FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dodd on behalf of the Wulli Wulli People v State of Queensland [2009] FCA 793

GARY DODD AND OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THE WULLI WULLI PEOPLE v STATE OF QUEENSLAND AND OTHERS

QUD 6006 of 2000

DOWSETT J

11 JUNE 2009

ROCKHAMPTON

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.                  The application be adjourned.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     This is a motion to give effect to a resolution adopted at a purported meeting of the claim group held on 14 February 2009 at Mundubbera.  Resolution 6 dealt with the composition of the claim group.  That matter requires further evidence.  I will not be able to dispose of it at the moment.  To some extent, the other matters dealt with in this motion depend upon the validity of resolution 6.

2                     Apart from that matter, argument has focused upon resolution 11.  The effect of that resolution was to alter the constitution of the applicant group.  Ms Lea and Mr Lea, who appear today, assert that the resolution was invalid and, indeed, that the meeting as a whole was invalid.  The reasons for that are numerous.  They seem to reflect a certain degree of dissatisfaction with the state of the anthropological evidence insofar as it concerns Mr and Ms Lea’s family group and the way in which the meeting was called and conducted. 

3                     If Mr and Ms Lea, or anybody else, had any concern about the state of the anthropological evidence, they should have sought an adjournment of the meeting.  If the majority agreed, then the matter could have been stood over until such time as further anthropological evidence was available.  That course was not taken.  In those circumstances the validity of the meeting cannot be challenged on the basis of the adequacy of the anthropological evidence.

4                     As to the way in which the meeting was called and conducted, the criticisms are fragmented.  No real opportunity has been offered to the officers of Queensland South Native Title Service (which called the meeting) to respond.  It is said that a meeting of the claim group could only be called with the approval of the 12 persons who were then applicants.  No basis for that assertion has been demonstrated.  It seems that it is based upon an understanding that previously, the applicant had acted only upon the unanimous view of the 12 members of the group.  However, that is no basis for restricting the capacity of any member of the claim group to call a meeting.  As far as I can see, it was open to any person to do so.  I see no reason to doubt that the meeting was properly called.

5                     Secondly, it was said that the resolutions were complex and required more consideration than could be given to them in the time available.  That was a matter for the meeting.  If anybody present felt that more time was required, then the course to be followed was to seek an adjournment of the meeting.  That was not done.  It is then said that the voting was a “shemozzle” or “a dog’s breakfast”.  No details of those allegations have been given.  As far as I can see, there is no reason to doubt that the votes were cast and counted in accordance with the usual practice.

6                     Finally, it is said that certain nominations by Mr and Ms Lea’s family of candidates for membership of the applicant group were not accepted.  There is, however, no evidence of this.  It does not appear from any of the affidavits, and so there has been no opportunity to rebut the assertion.  I cannot act upon a bare assertion.  I conclude that subject only to the question of the validity of resolution 6, the meeting was valid.  I see no reason to doubt the validity of resolution 11, save to the extent that it is dependent upon the validity of resolution 6. 

7                     The difficulty with resolution 6 is that it changes the composition of the claim group but was, it seems, adopted by the vote of both the members of the claim group as then constituted and those who were to become members of the claim group as a result of the adoption of the resolution.  It may be that the numbers are such that the resolution would have been passed in any event, in which case it would seem to me that the resolution is valid.  On the other hand, if there is any reason to believe that the outcome was affected by the inclusion of votes by people who were not, themselves, members of the claim group, then the position may be otherwise.  I propose to adjourn the application to allow that matter to be investigated. 

8                     It is unfortunate that the progress of this application should be marred by disagreement amongst members of the claim group.  However the only way in which a claim group can carry on business is by meeting and voting.  The result may not always be acceptable to everybody, but we have not yet found an alternative to rule by majority vote.  The order that I will make is that the application be adjourned.

Associate:

Dated:         28 July 2009