28.05.2015
11.4 A determination of native title rights and interests by the Federal Court takes effect in rem.[1] This term means that the determination of native title rights and interests is enforceable against ‘the whole world’. A determination therefore results in legal finality.[2] Participation as a respondent in native title proceedings is a means by which a person may represent their interest in a claim area before a determination is reached.
11.5 Section 84 describes who is or may become a party to native title proceedings under the Native Title Act,and how parties may withdraw or be dismissed from proceedings. The provisions apply in relation to native title determination applications (including non-claimant applications), revised native title determination applications and compensation applications.[3] The term ‘joinder’ is often used in relation to native title procedure to describe both the s 84(3) method of becoming a party and s 84(5) applications to the Court to be joined as a party. Discussions about joinder under s 84(5), whether judicial or otherwise, may consider other subsections of s 84.[4]
11.6 Parties to a native title proceeding include the applicant[5] and the relevant state or territory minister.[6] Various third party respondents may also become parties to proceedings under s 84(3) by notifying the Federal Court within a specified time that they wish to participate, or under s 84(5) by applying to be joined to proceedings.[7] Broadly speaking, s 84(3) identifies that certain types of interests will be affected by a native title determination, and provides a mechanism for a person with such interests to become party to proceedings upon compliance with notification procedures. The joinder of a party under s 84(5), however, is subject to the discretion of the Court. These provisions are discussed in detail below.
11.7 Section 225 of the Act provides that a determination must address the interests of third parties, including a determination of:
(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) [ie the native title rights and interests] and (c) (taking into account the effect of this Act).
11.8 Party status in native title proceedings brings with it the right to participate in negotiations that may lead to a consent determination under either s 87 or s 87A of the Act. Under s 87, a consent determination requires the agreement of all parties to proceedings. As a result of this, ‘a person who is a party can veto [a consent determination] and … can continue to do so at every stage so that only a judicial determination can resolve the claim’.[8] Section 87A provides for a consent determination over part of the claim area. This type of consent determination does not require the agreement of all parties, but only the agreement of certain defined parties.[9] If a person has an interest sufficient to become a party under s 84(3), that person’s agreement will typically be required for a consent determination under s 87A. However, a consent determination may be possible under s 87A without the agreement of persons who join under s 84(5).[10]
11.9 The party and joinder provisions may need to accommodate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander respondents, for example, where there are overlapping claim groups or disaffected members of the claim group. For these respondents, access to justice may involve considerations distinct from, and potentially in conflict with, the considerations of equity for the primary claim group as represented by the applicant.
11.10 The importance of respondent interests being adequately represented in native title proceedings must be balanced against the impact that a large number of respondents may have on the resolution of native title proceedings, and in turn on the members of the claim group. These burdens may be administrative—as the number of parties increases, so too, does the number of persons who must, for example, be served with documents. The interests of claim groups must also be considered, given the context of the beneficial purposes of the Native Title Act.
11.11 Section 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), which describes the over-arching purpose of civil practice and procedure provisions as the just resolution of disputes according to law ‘as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible’, may also have decisive weight in a particular joinder case.[11]
Participation by notification under s 84(3)
11.12 Most persons, other than the applicant and the Crown (ie, the relevant state, territory or Commonwealth government), become parties to native title proceedings under s 84(3). Section 84(3) provides that certain persons are a party to native title proceedings if that person notifies the Federal Court in writing to that effect within the prescribed time period. These persons include:
persons who must be notified of a claim by the Registrar under s 66(3)(a)(i)–(vi), such as registered native title claimants, native title bodies corporate, persons with a registered proprietary interest, the Commonwealth Minister, and local government bodies—s 84(3)(a)(i);
persons who claim to hold native title in relation to land or waters in the area covered by the application—s 84(3)(a)(ii); and
persons whose interests in relation to land or waters may be affected by a determination in the proceedings—s 84(3)(a)(iii).
11.13 For the purposes of s 84(3)(a)(iii), the phrase ‘interests in relation to land or waters’ is to be read in conjunction with the s 253 definition of ‘interests, in relation to land or waters’.[12] That definition provides:
interest, in relation to land or waters, means:
(a) a legal or equitable estate or interest in the land or waters; or
(b) any other right (including a right under an option and a right of redemption), charge, power or privilege over, or in connection with:
(i) the land or waters; or
(ii) an estate or interest in the land or waters; or
(c) a restriction on the use of the land or waters, whether or not annexed to other land or waters.
11.14 Proceedings cannot substantively commence until the notification process has concluded and the parties are known.
11.15 Section 84(3) expresses a legislative assumption that the interests of the specified classes of parties will be affected by a determination of native title. The provisions are relatively wide in terms of the nature of an interest affected.
11.16 A consent determination under s 87A requires the agreement of specified categories of persons. These categories include many of the categories of person who may become a party under s 84(3).[13] A consent determination under s 87A will therefore require the agreement of most persons who are able to become a party to proceedings under s 84(3).
Joinder of parties under s 84(5)
11.17 If a person does not become a party to proceedings under s 84(3),[14] the person may apply to be joined to proceedings under s 84(5).[15] Section 84(5) provides that the Federal Court may
at any time join any person as a party to the proceedings, if the Court is satisfied that the person’s interests may be affected by a determination in the proceedings and it is in the interests of justice to do so.[16]
11.18 If the threshold questions—whether there is an interest and whether that interest may be affected by a determination—have been resolved in favour of the party making the application, the Court then considers whether it should exercise its discretion to join the person as a party.[17] Legal action may be well advanced when a person seeks to become a party under s 84(5) (‘late joinder’).
11.19 In exercising its discretion to join a person as a party to proceedings under s 84(5), the Court must first be satisfied that the person’s interests may be affected by a determination. Case law suggests that an ‘interest’, for the purposes of s 84(5), is not limited to a legal or equitable interest, and that it may include some commercial, recreational or other interests.
11.20 The types of interest necessary to be joined to proceedings were considered in Byron Environment Centre Inc v Arakwal People (‘Byron’).[18] In that case, the Full Court held that a Deputy President of the National Native Title Tribunal had erred in refusing the Byron Environment Centre party status because it could not demonstrate that it fell within the definition of ‘interests in relation to land or waters’ in s 253. Unlike s 84(3)(a)(iii), s 84(5) is not limited to interests in relation to land and waters as defined in s 253.[19]
11.21 The interests allowing joinder under s 84(5) may include a ‘special, well-established non-proprietary connection with land or waters’, but must not be ‘indirect, remote or lacking substance’.[20] The interests must be ‘capable of clear definition and … be affected in a demonstrable way by a determination in relation to the application’.[21] The interests ‘should be greater than that of a member of the general public’,[22] although there
is no reason why persons who have had and continue to have regular and lawful use or enjoyment of areas of land or waters covered by a claim under the Act should not be afforded the opportunity of being heard as a party before losing their ‘right’ or having it otherwise affected by a native title determination.[23]
11.22 An interest in using the claim area for bushwalking, hunting or camping, for example, would not appear to be sufficient for joinder under s 84(5),[24] but ongoing use over many years may be, particularly where the native title claim is for exclusive possession.[25] A sufficient interest may arise where the person applying for joinder has a number of well advanced applications for mining licences,[26] although a single application for a licence may be insufficient.[27] The way in which a person’s interest may be affected is also a relevant consideration.[28] In Byron, Black CJ considered that the interests of a corporation might be affected if its activities might be ‘curtailed or otherwise significantly affected by the determination’.[29] In the same case, Merkel J considered that a determination of exclusive native title might affect regular and lawful use and enjoyment of land, but also that those rights are subject to statute, and drew attention to the need to show ‘how they may be actually affected by the determination’.[30]
11.23 Where a person seeking to be joined under s 84(5) has an interest that may be affected merely because the person has a public right of access over, or use of, an area covered by the application, s 84(5A) provides a discretionary power for the Federal Court to limit the number of parties with the same interest.[31] The Court may ‘make appropriate orders to ensure that the person’s interests are properly represented in the proceedings’,[32] but ‘need not allow more than one such person to become a party to the proceedings in relation to each area covered by such a public right of access or use’.[33]
11.24 Given the range of interests that may be sufficient for joinder under s 84(5) but which are not strictly ‘interests in relation to land or waters’, a consent determination under s 87A may not require the agreement of all persons who join under s 84(5).
Dismissal of parties under ss 84(8) and 84(9)
11.25 Section 84(8) allows the Federal Court to dismiss a party. Under s 84(9), the Court is to consider dismissing a party if that party’s interests in the claim area arise merely because of a public right of access and if the person’s interests are adequately represented by another party, or if the person never had (or no longer has) an interest that may be affected by a determination in the proceedings. A party (other than the applicant) may also withdraw from proceedings by giving written notice before the first hearing,[34] or at any time with the leave of the Court.[35]
11.26 The power to dismiss a party has been used, for example, to remove a party from proceedings who refused a consent determination, apparently without basis.[36]
-
[1]
Western Australia v Ward (2000) 99 FCR 316, [190] (Beaumont & von Doussa JJ); Wik v The State of Queensland (1994) 49 FCR 1; Dale v State of Western Australia [2011] FCAFC 46 (31 March 2011) [92].
-
[2]
Subject to possible variation or revocation of a determination: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 13.
-
[3]
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 61.
-
[4]
See for example, Butterworth v Queensland (2010) 184 FCR 297.
-
[5]
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 84(2).
-
[6]
Ibid s 84(4).
-
[7]
See, eg, Butterworth on behalf of the Wiri Core Country Claim v Queensland [2010] FCA 325 (26 March 2010).
-
[8]
Byron Environment Centre Inc v Arakwal People (1997) 78 FCR 1, 5 (Black CJ).
-
[9]
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 87A(1)(c).
-
[10]
Kokatha Uwankara (Part A) Native Title Claim v South Australia [2013] FCA 856 (30 August 2013) [23]. The Court has held that, where a consent determination may be made under either s 87 or s 87A, it is preferable that it be made under s 87A: Goonack v Western Australia [2011] FCA 516 (23 May 2011) [21].
-
[11]
Dodd on behalf of the Gudjala People Core Country Claim No 1 v Queensland (No 2) [2013] FCA 1167 (9 August 2013) [37]–[40].
-
[12]
Kokatha Uwankara (Part A) Native Title Claim v South Australia [2013] FCA 856 (30 August 2013) [23]. The phrase ‘interest in relation to land and waters’ was introduced by the Native Title Amendment Act 2007 (Cth).
-
[13]
Section 87A does not require the agreement of a registered native title body corporate in relation to the claim area, or of a person who holds a proprietary interest in relation to the claim area that is registered in public register of interests in relation to land or waters. However, persons in either of these categories are able to become parties under ss 84(3)(a)(i), 66(3)(a)(ii) and 66(3)(a)(iv), respectively. The categories of person whose agreement is required for a s 87A consent determination include: (i) the applicant; (ii) each registered native title claimant in relation to any part of the determination area who is a party to the proceeding at the time the agreement is made; (iv) each representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body for any part of the determination area who is a party to the proceeding at the time the agreement is made; (v) each person who holds an interest in relation to land or waters in any part of the determination area at the time the agreement is made, and who is a party to the proceeding at the time the agreement is made; (vi) each person who claims to hold native title in relation to land or waters in the determination area and who is a party to the proceeding at the time the agreement is made; (vii) the Commonwealth Minister, if the Commonwealth Minister is a party to the proceeding at the time the agreement is made or has intervened in the proceeding at any time before the agreement is made; (viii) if any part of the determination area is within the jurisdictional limits of a State or Territory, the State or Territory Minister for the State or Territory if the State or Territory Minister is a party to the proceeding at the time the agreement is made; (ix) any local government body for any part of the determination area who is a party to the proceeding at the time the agreement is made: Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 87A(1)(c).
-
[14]
This may be because the person does not fall within the categories in s 84(3)(a), or because the person does not notify the Court within the relevant time period.
-
[15]
Kokatha Uwankara (Part A) Native Title Claim v South Australia [2013] FCA 856 (30 August 2013) [24].
-
[16]
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 84(5).
-
[17]
Far West Coast Native Title Claim v South Australia (No 5) [2013] FCA 717 (30 July 2013) [26]; Barunga v Western Australia (No 2) [2011] FCA 755 (25 May 2011) [162]–[168]; Jacob v State of Western Australia [2014] FCA 1106 (14 October 2014) [4].
-
[18]
Byron Environment Centre Inc v Arakwal People (1997) 78 FCR 1. Byron concerned the Native Title Act prior to amendment by the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 (Cth). In the earlier version of the Act, the joinder provision (then s 84(2)) read: ‘A person may seek leave of the Federal Court to be joined as a party to proceedings if the person’s interests are affected by the matter or may be affected by a determination in the proceedings’. However, Byron has been followed in subsequent cases concerning s 84(5): Woodridge v Minister for Land and Water Conservation (2001) 108 FCR 527; Harrington-Smith on behalf of the Wongatha People v Western Australia [2002] FCA 184 (11 February 2002).
-
[19]
Byron Environment Centre Inc v Arakwal People (1997) 78 FCR 1, 6 (Black CJ).
-
[20]
Ibid 6.
-
[21]
Ibid 7. The principles described in Byron continue to be applied: see, eg, Cheinmora v Western Australia [2013] FCA 727 (25 July 2013); Kokatha Uwankara (Part A) Native Title Claim v South Australia [2013] FCA 856 (30 August 2013).
-
[22]
Byron Environment Centre Inc v Arakwal People (1997) 78 FCR 1, 6 (Black CJ).
-
[23]
Ibid 41 (Merkel J).
-
[24]
Atkinson on behalf of the Gunai/Kurnai People v Victoria (No 3) [2010] FCA 906 (16 August 2010); Atkinson on behalf of the Gunai/Kurnai People v Victoria (No 4) [2010] FCA 907 (16 August 2010). Note that, in both cases, the application for joinder was dismissed due to the non-appearance of the joinder applicant.
-
[25]
See, eg, Combined Mandingalbay Yidinji-Gunggandji Claim v Queensland [2002] FCA 730 (14 June 2002).
-
[26]
Walker on behalf of the Ngalia Kutjungkatja People v Western Australia [2002] FCA 869 (10 July 2002).
-
[27]
Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (Unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Olney J, 7 June 1996).
-
[28]
Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Seas Claim People v Queensland (No 1) [2006] FCA 1102 (18 August 2006) [32].
-
[29]
Byron Environment Centre Inc v Arakwal People (1997) 78 FCR 1, 10 (Black CJ).
-
[30]
Ibid 42 (Merkel J).
-
[31]
An alternative reading of s 84(5A) is that it provides an additional basis for joinder, rather than merely providing a power for the Court to limit joinder of multiple parties with the same interest arising from a public right of access over, or use of, the claim area under s 84(5): Mamu People v State of Queensland [2006] FCA 1563 (29 August 2006) [10] (Dowsett J); Chapman v Minister for Land and Water Conservation for New South Wales [2000] FCA 1114 (28 July 2000).
-
[32]
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 84(5A)(c). See also Combined Mandingalbay Yidinji-Gunggandji Claim v Queensland [2002] FCA 730 (14 June 2002).
-
[33]
Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) s 84(5A)(d).
-
[34]
Ibid s 6.
-
[35]
Ibid s 7.
-
[36]
Watson on behalf of the Nyikina Mangala People v Western Australia (No 5) [2014] FCA 650 (20 May 2014).