Case: Woodridge v Minister for Land and Water Conservation for the State of New South Wales [2001] FCA 419 ; (2001) 108 FCR 527
Outcome: cited
Woodridge v Minister for Land and Water Conservation for the State of New South Wales [2001] FCA 419 ; (2001) 108 FCR 527, Katz J considered the proposed joinder of the New South Wales Farmers' Association pursuant to a notification under s 84(3)(b) of the Act. His Honour denied the Association party status on the basis that it had failed to establish its possession of interests which might be affected by a native title determination in either sense of: (a) proprietary or contractual interests in the land the subject of the application; or (b) conducting activities which may be adversely affected by such a determination. His Honour held, following the judgments in Byron Environment Centre that a body that represents the interests of others whose members have interests that may be affected does not, for that reason alone, become a person whose interests are affected. Katz J distinguished the Gunai decision and its acceptance by Lockhart J on the basis that the Lake Tyers Beach Sports and Angling Club was not a legal person, separate from its individual members. His Honour said that to recognise 'the Club' as a party was simply an informal method of recognising its individual members as parties. He observed that Lockhart J appeared to be conscious of the Club's unincorporated status. In Harrington-Smith , Lindgren J referred to the Byron Environment Centre case and the Woodridge decision and said (at 2): do not find it necessary to refer to the discussion of the matter in those cases, beyond noting that they establish that a society, organisation, association or other body which voices, protects or promotes the concerns and interests of its members does not, by reason of that circumstance alone, have "interests [which] may be affected by a determination in the proceedings" for the purposes of subs 84(5) of the Act.' Applying that proposition to the position of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, his Honour refused its application for joinder. See also Adnyamatha People v South Australia [2003] FCA 1377 ; (2003) 133 FCR 242 (Mansfield J). In the present case WAFIC does not take issue with what Lindgren J drew from Byron Environmental Centre and Woodridge . Rather, WAFIC contended that its factual position differed from that of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy in a material way. It relied in particular upon WAFIC's representation on, and participation in, advisory committees established under the FRMA. This participation, it was said, included representing the interests of its members by presenting and promoting its members' views with respect to fishery management and protection policy and acting as an intermediary between government and industry. It referred to the formulation of cohesive industry policy. It was contended that WAFIC's participation in these committees is essentially in its own right and on behalf of 'industry' and not merely on behalf of any particular member of WAFIC. An impact on fisheries in the claim area would or could have an effect on management of fisheries outside or partly outside the claim area. WAFIC submitted that the cases which suggest that an industry body does not have an entitlement to participate in the native title claim in its own right have not dealt with an industry body with statutory functions in resource management under existing statutes. It also referred to Nicholson J's decision to allow WAFIC's application to be joined in Ngaluma Ingibandi and it was submitted that unless the view was formed that Nicholson J was clearly in error in allowing WAFIC's notice, then WAFIC ought to be joined as a party to the claim. However, the basis upon which his Honour made the joinder order is not evident as there were no reasons published for the decision. In the alternative, WAFIC submitted that it should be '... joined as a party as agent for specified parties under s 84B of the Native Title Act '. This submission misconceives the operation of s 84B which provides: A party to a proceeding may appoint a society, organisation, association or other body to act as agent on behalf of the party in relation to the proceeding. The same body may act as agent for 2 or more parties in the same proceeding.' The status of 'agent' under s 84B of the Act is qualitatively different from that of party.