
Respondents
JUDGES:
MANSFIELD, KENNY, RARES, JAGOT AND MORTIMER JJ
DATE:
12 JUNE 2015
PLACE:
ADELAIDE (HEARD IN PERTH)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1. THE APPEALS
These appeals are against certain aspects of a native title determination over certain land in the north western part of Western Australia south of Port Hedland. Consequential on reasons for judgment published on 28 August 2013 (Banjima People v State of Western Australia(No 2) (2013) 305 ALR 1; [2013] FCA 868) the primary judge made orders on 11 March 2014 including that:
1In relation to the Determination Area, there be a determination of native title in WAD 6096 of 1998 in terms of the Determination in Attachment A.
The Determination in Attachment A to the orders includes the following terms:
THE COURT ORDERS, DECLARES AND DETERMINES THAT:
Existence of native title (s 225 Native Title Act)
1.Native title exists in the Determination Area in the manner set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this determination.
Native title holders (s 225(a) Native Title Act)
2.The native title in the Determination Area is held by the Banjima People. The Banjima People are the people referred to in Schedule 6.
The nature and extent of native title rights and interests and exclusiveness of native title (ss 225(b) and 225(e) Native Title Act)
3.Subject to paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 9 the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the Determination Area (other than the Exclusive Area) are that they confer the following non-exclusive rights on the Banjima People, including the right to conduct activities necessary to give effect to them:
…
4.Subject to paragraphs 5 and 9 the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the Exclusive Area are that they confer the following exclusive rights on the Banjima People, including the right to conduct activities necessary to give effect to them:
(a)the right as against the whole world to possess, occupy, use and enjoy the land and waters of the Exclusive Area;
(b)a right to make decisions about the use of the land and waters of the Exclusive Area by persons who are not members of the Banjima People; and
(c)a right to control the access of others to the land and waters of the Exclusive Area.
…
Areas to which s 47A or s 47B of the Native Title Act apply
7.Sections 47A and 47B of the Native Title Act apply to disregard any prior extinguishment in relation to the land and waters described in Schedule 4.
…
Definitions and Interpretation
10.In this determination, unless the contrary intention appears:
…
“Determination Area” means the land and waters within the external boundary described in item S1.1 of Schedule 1 and depicted on the maps at Schedule 3, but not including the Unclaimed Area;
…
“Exclusive Area” means that part of the Determination Area described in item S1.2 of Schedule 1 and depicted on the maps at Schedule 3;
In WAD 73 of 2014 the State of Western Australia (the State) challenges the Determination on the following grounds:
1.In determining that native title rights of exclusive possession exist in relation to the Exclusive Area as defined in the Determination of Native Title (Determination of Native Title, paragraph 4, Schedule 1.2), the Court:
(a)erred in law in ruling that evidence of a custom of expecting strangers to seek permission before entering upon or doing things in the Determination Area was sufficient to establish a native title right of exclusive possession (Reasons for Judgment given on 28 August 2013, [685]-[687]);
(b)erred in law in ruling that the Applicants will hold a native title right of exclusive possession unless it can be established against them that they share rights with persons whose rights arose through a non-Banjima normative system (Reasons For Judgment, [691]-[692]); and
(c)erred in law by failing to consider whether there was sufficient acknowledgement and observance of normative laws and customs giving rise to and sustaining rights of exclusive possession since the establishment of British sovereignty over the Determination Area (Reasons for Judgment, [685]-[687], [689], [698]) and erred in law and fact by failing to find that there was insufficient evidence of any such acknowledgement or observance.
2.[Not pressed].
3.In determining that the Banjima people held native title rights and interests in that part of the Determination Area which is north of the northern escarpment of the Hamersley Range (Reasons for Judgment, [294]-[295], [316], [318]), the Court erred in fact in that such findings are against the weight of evidence that Aboriginal groups other than the Banjima people occupied that area at and after the establishment of British sovereignty over the Determination Area (Determination of Native Title, paragraph 1, Schedule 1.1, Schedule 3).
4.The Court erred in law in ruling that prospecting licences and exploration licences under the Mining Act 1978 (WA) were not ‘permission[s] or authorit[ies] … under which … part of the land or waters in the area is to be used for public purposes or for a particular purpose’ pursuant to s 47B(1)(b)(ii) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and erred by not determining instead that there were no areas to which s 47B of the Native Title Act applied (Determination of Native Title, Schedule 4.2).
5.[Not pressed].
The Exclusive Area consists of five relatively small parcels of land immediately to the north of the Wittenoom Road. Those parcels represent the area remaining after the effects of extinguishment were taken into account. Three of the five parcels, identified as unallocated Crown lands or UCL 7, UCL 9 and UCL 42, were found by the primary judge to be subject to s 47B of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (the NTA) so that prior extinguishment of native title rights and interests in those areas was required to be disregarded. These are the parcels to which grounds 1 and 4 of the appeal in WAD 73 of 2014 relate.
In WAD 72 of 2014 the Banjima People challenge the Determination on the following grounds:
1.The primary judge erred in finding that section 47B of the Native Title Act did not apply to the areas identified in the proceedings as UCL 1-6, 8, 10-41, and 43-173 by reason that as at the date one or more of the claimant applications was made one or more members of the native title claim group did not occupy the relevant areas within the meaning of section 47B(1)(c) of the Native Title Act (Judgment [1229], [1236], [1247], [1252], [1262], [1266], [1273], [1280], [1288], [1296], [1304], [1312(1)], [1318]), and erred in failing to find that the requirement in section 47B(1)(c) was satisfied, in that his Honour:
(a)erred in law in finding that the facts as found or referred to in the Judgment at [1216]-[1318] were insufficient to satisfy the requirement in section 47B(1)(c) of the Native Title Act; further or alternatively
(b)erred in fact in failing to find that, as at the date one or more of the claimant applications was made, one or more members of the native title claim group did occupy each of the areas.
2.[Not pressed].
3.The primary judge erred in law in finding that native title was wholly extinguished in the areas of reserves 24849 and 25156 by reason of, or by inference to be drawn from, the use made of those reserves (Judgment [1396]-[1397], [1885]); whereas his Honour ought to have found that:
(a)the creation of the reserves was not inconsistent with the then surviving native title rights and interests; and
(b)subsequent use of the reserves for their purposes prevailed over but did not extinguish native title.
4.[Not pressed].
5.[Not pressed].
Insofar as ground 3 of WAD 72 of 2014 is concerned, the State conceded that the primary judge erred in respect of reserves 24849 and 25156 but contended that the primary judge’s conclusions of extinguishment of native title should be affirmed on another ground, that buildings constructed on reserves 24849 and 25156 were “public works” within the meaning of s 253(b) of the NTA.
It is convenient to deal with each appeal separately, starting with the State’s appeal in WAD 73 of 2014.
2. WAD 73 OF 2014
2.1 Grounds 1(a) and 1(c)
The State’s fundamental proposition in respect of grounds 1(a) and 1(c) is that the Determination, insofar as it grants to the Banjima People a right of exclusive possession (see paras 4(a) and (c) of the Determination above), is not supported by the primary judge’s findings about the traditional laws and customs of the Banjima People.
This proposition involves a number of steps.
First, it is said that native title has its origin in and is given content by the traditional laws acknowledged and traditional customs observed by the relevant society (Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 58 (Mabo No 2); Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422; [2002] HCA 58 at [50] (Yorta Yorta); Bodney v Bennell (2008) 167 FCR 84; [2008] FCAFC 63 at [148] (Bodney v Bennell); De Rose v State of South Australia (No 2) (2005) 145 FCR 290; [2005] FCAFC 110 at [31] (De Rose). This step in the reasoning process is uncontroversial.
Second, it is said that “acknowledgement” of a law and “observance” of a custom means the practice of the law and the custom (Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422; [2002] HCA 58 at [47]-[50]). This step in the reasoning process is controversial insofar as the State contends that the continued exercise of a right or custom is essential to its continued existence.
Third, it is said that the primary judge found only a custom of expecting others to seek permission to be or do things on Banjima country and that this custom did not involve the effective exclusion of any person or the ability to so exclude any person. This, said the State, does not involve the observance of any custom but, rather, an expectation that others will observe a belief held by the Banjima People. Further, the custom so found is not a custom of excluding anyone but a custom of protecting those who enter Banjima country from spirits or dangerous places by way of an introduction to country by a Banjima person.
Accordingly, the State said, the rights of exclusive possession in para 4 of the Determination go beyond the findings the primary judge made. Further, this conclusion is consistent with the reasoning in Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia (2007) 165 FCR 391; [2007] FCAFC 178 at [127] (Griffiths). Griffiths, submitted the State, is authority for the proposition that “evidence of granting/obtaining permission to avoid the country’s pitfalls can found exclusive possession if the custom carries an ‘ability … to effectively exclude people not of their community’”. However, the argument of the State continued, if Griffiths at [127] is read more broadly than this as the primary judge erroneously did, so that a right of exclusive possession can be found merely by reason of a belief held by the indigenous claimants that permission is needed to enter their land, Griffiths is wrong to that extent. All aspects of this third step in the State’s reasoning process are controversial.
For these reasons the State contended the primary judge erred in two ways. The primary judge failed to consider whether the identified custom gave the Banjima People the “ability to effectively exclude” other people. The evidence did not support such a finding, there being, so the State argued:
…ample evidence of presence of Yindjibarndi and others on Mulga Downs, with no suggestion that any sought permission. There was ample evidence of Europeans entering, and no evidence that the custom, danger, permission or protection was brought to their attention.
The primary judge, submitted the State, also failed to consider whether there was sufficient acknowledgment and observance of the particular normative laws and customs to sustain exclusive possession, in the sense of sufficient for effective exclusion. Instead, the primary judge ruled that relevant maintenance of connection over the whole claim area is sufficient to establish exclusive possession. This, said the State, erroneously substituted connection for acknowledgment and observance of traditional laws and customs, contrary to Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422; [2002] HCA 58 at [33]-[36] and [85]-[88].
The State’s submissions confront difficulties of fact and law.
The first difficulty is that the State’s characterisation of the custom found by the primary judge is inappropriately selective. The primary judge did not find only a custom of the Banjima People of expecting others to seek permission. He found as follows:
[686] In this case there has been ample evidence of the custom of the Banjima to expect others to seek permission to be or do things in Banjima country. Recognition of some people as “strangers” is part of that custom. The reports of Straker go to show that the Hamersley Aborigines were apparently prepared to expel people from their country. In a subsequent, post-settlement setting, the ability of the Aboriginal inhabitants to continue to act in that first contact way obviously was inhibited, not the least by the new criminal laws of the new sovereign. None the less, the evidence shows that the need for strangers to seek permission to be in Banjima country has remained strong and is not a re-introduced custom. Not the least of the reasons for this custom is the understanding by Aboriginal people that the country carries dangers and spirits and must be respected by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples alike. Seeking permission to be on country from the traditional owners is one way of avoiding pitfalls. It is also an important way of ensuring that sacred or religious sites created in the Dreaming are not violated.
[687] To name but a few of the Banjima witnesses who gave evidence to the effect that strangers should ask permission before carrying out any activity on Banjima country, may be mentioned Brian Tucker, Gladys Tucker, Maitland Parker, Mr G Tucker, Alec Tucker, Timothy Parker, Mrs A Smith, Marie-Anne Tucker and Mr D Black. It may properly be inferred, taking account of the evidence of the anthropologists too, that this custom or land is deeply rooted in the culture of the Banjima.
[688] Again, to mention but a few of the witnesses who gave evidence that Banjima country is redolent with spiritual dangers for those who are not Banjima, may be mentioned Mr G Tucker, Steven Smith, Mr D Black, Alec Tucker, Mrs A Smith and Gladys Tucker. Again this may be inferred to be an ancient custom.
[689] I therefore generally accept the submissions made on behalf of the claimants that:
Ÿ It is not a necessary condition of the exclusivity of native title rights and interests that the native claimants should assert a right to bar entry to their country on the basis that it belongs to them.
Ÿ The control of access to country which flows from spiritual necessity because of the harm the country will inflict upon unauthorised entry can support a characterisation of the native title rights and interests as exclusive.
Ÿ It is not necessary to exclusivity that the native title claim group require permission for entry onto their country on every occasion that a stranger enters provided that the stranger has been properly introduced to country by them in the first place.
[690] I accept the claimants’ submission that the evidence adverted to provides an evidentiary basis for exclusive rights to the effect claimed, subject to what is said below.
In other words, his Honour found not only an expectation by the Banjima People that others would seek permission to enter, but also a “need” (at [686]) for them to do so. An expectation is one thing; a need is another altogether, and involves a different character of traditional law and custom than the one described by the State. The primary judge’s finding of a “need” in [686] signifies an imperative binding on Banjima People and other Aboriginal people wishing to enter Banjima country, not a mere expectation as found in the first sentence of [686]. The State’s submissions thus mischaracterise the primary judge’s findings by focusing on one sentence in one key paragraph without regard to the balance of that paragraph (and, as discussed below, the paragraphs which follow).
The second difficulty is that, contrary to the State’s submission, the primary judge did not find that the only reason for the custom was to protect people from the spiritual dangers of Banjima country. As the primary judge said at [686] this was one important reason for the custom. However, another reason was the custom ensured that “sacred or religious sites created in the Dreaming are not violated”.
The third difficulty, and again contrary to the State’s submissions, is that the primary judge found that the Banjima People had exerted their right to exclude others failing observance of their custom. This is the point of his Honour’s observation at [686] that “reports of Straker go to show that the Hamersley Aborigines were apparently prepared to expel people from their country” and, thereafter, the “need” to obtain permission remains “strong”.
The fourth difficulty is that the State’s submission that there was “minimal” evidence of persons actually seeking permission from the Banjima People is also unfounded. Insofar as Europeans are concerned, the primary judge engaged in understatement at [686] when observing that the ability of the Banjima People to enforce their traditional laws and customs was “inhibited”. It would be accurate to say that the Banjima People had no capacity whatsoever to enforce their laws and customs against Europeans because, until Mabo No 2 (1992) 175 CLR 1, native title was not recognised in Australia. Moreover, Europeans stood outside the universe of traditional laws and customs. As noted in Griffiths (2007) 165 FCR 391; [2007] FCAFC 178 at [127]: “…traditional law and custom, so far as it bore upon relationships with persons outside the relevant community at the time of sovereignty, would have been framed by reference to relations with indigenous people”. In other words, it is the Banjima People and other indigenous people that matter, not people who stand outside the relevant frame of reference.
It follows that the conduct of Europeans in not seeking permission and not heeding the spiritual dangers of Banjima country or respecting sacred or religious sites created in the Dreaming says nothing about the acknowledgment and observance by Banjima and other traditional societies of Banjima traditional laws and customs. Accordingly, the evidence to which the primary judge rightly had regard at [687] and [688] was not that of Europeans accessing Banjima country without seeking Banjima permission, but of other indigenous people, who are not Banjima but nevertheless stand within the universe of traditional laws and customs, seeking Banjima permission to enter Banjima country. And that evidence was “ample” and “strong” as the primary judge found, not “minimal” as the State contended. For example:
(1)Steven Smith, a Banjima man, said that other non-Banjima Aboriginals had to ask permission to enter and do things on Banjima country. He said “every other neighbouring tribe know my country” so they “won’t risk” doing things on Banjima country without permission because the spirits would “send you mad”.
(2)Mr G Tucker, a Banjima man, said that he could stop other Aboriginals coming onto Banjima land. If a neighbour, such as the Yindjibarndi wanted to come onto Banjima country, they had to seek permission from Banjima elders. People from Roebourne often asked his permission to shoot on Banjima country. Nyiyabarli people also ask permission to look for emu in Banjima country. So did Kariyarra people. It was “our right to be asked”. If they did not ask they would get punished by an elder or sick from the spirits. Some young people do not ask permission and often they get sick. He also asked for permission before entering the country of other Aboriginal people.
(3)Mr D Black, a Banjima man, said other people had to ask permission to go onto Banjima country and he had to ask to enter another person’s country. If people just drive through the country it is alright but if they want to enter onto the country or do something like take ochre or wood they have to ask as otherwise “something bad might happen, the spirits are always watching”.
It follows from this that the State’s submission that the primary judge failed to consider the ability of the Banjima People effectively to exclude others also cannot be sustained. Amongst others within the scope of traditional laws and customs (which does not include Europeans) there was “ample” and “strong” evidence of the “need” to obtain Banjima permission to enter Banjima country. The primary judge’s finding of “need” means that, without permission, entry to Banjima country by others could not be obtained consistent with Banjima traditional laws and customs. If entry without permission had occurred in any particular case by a person within the scope of Banjima traditional law and custom, that would be an entry in contravention of the traditional law and custom. Evidence of such an entry would not of itself undermine the continued existence of the traditional law and custom, however. The contravener may have suffered spiritual or physical sanction as a result, which would tend to confirm, not undermine, the traditional law and custom.
Insofar as the State relied on the presence of Yindjibarndi and others on Mulga Downs with “no suggestion that any sought permission”, it should be said that the evidence of this appears to relate to Aboriginal people working on the station and living in the associated native camp under the auspices of the station owners or managers, who were presumably European. This evidence does not contradict the evidence of Banjima People, to which the primary judge referred in [687] and [688], that non-Banjima Aboriginal people needed to ask permission to enter Banjima country.
For the same reasons it cannot be said that the primary judge failed to consider whether there was sufficient acknowledgment and observance of the relevant traditional laws and customs to sustain exclusive possession. As discussed, the primary judge characterised the evidence of the need to obtain permission to enter Banjima country as “strong”. Of itself, this discloses acceptance of the sufficiency of the relevant evidence. The State’s contention of error in this regard is also effectively answered by the submission for the Banjima People in these terms:
This second alleged error … raises questions involving his Honour’s assessment of a very large body of Aboriginal, historical and anthropological evidence relevant to this issue. His Honour’s assessment of that evidence and the conclusion ultimately reached clearly involved difficult issues of fact and degree. The assessment of the cogency or otherwise of that large and diverse body of evidence was quintessentially a matter for the trial judge [Moses v Western Australia (2007) 160 FCR 148; [2007] FCAFC 78 (Moses) at [308]-[309], Western Australia v Ward (2000) 99 FCR 316; [2000] FCA 191 (Ward) at [222]-[225] per Beaumont and von Doussa JJ; Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v State of Victoria (2001) 110 FCR 244; [2001] FCA 45 (Yorta Yorta) at [202]-[205] per Branson and Katz JJ, Commonwealth of Australia v Yarmirr (1999) 101 FCR 171; [1999] FCA 1668 (Yarmirr) at [637]-[640] per Merkel J, Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422; [2002] HCA 58 at [63]]. His Honour’s finding on this issue was not “contrary to incontrovertible facts or uncontested testimony”, “glaringly improbable” or “contrary to compelling inferences” [Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 at [28]-[29] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Kirby JJ].
This submission is made in the context described elsewhere in the submissions for the Banjima People as follows:
The Court heard two separate tranches of Aboriginal evidence on country at various locations in and around the claim area in October 2010 and in July 2011. Detailed witness statements from each of the Aboriginal witnesses were received into evidence. In total, 23 witness statements were tendered and 22 Aboriginal witnesses were called to give further oral evidence and to be cross-examined. In addition to the evidence that was given by those witnesses in open court, the Court heard restricted men’s evidence on three separate occasions. A number of the Banjima men who took part in the restricted sessions of men’s evidence did not give evidence in open court.
In December 2011, the Court sat in Perth to receive into evidence various expert reports and to hear concurrent evidence from the claimants’ (Dr Palmer) and the State’s (Mr Robinson) expert anthropologists. As well as receiving into evidence the anthropologists’ reports, including Pt B CLD Tab 662 (Joint Report), the Court also received into evidence an Historian’s Report written by Dr Green Pt B CLD Tab 541 (Green Report) and a witness statement and master’s thesis from a linguist, Professor Dench.
This leads to consideration of the State’s fundamental point that the primary judge’s findings fail to sustain the rights of exclusive possession granted by para 4 of the Determination. The mischaracterisation at the heart of the State’s contentions in this regard (that is, the State’s focus on the expectation found by the primary judge, as opposed to the need for permission to be sought, which his Honour also found) has already been discussed. There is, however, another difficulty. It lies in the State’s assumption that a traditional law or custom in which permission is needed from traditional owners for others to enter their country (being others within the universe of traditional laws and customs) cannot be recognised by the common law as a right of exclusive possession. This assumption is inconsistent with the reasoning in Griffiths (2007) 165 FCR 391; [2007] FCAFC 178.
Section 223(1) of the NTA provides that:
(1)The expression native title or native title rights and interests means the communal, group or individual rights and interests of Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders in relation to land or waters, where:
(a)the rights and interests are possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged, and the traditional customs observed, by the Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders; and
(b)the Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders, by those laws and customs, have a connection with the land or waters; and
(c)the rights and interests are recognised by the common law of Australia.
Section 223(1)(c) requires that the native title rights and interests be recognised by the common law of Australia. For example, in Commonwealth of Australia v Yarmirr (2001) 208 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 56 (Yarmirr) it was held that the common law did not recognise an exclusive native title right to fish in the sea due to inconsistency of such a right with other common law rights. Such inconsistent rights aside, in every case where there are rights and interests possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional customs observed by the Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders by which they have a connection with land or waters, there is a question of reflecting the content of the native title right and interest in a determination of native title. This appears from s 225 which provides that:
A determination of native title is a determination whether or not native title exists in relation to a particular area (the determination area) of land or waters and, if it does exist, a determination of:
(a)who the persons, or each group of persons, holding the common or group rights comprising the native title are; and
(b)the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests in relation to the determination area; and
(c)the nature and extent of any other interests in relation to the determination area; and
(d)the relationship between the rights and interests in paragraphs (b) and (c) (taking into account the effect of this Act); and
(e)to the extent that the land or waters in the determination area are not covered by a non-exclusive agricultural lease or a non-exclusive pastoral lease - whether the native title rights and interests confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of that land or waters on the native title holders to the exclusion of all others.
Section 225(b) requires the determination to include the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests. While the tendency to inquire as to the existence of native title rights and interests “in the language of the common law property lawyer” is to be curbed (Yarmirr (2001) 208 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 56 at [11]), the determination is a requirement of s 225 of the NTA, not of the traditional laws and customs. At [16] in Yarmirr Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ said:
Nor is it necessary to identify a claimed right or interest as one which carries with it, or is supported by, some enforceable means of excluding from its enjoyment those who are not its holders. The reference to rights and interests enjoyed under traditional laws and customs invites attention to how (presumably as a matter of traditional law) breach of the right and interest might be dealt with, but it also invites attention to how (as a matter of custom) the right and interest is observed. The latter element of the inquiry seems directed more to identifying practices that are regarded as socially acceptable, rather than looking to whether the practices were supported or enforced through a system for the organised imposition of sanctions by the relevant community. Again, therefore, no a priori assumption can or should be made that the only kinds of rights and interests referred to in para (a) of s 223(1) are rights and interests that were supported by some communally organised and enforced system of sanctions.
In Fejo v Northern Territory (1998) 195 CLR 96; [1998] HCA 58 at 128 [46] Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ said:
Native title has its origin in the traditional laws acknowledged and the customs observed by the indigenous people who possess the native title. Native title is neither an institution of the common law nor a form of common law tenure but it is recognised by the common law. There is, therefore, an intersection of traditional laws and customs with the common law. The underlying existence of the traditional laws and customs is a necessary pre-requisite for native title but their existence is not a sufficient basis for recognising native title.
In Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1; [2002] HCA 28 (Ward) at [14] Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ said:
As is now well recognised, the connection which Aboriginal peoples have with "country" is essentially spiritual. In Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, Blackburn J said that [(1971) 17 FLR 141 at 167]:
"the fundamental truth about the aboriginals' relationship to the land is that whatever else it is, it is a religious relationship. ... There is an unquestioned scheme of things in which the spirit ancestors, the people of the clan, particular land and everything that exists on and in it, are organic parts of one indissoluble whole."
It is a relationship which sometimes is spoken of as having to care for, and being able to "speak for", country. "Speaking for" country is bound up with the idea that, at least in some circumstances, others should ask for permission to enter upon country or use it or enjoy its resources, but to focus only on the requirement that others seek permission for some activities would oversimplify the nature of the connection that the phrase seeks to capture. The difficulty of expressing a relationship between a community or group of Aboriginal people and the land in terms of rights and interests is evident. Yet that is required by the NTA. The spiritual or religious is translated into the legal. This requires the fragmentation of an integrated view of the ordering of affairs into rights and interests which are considered apart from the duties and obligations which go with them. The difficulties are not reduced by the inevitable tendency to think of rights and interests in relation to the land only in terms familiar to the common lawyer. Nor are they reduced by the requirement of the NTA, now found in para (e) of s 225, for a determination by the Federal Court to state, with respect to land or waters in the determination area not covered by a "non-exclusive agricultural lease" or a "non-exclusive pastoral lease", whether the native title rights and interests "confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of that land or waters on the native title holders to the exclusion of all others".
The reasoning in Griffiths (2007) 165 FCR 391; [2007] FCAFC 178 deals with this intersection between native title rights and interests and the common law in the context of the common law concept of exclusive possession. The Full Court (French, Branson and Sundberg JJ) said:
[127] It is not a necessary condition of the exclusivity of native title rights and interests in land or waters that the native title holders should, in their testimony, frame their claim to exclusivity as some sort of analogue of a proprietary right. In this connection we are concerned that his Honour’s reference to usufructuary and proprietary rights, discussed earlier, may have led him to require some taxonomical threshold to be crossed before a finding of exclusivity could be made. It is not necessary to a finding of exclusivity in possession, use and occupation, that the native title claim group should assert a right to bar entry to their country on the basis that it is “their country”. If control of access to country flows from spiritual necessity because of the harm that “the country” will inflict upon unauthorised entry, that control can nevertheless support a characterisation of the native title rights and interests as exclusive. The relationship to country is essentially a “spiritual affair”. It is also important to bear in mind that traditional law and custom, so far as it bore upon relationships with persons outside the relevant community at the time of sovereignty, would have been framed by reference to relations with indigenous people. The question of exclusivity depends upon the ability of the appellants effectively to exclude from their country people not of their community. If, according to their traditional law and custom, spiritual sanctions are visited upon unauthorised entry and if they are the gatekeepers for the purpose of preventing such harm and avoiding injury to the country, then they have, in our opinion, what the common law will recognise as an exclusive right of possession, use and occupation. The status of the appellants as gatekeepers was reiterated in the evidence of most of the indigenous witnesses and by the anthropological report which was ultimately accepted by his Honour. We would add that it is not necessary to exclusivity that the appellants require permission for entry onto their country on every occasion that a stranger enters provided that the stranger has been properly introduced to the country by them in the first place. Nor is exclusivity negatived by a general practice of permitting access to properly introduced outsiders.
[128] In our opinion a proper characterisation of the effectively uncontested factual evidence of the indigenous witnesses and the opinion evidence of the anthropologists whom his Honour accepted, leads to one conclusion and one conclusion only and that is that the appellants, taken as a community, had exclusive possession, use and occupation of the application area. The appeal therefore succeeds on the question of exclusivity.
The State submitted that [127] in Griffiths (2007) 165 FCR 391; [2007] FCAFC 178 is to be understood as saying that “[t]he question of exclusivity depends upon the ability of the [traditional owners] effectively to exclude from their country people not of their community”. The problem with this submission is that it fails to recognise the source or foundation of that ability in traditional law and custom. What Griffiths discloses is that the source or foundation of that ability is not necessarily (or even likely to be) an assertion by traditional owners that the country is “their country” but rather the control of access to the country by other indigenous people by reason of the spiritual sanctions suffered for unauthorised entry. In other words, control of access by traditional owners, who see themselves and act as “gatekeepers for the purpose of preventing … harm and avoiding injury to the country”, was found in Griffiths to be recognised by the common law as a right of exclusive possession. By “ability to exclude others” in the context of traditional law and custom, the Full Court in Griffiths did not have in mind Western proprietary concepts of barring entry with signs, fences or physical opposition, nor concepts of trespass and eviction, but an ability or capacity embedded in and springing from the spiritual relationship of indigenous people with the land to which they are traditionally connected. In this context, as the primary judge’s conclusions properly recognised, the continuing need of other indigenous people for Banjima permission to enter Banjima country to provide protection from harm for people and country provided evidence of what the common law will recognise as a right of exclusive possession in the Banjima People.
The State submitted that the primary judge did not find, in terms, that the Banjima People had the right to “speak for country”. That is not correct. At [695]-[696] his Honour dealt with a submission from the BHP Billiton and RTIO respondents to the effect that the pre-sovereignty rights to control access to country and to speak for country were held locally, so that there could not be found to be “exclusive” native title rights that have continued since sovereignty in the sense of conferring control of the land for all purposes.
At [695] his Honour rejected those submissions, saying:
As explained in the discussion above, the inferred social organisation of the Banjima people at the time of first contact was by way of a number of local (country or estate) groups and residence groups (or bands). The primary responsibility of the local groups was more religious in nature and involved obligations to protect country and particular sites and, in that context, to “speak for” country and thereby to make decisions about and to control activities within country. Members of these local (country or estate) groups on a day-to-day level, in different formations, were likely to have been members of residence groups (or bands) that made “economic” use of the Banjima land, that is to say, lived their ordinary lives on wider tracts of Banjima territory. The evidence suggests that people travelled across Banjima country as members of residence groups (or bands) and were not confined to a “country” or an “estate” within Banjima country.
Noting the evidence revealed that post-sovereignty these local and residence groups appear to have “coalesced” into larger groupings, his Honour found:
[696] … One thereby observes the coalescence of local groups and residence groups into larger groupings. Thus, Top End Banjima people and Bottom End Banjima people gave evidence that addressed both their right to “speak for” particular areas of Banjima country and to economically use or exploit Banjima country in customary ways. None of that means, as I apprehend the submissions of these respondents to suggest, that the right to “speak for” country was lost or that any right to exclusivity was thereby abandoned or that the people who exercise the rights to speak for country cannot now be identified. They can be, as generally they reflect the members respectively of the Top End Banjima and Bottom End Banjima. As I have found above, they have continued to possess a wide range of rights to speak for country (to make decisions about it) and to use it and its resources in customary or usufructuary ways.
The primary judge expressly found that under Banjima traditional law and custom, there was a need to obtain Banjima permission to enter Banjima country. The necessary corollary of this finding is that, by the system of traditional laws and interests acknowledged and observed by the Banjima People and relevant others, the Banjima People controlled access to Banjima country. The control of access to country, expressed by the need to obtain permission to enter under pain of spiritual sanction (which underpinned the conclusion in Griffiths (2007) 165 FCR 391; [2007] FCAFC 178 and in the present case), is readily recognisable as a right of exclusive possession. In Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351; [1999] HCA 53 at [17] Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Kirby and Hayne JJ described the concept of “property” as a “bundle of rights” in which the legal relationship of a person to a thing (in this case, land) is described. At [18] their Honours observed, citing Gray, “Property in Thin Air” (1991) 50 Cambridge Law Journal 252 at 299:
Nevertheless, as Professor Gray also says, “An extensive frame of reference is created by the notion that ‘property’ consists primarily in control over access. Much of our false thinking about property stems from the residual perception that ‘property’ is itself a thing or resource rather than a legally endorsed concentration of power over things and resources”.
If permission is needed to enter land, then there can be no doubt that the person or community with the power to grant or withhold permission controls access. That person or group decides who may enter land free from the risk of spiritual harm and who may not. Those people are, as his Honour observed, charged with a responsibility to ensure sacred or religious sites on country are not violated by outsiders. As noted, the fact that a person bound by the traditional law and custom may have entered without permission, of itself, does not mean that the law and custom is undermined. Not all bound by a law obey the law at all times although, as in any normative system, they may be “expected” to do so. Spiritual or physical sanction for the contravention might also have been involved. The consequences of evidence of unauthorised entry will depend on the whole factual context.
The identification of a traditional law or custom that a stranger to country seek permission to enter or risk suffering spiritually detrimental consequences if he or she enters without such permission can have important consequences. The law or custom so identified can establish among, not just the ancestors of the claim group, but also the neighbouring pre‑sovereignty indigenous peoples, whose lands and waters were whose and where the common boundaries lay. That is, such an identification can establish that the consequences of unauthorised entry by a person into the country of another group were recognised and acknowledged traditionally as a normative and effective sanction. Of course, before the super-imposition of European law, the custodians of a particular country could, and did, also use force to protect that country. However, the recognition by indigenous strangers to country of the law and custom of seeking permission to enter was and is a demonstration of the normative effect of, as best the common law can characterise it, an effectual right in the custodians of exclusive possession of their country as between them and indigenous strangers. The evidence of the continued observance of such a law and custom by both the Banjima People and other indigenous peoples that the primary judge accepted justified his Honour’s finding.
In the present case there was cogent evidence of acknowledgment and observance by the relevant people (the Banjima and other indigenous people) of the traditional requirement for permission. The law or custom found by the primary judge, of the need for permission, was properly based on this evidence. The primary judge’s conclusion that such a native title right or interest sustained the nature and extent of rights and interests set out in para 4 of the Determination was sound. A right to control access to land (para 4(c)) is the essence of a right to exclusive possession (para 4(a)) and to make decisions about the use of the land (para 4(b)). The terms of paras 4(a) and (b) of the Determination do no more than make express what is provided for in para 4(c).
Accordingly, we do not accept either the State’s interpretation of Griffiths (2007) 165 FCR 391; [2007] FCAFC 178 or that Griffiths was wrongly decided.
The State’s focus on the necessity of the exercise of the right in question is also misplaced. In Yorta Yorta (2002) 214 CLR 422; [2002] HCA 58 at [84] Gleeson CJ, Gummow and Hayne JJ said:
First, the exercise of native title rights or interests may constitute powerful evidence of both the existence of those rights and their content. Evidence that at some time, since sovereignty, some of those who now assert that they have that native title have not exercised those rights, or evidence that some of those through whom those now claiming native title rights or interests contend to be entitled to them have not exercised those rights or interests, does not inevitably answer the relevant statutory questions. Those statutory questions are directed to possession of the rights or interests, not their exercise, and are directed also to the existence of a relevant connection between the claimants and the land or waters in question.
The nature of the right must also be considered. The right is to control access to Banjima country by the need for permission of Banjima People to be obtained to enter Banjima country, the primary sanction for contravention being spiritual harm. Of its nature, this right is not necessarily enforced by ejecting a person who has failed to seek permission. It is enforced by, or has the consequence of, spiritual sanction. Moreover, of its nature this right is not necessarily asserted or exercised by barring persons who do not seek permission from entering the country. One looks rather to how, as a matter of custom, the right is observed, and need not inquire whether there is an organised system of sanctions imposed by the relevant community: Yarmirr (2001) 208 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 56 at [16]. The right is primarily asserted or exercised by the shared acknowledgment of Banjima and other indigenous people that permission of Banjima People is needed to enter the country and that, if permission is not obtained, spiritual and other sanctions are likely; it is such shared acknowledgment which forms the basis for observance of the need to obtain permission. There was ample evidence of that shared acknowledgment and observance of the requirement both at sovereignty and continuing, as the primary judge held.
Finally, the primary judge did not decide that exclusive possession was established merely by connection with the claim area as a whole. The impugned reasoning is at [693]. His Honour said:
[693] As to the submissions made on behalf of the state that even if the Banjima law supported exclusive possession, there has been insufficient physical presence to exercise that right, the decision of the High Court in Yorta Yorta HC demonstrates that it is the possession, not the exercise, of rights that is important. I have already found, in the connection discussion above, that there has been a relevant maintenance of connection which has not been substantially interrupted in respect of the whole of the claim area. In those circumstances the state’s submissions concerning no exercise of possession overall the claim area are not to the point. There is sufficient evidence of the exercise of claimed rights in the claim area to demonstrate that the rights claimed over the whole are in fact asserted and have not been abandoned and are still possessed. The connection of the Banjima with their traditional country occurs in many ways including through religious ceremony and observance. The fact that some people may not have been born within the claim area, may have gone to school and lived in towns outside the claim area and the like is neither here nor there when one takes into account the whole of the evidence to which I have already made reference.
It is apparent that the primary judge, in [693], was expressing his satisfaction that there was “sufficient evidence of the exercise of claimed rights in the claim area to demonstrate that the rights claimed over the whole are in fact asserted and have not been abandoned and are still possessed”. The context of expression of this state of satisfaction was the issue of exclusive possession. It follows that his Honour was satisfied that the claimed traditional laws and customs which founded the relevant native title rights and interests (that is, to control access to country by the need to seek permission) were both asserted and exercised over the whole of the claim area. The primary judge did not assume that connection established exclusive possession. The error for which the State contends cannot be sustained having regard to the primary judge’s reasons.
Accordingly, grounds 1(a) and (c) must be rejected.
2.2 Ground 1(b)
Ground 1(b) depends on the premise that the primary judge found that the Yindjibarndi people, including Toby Dingoman, held “traditional rights” in at least part of Mulga Downs station at sovereignty in the area known as Nyiya. According to the State, his Honour erred in ruling that the Banjima People hold exclusive possession unless they presently share rights with non-Banjima Aboriginal people notwithstanding evidence that the Banjima People earlier did share rights.
The first problem with ground 1(b) is the premise that the primary judge found that persons other than the Banjima held traditional rights over part of Mulga Downs (the station covering a substantial part of the area north of the northern escarpment of the Hamersley Range). The State’s submissions focus on certain paragraphs in his Honour’s reasons to found this premise, being [298], [308] and [311]-[312]. Those paragraphs are as follows:
[298] There seems little doubt that Yindjibarndi interests were traditionally expressed in or around the disputed northern boundary area. The transcript of evidence from the Daniel claim referred to by Mr Robinson supports that view, but it does not necessarily support an assertion that the Yindjibarndi held exclusive rights in that area.
[308] What the evidence does suggest more directly, and as the anthropologists in their joint report agree, is that a deceased person such as Toby Dingoman may have had traditional rights over some parts of Mulga Downs associated with the area known as Nyiya. One difficulty with this, for present purposes, however, is that there has not been any separate inquiry as to whether such rights have continued in his descendants.
[311] Notwithstanding those observations, there are grounds for thinking, from Mr Robinson’s evidence, that Toby Dingoman may have identified with the Yindjibarndi language group. But, as against that, some of the data suggests that George Toby’s country, as noted in Mr Laurence’s notes, was mixed up Palkyu, Banjima and Yindjibarndi.
[312] The circumstances of this proceeding are that no persons claiming descent through Toby Dingoman, or any other person not of the Banjima language group, have claimed rights, whether exclusive or shared, in the disputed northern border area. The anthropologists’ view is that traditional rights survive not only where there is an appropriate descent basis to those rights, but also where they have been “realised”. While there are indications that Toby Dingoman in the long past may have been associated with parts of the northern boundary area, there are little indications on the evidence in this proceeding of any assertion of continuing native title rights in that area by any individual, community or group apart from the Banjima.
The State’s focus is inappropriately narrow. For example, the observation in [298] that “[t]here seems little doubt that Yindjibarndi interests were traditionally expressed in or around the disputed northern boundary area” (the high point of the State’s contention) is followed by paragraphs which qualify that observation. In particular, at [299] the primary judge agreed that there is “much to be said in support of the submissions made on behalf of the claimants that caution should attend any consideration of what was said in the Daniel claim”, the Daniel claim having been said in [298] to support the view that Yindjibarndi interests were traditionally expressed in or around the disputed northern boundary area. Also in [299] the primary judge noted that the Daniel claim stopped well short of the Banjima claim area. Moreover, the Yindjibarndi had also subsequently made a claim which did not claim any part of the Banjima claim area. The primary judge then described the evidence of Mulga Downs being Yindjibarndi country as “generalised”. He said that it must also be noted that “witnesses sometimes give indicative directional evidence as to the extent of country when sitting in another place”. At [303], in respect of anthropological evidence from Mr Robinson (whom the State called), the primary judge said:
So far as additional materials referred to by Mr Robinson are concerned, while it should not be doubted they are generally relevant to the matters now in issue, they, like the evidence given in the Daniel claim, were not prepared for the purposes of this proceeding and do not on their face address with any great particularity the question of where Yindjibarndi country intersects with Banjima country in this northern boundary area.
Fifth Appellant: MAITLAND PARKER
Sixth Appellant: TIMOTHY PARKER
Seventh Appellant: DAWN HICKS
Eighth Appellant: ARCHIE TUCKER
First Respondent: STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Second Respondents: BHP BILLITON IRON ORE (JIMBLEBAR) PTY LTD
BHP BILLITON IRON ORE PTY LTD
BHP MINERALS PTY LTD
ITOCHU MINERALS & ENERGY OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
MITSUI IRON ORE CORPORATION PTY LTD
MITSUI ITOCHU IRON ORE PTY LTD
MARILLANA STATION
BEN NEWLAND (SYLVANIA STATION)
Third Respondents: CHANNAR MINING PTY LTD, CMIEC (CHANNAR) PTY
LTD
HAMERSLEY EXPLORATION PTY LTD, HAMERSLEY IRON – YANDI PTY LTD
HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD
HAMERSLEY RESOURCES LTD
JUNA STATION PTY LTD
MITSUI IRON ORE DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD
MOUNT BRUCE MINING PTY LTD
PILBARA IRON PTY LTD
NIPPON STEEL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
NORTH MINING LIMITED
ROBE RIVER MINING CO PTY LTD
ROCKLEA STATION PTY LTD
SUMITOMO METAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD
Fourth Respondents: HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD
HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD
WESTRAINT RESOURCES PTY LTD
MULGA DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD
MULGA DOWNS INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
G H RINEHART
Fifth Respondent: THE SHIRE OF ASHBURTON
Sixth Respondents: CHICHESTER METALS PTY LTD
FMG PILBARA PTY LTD
FORTESCUE METALS GROUP LTD
THE PILBARA INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD
WAD 73 of 2014:
Appellant: STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ON BEHALF OF THE BANJIMA PEOPLE:
First Respondents: ALEC TUCKER
KEITH LETHBRIDGE
STEVEN SMITH
CHARLIE SMITH
MAITLAND PARKER
TIMOTHY PARKER
DAWN HICKS
ARCHIE TUCKER
Second Respondents: BHP BILLITON IRON ORE (JIMBLEBAR) PTY LTD
BHP BILLITON IRON ORE PTY LTD
BHP MINERALS PTY LTD
ITOCHU MINERALS & ENERGY OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
MITSUI IRON ORE CORPORATION PTY LTD
MITSUI ITOCHU IRON ORE PTY LTD
MARILLANA STATION
BEN NEWLAND (SYLVANIA STATION)
Third Respondents: CHANNAR MINING PTY LTD
CMIEC (CHANNAR) PTY LTD
HAMERSLEY EXPLORATION PTY LTD
HAMERSLEY IRON – YANDI PTY LTD
HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD
HAMERSLEY RESOURCES LTD
JUNA STATION PTY LTD
MITSUI IRON ORE DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD
MOUNT BRUCE MINING PTY LTD
PILBARA IRON PTY LTD, NIPPON STEEL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
NORTH MINING LIMITED
ROBE RIVER MINING CO PTY LTD, ROCKLEA STATION PTY LTD
SUMITOMO METAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD
Fourth Respondents: HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD
HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD
WESTRAINT RESOURCES PTY LTD
MULGA DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD
MULGA DOWNS INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
G H RINEHART
Fifth Respondent: THE SHIRE OF ASHBURTON
Sixth Respondents: CHICHESTER METALS PTY LTD
FMG PILBARA PTY LTD
FORTESCUE METALS GROUP LTD
THE PILBARA INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD
25
23
0