Background The Mirning Application was filed with the Federal Court under section 61 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) (the NTA) on 27 February 2001. Details of the claim were entered into the National Native Title Register on 14 September 2001. There was subsequently an outcry by some Mirning People that they did not want to be part of a combined native title claim (Georgatos, 2013). The Mirning People Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) between the Mirning People and the State was registered on 19 February 2014. In the present determination the court noted that: 'The parties to that ILUA have agreed that “Land Transactions”, as set out by the ILUA, will be undertaken. Certain of those Land Transactions have not yet occurred or been completed. The State and native title holders acknowledge and agree that they remain committed to the fulfillment of the terms agreed by the ILUA, including by fulfilling the Land Transactions' [G]. Amended Mirning Applications were then filed on 28 April 2016 and 16 August 2016. The Mirning native title claim group subsequently met at Coolgardie on 8 August 2017 where they authorised the applicant to consent to the Mirning Determination. This meeting was attended by Mr Rumler, the Principal Legal Officer of the Goldfields Land and Sea Council, who had been attending meetings with the Mirning People claim group to inform them of the progress of their application and to obtain their instructions since 2013. The Court later relied on Mr Rumler's reports that the majority of claimants attended the meeting. Details of Judgment The parties reached an agreement after the meeting at Coolgardie and filed joint submissions on 20 September 2017. Robertson J noted that: '[w]hilst all of the Mirning native title claimants currently live outside of the Determination Area, they continue to access the area as often as they are able, to take and use resources and to teach their children about the Determination Area. There is a shared acknowledgement that under traditional law and custom the permission of the Mirning native title claimants is needed to enter the Determination Area in order to avoid danger to persons and to country' [7]. Robertson J then considered whether Mr Palmer has sufficiently explained the proposed Consent Determination to the Mirning People claim group, in consultation with an anthropologist. His Honour found that authorisation by the claim group for the applicant to consent to the proposed Determination was validly done. His Honour then proceeded under the criteria laid out in section 87A, rather than section 87 of the NTA, to allow the amending of the application for the removal of an area [section 64(1B) of the NTA]. This area would be the subject of further negotiations which were later settled in KD (deceased) on behalf of the Mirning People v State of Western Australia [2021] FCA 10 (WA Mirning People Part B). Operating under section 87A of the NTA would also allow for the area to be exempt from re-application of the registration test [section 190A(lA)]. Robertson J found all elements of section 87A of the NTA to be made out. His Honour gave special consideration to whether it would be appropriate [section 87A(4)(b) of the NTA] and within the court's power [section 87A(4)(a) of the NTA] to make the orders sought. Accordingly, the Court found that the parties had come to the agreement freely and on an informed basis. His Honour then complied with section 225 of the NTA. Robertson J then made orders in the terms proposed by the parties. |