Markdreyfusqcmp Attorney-General Parliamenthouse
TheHonourable
MarkDreyfusQCMP Attorney-General ParliamentHouse
CanberraACT2000
NorthQueensland LandCouncil
NativeTitleRepresentativeBodyAboriginalCorporation
61AndersonStreetManundaQld4870
POBox679NCairns NorthQld4870
Tei:0740427000 IFax:0740317414
ICN1996
ViaEmail:
DearAttorney-General
ReviewofNativeTitleAct
I refer to the review of the Native Title Act 1993by the Australian Law Reform
Commissionandthescopeofreviewdocument.
Thequestionsaskedare:
1.Do thetermsofreferencecapture allofthekeyissuesarisingunder theAct relatingto connection,andauthorisationandjoinder?
2.Arethereanyadditionalissuesthatshouldbeincludedinthetermsofreference? Thetwoproposedtermsofreferenceare:
•Connection requirements relating to the recognition and scopeofnative title rightsandinterests;and
•The identification ofbarriers, ifany, imposed bytheAct's authorisation and joinderprovisions toclaimants',andpotentialclaimants':
oAccesstojustice,and
oAccesstoandprotectionofnativetitlerightsandbenefits.
Dothedrafttermscaptureallofthekeyissues?
Whether the termsofreferencecan besetto capture allofthe keyissuesmay be dependentonhownarrowlyorhowexpansivelyoneinterpretsthetermsof reference.It
wouldbeoursubmissionthattherebeincludedinmoredetail,possiblybyuseofthe
followingformula:
Including, butnotlimitedto[insertlistofissues].
We would suggest that the list of issues include the various issuesraised inthe backgroundpaperattachedtothescopeofreviewdocument.
Wewouldliketomakethefollowingcommentsinrelationtosomeoftheissuesraised inthebackgroundpaper.
Connection
TheNativeTitleActdoesnotusethewordconnectionnordoesitlaydownanyrulesorrequirementsforproof ofconnection. Whilst section 223(1)ofthe Native TitleAct providesadefinitionofwhat"nativerightsandinterests"are,theproofthatsuchrights andinterestsexistislefttobedeterminedaccordingtovariouscaselawdecisions.
Itisourunderstanding thattheapproachtowhatconstitutesproofvariesconsiderably betweenthestatesandtheterritories.Forexample,inQueenslandtheStateGovernment publishesaguidelineastowhatitexpectstosee inconnectionreportssubmittedtoit.It isourunderstandingthatnotallstatesorterritorieshave guidelines.
Thedegree of materialexpectedhasoverthelasttenyears,atleastinthestateof Queensland, increasedsignificantly. It has been our experiencethat therecan be differencesinthewaytheStatelooksatsimilarconnection materialfromcasetocase. Wewouldsupportanymovetoclarify themeaningof"traditional" thatallowedforthe evolution and adaptation of culture and the recognition of native title rights and interests.Wewouldinfactgofurtherandsaythatthereshouldbe clarificationthat recognisesthatlawsandcustomschange,evolveandadapt,tosuitchangingneeds.We wouldarguethatlawsandcustomsofanysocietychangeandadaptfromtimetotime and that in recognising native title rights and interests those changes to laws and customs,whichcomeaboutfromadaptationto changing circumstances,shouldbe recognised.Perhapsagoodexampleofchangeinlawandcustomisthechangetoallow recognition ofcognaticdescent, that istosaythe tracingofdescentfromeither the mother'sorthefather'sside.
Insomegroupsthischange tocognaticrecognition wasbroughtabout asaresultof inter-marriageswithnon-indigenouspersonsandalsoasaresultofthefactthatinsome circumstances,maleindigenouspersonswerethetargetofmassacresorwerethefirstto beremovedfromtheircountryandtakentootherplaces.
Wecertainlyagreethatconnectiondoesnotrequirephysicaloccupation,orcontinued andrecentuse.Whilsttherearesomestatementstothateffectinthecaselaw,itwould beourobservationthatitwouldbeworthwhiletoreinforcethatbysomestatementsin theAct.Oneof theissuesthatarises,inourexperience,innegotiatingnativetitle determinationsinQueensland,isanattitudeoftheStatewhichvirtuallyamountstothe positionthatiftheStatecannot seetherightsbeingexerciseditdoesnotexist.This attitudeextendsbeyondconnectionandis alsomanifestedinrelationtoestablishing particularrightsandinterests.
We verymuch believethat this attitude iswrong and contrary to law however, it continues to arise.We take theviewthat ifunder law and custom apersonhas
particular rightasamemberofaparticular groupthatisinherentinthatright,thatthere beachoiceastowhereandwhenthatrightmightbeexercised.Wedonotsubscribeto theviewthatprolongedlackofuseofarightmeansthatitnolongerexists.
Afurtherattitude manifested bytheStateinQueenslandrelatestophysicaloccupation forthepurpose ofbeingabletotakeadvantage ofsection47boftheNativeTitleAct.In ourviewtheState,inrequiringpreciseaffidavitsrelatingtoablockbyblockapproach to showoccupation, isimposingfartootightaninterpretationof47bandthiscouldwellbe thesubjectoflegislativeamendmenttomakeitclearthatthestandard doesnotrequire occupation intheverynarrowsensebutoccupationinthemuchbroadersense.
Wewouldwholeheartedlyagreewithempowering theCourttodisregardsubstantial interruptionwhereitisintheinterestofjusticetodosoandwouldsuggestthatitwould alwaysbeintheinterest ofjusticewhere peoplehavebeenforciblyremoved fromtheir country orhavehadtheirobservanceoftraditionallawsandcustomsinterferedwith(for example, insomeofthemissions that peopleweretakentotheywerenotpermitted to usetheirindigenous languages andwerepunished iftheydidso).Inthosemissionsthe passingonofknowledge fromelderstotheyoungergenerations wasalsoforbiddenand oftenhadtooccurinsecret.
Inrelationtoproposals forareversaloftheburdenofprooforarebuttablepresumption continuity oflawsandcustoms, weseeadangerthatthereformsmaynotachievewhat peopleanticipate insomecircumstances.Wehaveseensuggestionsalongthelinesthat oncefactsA,BandCareestablishedthenitistobepresumedintheabsenceofevidence tothecontrarythatevidence exists.Thedifficultyweseewiththatsortofapproach is that inevitably those who seektothwart native titlewillsimplyshifttheirfocusfrom arguing that connection has not been made out (the current position) to attacking whether thenecessary prerequisites, A orB orC,havebeenmade outinorderforthe presumptiontoapply. Itwould beoursuggestionthatthepresumptionbemuchmore robustandnothavetorelyoncertainconditions applying.
AUTHORISATIONAND JOINDER Authorisation
TheissueofauthorisationundertheActhasbeen thesubjectofmanycourtdecisions andcertainlyneedsclarification.
WithrespecttoILUAsforexample, wheretheauthorisation hastobeopento"allthose whomayholdnativetitle"hastobe,inpredeterminationmatters,opentoallthosewho holdnativetitle.Ithashadtobelefttocourtdecisions tosaythat"all" doesnotmean "all" inthenormal way that one would think ofallpersons.Sometimes thelogicthat thosecaseshavehadtoemployinordertoarriveataworkableinterpretationasopposed to an interpretationwhich would effectivelystymie any authorisation,has had tobe somewhattorturous. Thecaselawisconflictedwithdecisionsgoingeitherwayastothe ongoing authority of applicants once one of the applicant group dies. Some cases suggest,forexample, that ifagroup offivepeople areauthorised tobetheapplicant, thenonlythatgroupoffivepeoplecanactandonceoneofthemdiestheremainingfour
nolongerhaveauthorityandtherewouldhavetobefreshauthorisations.Othercases suggestthattheremainingfourcancontinuetoact.
Thewriterhasbeeninvolvedinonematterinwhichthegroupmanagedtosetforth clearly atitsauthorisationmeetingasuccessionplanwhichprovidedforaspecified memberofafamilytobecomeanapplicantonthedeathofthepersonfromthatfamily initiallyappointed.Thiswasdonetothreelevels.Howeveritisverymuchtheexception totherulewithmostgroupssimplyappointinganumberofii_1dividualswithoutthere being anysuccessionbackupplan.Giventhatauthorisationmeetingscanbequite expensivetheneedtoreturntoanauthorisation meeting,shouldanapplicantbecome deceasedorunwillingtoact,isaconsiderabledrainonthepublicpurse.Groupsoften want to appoint senior people in recognition of their position within that group, however,thatcarrieswithitthedangerthatpeopledopass awayorbecomeunwillingto act.
InoursubmissiontheActshouldbeamended toprovideapresumptionthatwherea group ofpeopleareappointed astheapplicant thesurvivorsofthat group havethe authoritytocontinuetoactevenifoneofthegrouppassesaway.Similarly,webelieve thereshouldbeastreamlinedprocesswhereifoneoftheapplicantswishestoceaseto act(forexample,duetoillhealth)thanitshouldbesimplyamatteroffilinganotice withthecourttoallowthattohappen.Likewise,whereapersonhasbecomedeceased, thefilingofadeathcertificateshouldbeallthatisnecessary.Thesituationofincapacity isalwaysgoingtobedifficultasunlessthepersonconcernedfilesanoticethattheyno longer wish to be an applicant, there may be arguments over what degree of incapacitationisrequiredandiftheincapacitationrelatestomatterofthemind,itisof coursepossiblethatthepersonisincapableofgivinginstructions.Inthosesituationswe seeno easy resolution and perhaps the answer has to residewith theclaim group removingthatperson'sauthority.
Joinder
Joinderofpersonswhoarenotamemberoftheclaimgroup
WenotetheinherentcircularityintheActinthatthegroundsfor joinderarethataparty hasaninterestthatmaybeaffectedbyadetermination thatnativetitleexists.However whenadeterminationishandeddownithasbecomethehabit,atleastinQueensland,
forthejudgetomakeapointofnotingthatthedeterminationdoesnotcreateanygrant
orcreateanytitlebutsimplyrecogniseswhathasalwaysbeen.Ifnativetitlehasalways existedthenaparty'sinterestisalreadyaffectedbythatpre-existingnativetitleandnot thedeterminationthataffectsthatinterest.Giventhatdeterminationsarealwaysphrased
totheeffectthat totheextent thatthereisany conflictbetweenthenativetitleand anotherinterest,thatotherinterestprevailstotheextentoftheinconsistency.Wewould suggestthatthereisin factnoneedformanyof therespondentswithinclaimstoactually berespondents. Their interests are always going to prevail if the native title is inconsistentwithit.Wewouldsuggestthat ratherthan becomingrespondentstothe claim(andthushaving theabilitytoslowdown theprocess)that thereshould bea processbywhichtheycannotifytheirinterestsandthoseinterestscanbenotedinthe determination.Oftenthatcanbedonebywayofagenericclausesuchasnotingthatthe
determination is subject to all those who hold a pastoral lease under the relevant legislation.
Joinderbymembersofthegroup
Otherthanthesituation whereamemberofthegroupholdsaninterestwhichwould
normallybesufficienttoenablejoinderandregardlessoftheidentityof theholderofthat interest(anindividualheldapastorallease)webelievethatthenativetitleactshould forbidsuchjoinder.
If theauthorisationoftheclaimhasbeencarriedoutappropriatelythenallmembersof theclaimgroupshouldbeboundbythatdecision(forexamplethedecisiontakenin accordance with traditional law and custom would, under that traditional law and custom, bind members of the group). The Act should not provide for dissatisfied individualstotryandattackadecisionproperlytakenwhichundertheirownlawsand customsshouldbebindingon.
BROADERRELATEDISSUES
ILUA's
One of the issues that is not highlighted in the background paper is the Issueof respondentsrequiringILUAs.
Inevitablyinarrivingataconsent determination,respondents suchastheState, the Shires, andtheenergy supplycompaniesandalsopastoralists,requirethatthenativetitle partiesenterintoILUAs.Thewriterhasbeenincourtwhenithasbeenopenlysaidin courtbysomerespondentsthattheenteringintoofanILUAisthepriceoftheirconsent andthattheyseeconsentaspartofapackagedeal.
It isoftenthesortingoutoftheseILUAswhichcreatestimedelaysinfinishingnative titleclaims.
ThecourtshavesaiditisnottheirbusinesstogetinvolvedinILUAmattersandthat their concern should be focused on whether the native title claim can be proved. However,ultimatelyifnativetitleclaimgroupscannotsettletheseILUAs,thethreatthat hangsovertheirheadisthatthecourtwill setthematterdownforacontestedhearing. Thecourtreally hasnootherpowers(otherthanrequiringtherespondentstoattend mediation)if arespondentisrefusingtoconsentbecausetheILUAhasnotbeenagreed to.Settingdowntrialofamatter, whichcouldotherwisebethesubjectofaconsent determination,is ahugewasteofthepublicpurseandofcourse,withallthe goodwillin theworld,therearealwaysdangers in litigation.
IthaslongbeenourviewthattheabilityforrespondentstorequireILUAsasthepriceof theirconsentis aformof institutionalisedblackmail.Itinevitablyreducesthebargaining strengththatgroupshaveandshouldnotbeallowedasitiscontrarytothespiritofthe NativeTitle Act.Istronglyurgethatthelawreformcommissionshouldbeaskedtolook
atthisaspect.Weconsideritverymuchabarrierofproperjusticeandtotheprotection ofnativetitlerightsandbenefits.
Fiduciarydutiesoftheclaimgroup
Wenotethebackgroundpaperraisesthisissue.IndeedintherecentMadandanjicase[1], theCourthasruledthattheapplicantshavefiduciarydutiesincludingafiduciaryduty withrespecttothebenefitsfromnegotiation predetermination. That dutyisowedto thosewhomightultimatelybefoundtobethenativetitleholders.
Whilstitmightbequiteeasytoinvestinauthorisedtrusteeinvestmentsanymonetary benefits obtained,therealdifficultieswillariseinrelationtononmonetarybenefitssuch asjobsandtraining.Thatisnottosaythatweareagainsttheidea.Infactwesupportthe ideathatthereshould bemoreaccountabilityofclaimgroupsreceivingbenefitsand moretransparencyaboutwhatthosebenefitsare.
Itisinterestingtonotethatinthecasementioned,thecompanywhohadnegotiateda numberofdealswiththegroupinquestionrefusedtotableanyinformationbeforethe courtastotheextentandnature ofthosebenefits.Wewouldsuggestthattheremay needtobesomerequirementofthereportingofthosebenefitstoanindependentoffice. Wearenotsuggestingthatsuchinformationneedstobemadepublicbutfor example,if adifferentclaimgroupisultimatelyfoundtobethenativetitleholders,thantheyshould beentitledto fullinformationandtothenreceivethebenefits.
Arethereanyadditionalissues?
1)WehaveseentheresponsebytheNationalNativeTitleCouncilandagreewiththe sameespeciallytheadditionalissuesraised.
With respecttotheignoring ofHistoricalExtinguishment weagreethat thisiswell overdueandshouldbeexpanded.
ThecurrentproposalsthatwouldrequireagreementoftheState.Wewouldsuspectthat therequirementthattheStateagreewillmeanthatinrealitytheprovisionwouldbelittle used.
2)RogueLawyers
OneissuewhichtiesinwiththeproposedenquiryistheissueofRogueLawyers.
ByRoguewemeanthoselawyersfromoutsidetheRepresentativeBodysystemwho seektodrawgroupsawayfromRepresentativeBodyrepresentationwithpromisesthat
theycancutbetterdealsinrelationtomajorprojectsormajorfutureactandmining matters.
Oftenit appearsthattheseLawyersarechargingfeeswellabovetheproperlevels.
In addition they often cause division within the group rather than work in ways harmonioustogroupcohesion.
Asexternallawyerstheyarenotconstrainedbythepolicies developedbyRepresentative
Bodies designedtopromotesettlementof disputesaboutextentofclaims.
RepresentativeBodiesandServiceProvidersundertheNativeTitleActarerequiredto havestrategicplansandtoprovidefortheorderlyprogressofclaimswhereasexternal lawyers are not constrained by such plans and can take courses of action that significantlyinterferewithorderlyprogress.
OnepointofentryfortheselawyersisinrelationtoCulturalHeritagearrangements. Anecdotalevidence suggeststhatmanysupportparticularpersonswithinthegroupsuch thatthereisnotanytransparencyaboutwhatisbeingdoneandwheremostofthegroup don'tseeanybenefitsfromthearrangements.
Currently the Performance Funding Agreement [PFA] under which Representative BodiesandService providersoperate,forbidsusfromspendingfundsonHeritageor BusinessDevelopmentmatters.Heritageishoweverdirectlyinterlinkedwithprotection of NativeTitleRights.
Wesuggestthereviewshouldlookat:
•ChangingthePFA tobroaden thescopetoallowfordirectrepresentation on HeritageorBusiness Developmentmatters[onacostrecoverybasiswherever possible];
•AllowingittobeaconditionoffundingagroupthattheRepresentativeBody /ServiceProviderbeallowedtodealwithallof agroupsfutureactandnegotiation matters.WearenotsuggestingthattheRepresentativeBody/Service providers havetodotheworkbutrather theybeincontrolofbriefingoutandcanset conditionsrelatingtocostrecovery,reasonablenessoffeesandtransparency.
IntheMadagandjimatterreferredtoabove,CourtTranscriptsandjudgementsshowthat throughacomplicatedsetupofcorporations,benefitswellinexcessof$3Millionwere involvedandwhenissuesoverwhethertheCourthadpowertoeffectivelyfreezethose monieswereraised,theproponentcompanydeclinedtofileinformationwiththeCourt, theimplicationbeingthattheydidnotwanttorevealtheextentofbenefitsunderthe agreementsstruck.
AswemoveintotheerawheremoreandmorePBC'sarecomingonlinetherewillneed tobeagreateremphasis onPBCsupport intheHeritageandBusinessDevelopment Area.
ByallowingtheseareastofallundertheBriefing OutauspicesofRepresentative Bodies/Serviceproviders,notonlycantheadvantagesmentionedabovebeachievedbut theremaybeeconomiesofscalethatcanbeachievedbringingdownthecosttoNative TitleHoldingGroupsofaccessingsuchservices.
WewouldsuggestthatallsuchmattersshouldbeundertheauspiceofRepresentative Bodies/Service providerswhocanthussetpropercontrolsforthebenefitofallNative Titleholders.
CEO
North Queensland Land Council Native Title Representative Body Aboriginal
Corporation
[1]LESLIE WERIBONE AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE MANDANDANJI
PEOPLE V STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND OTHERS FCA 23 MAY 2013