Edited Reasons - Registration test decision

Application name	Widi People of the Nebo Estate # 1 	
Name of applicant	Eileen Beryl Pegler, Paul Royce Butterworth, Lorraine Joyce McLennan, Ronald J Watson, Kenneth Stewuart Peters Dodd, Graham Sauney, Oswald Alfred Skeen, Athol Goltz, Linda Joyce Wailu and Marilyn Joyce Elizabeth Duncan	
State/territory/region	Queensland 	
NNTT file no.	QC2006/14	
Federal Court of Australia file no.	QUD372/2006	
Date application made	4 July 2014  	
Name of delegate	Nadja Mack	
I have considered this claim for registration against each of the conditions contained in ss. 190B and 190C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth).
For the reasons attached, I do accept this claim for registration pursuant to s. 190A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth). 
	Date of decision: 12 August 2014 		

___________________________________

Nadja Mack
Delegate of the Native Title Registrar pursuant to
sections 190, 190A, 190B, 190C, 190D of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) under an instrument of delegation dated 30 July 2013 and made pursuant to s. 99 of the Act. 

Reasons for decision
Table of contents
Introduction
Application overview
Registration test
Information considered when making the decision
Procedural fairness steps
Procedural and other conditions: s. 190C
Subsection 190C(2) Information etc. required by ss. 61 and 62
Native title claim group: s. 61(1)
Name and address for service: s. 61(3)
Native title claim group named/described: s. 61(4)
Affidavits in prescribed form: s. 62(1)(a)
Application contains details required by s. 62(2): s. 62(1)(b)
Information about the boundaries of the area: s. 62(2)(a)
Map of external boundaries of the area: s. 62(2)(b)
Searches: s. 62(2)(c)
Description of native title rights and interests: s. 62(2)(d)
Description of factual basis: s. 62(2)(e)
Activities: s. 62(2)(f)
Other applications: s. 62(2)(g)
Section 24MD(6B)(c) notices: s. 62(2)(ga)
Section 29 notices: s. 62(2)(h)
Subsection 190C(3) No common claimants in previous overlapping applications
Subsection 190C(4) Authorisation/certification
Merit conditions: s. 190B
Subsection 190B(2) Identification of area subject to native title
Subsection 190B(3) Identification of the native title claim group
Subsection 190B(4) Native title rights and interests identifiable
Subsection 190B(5) Factual basis for claimed native title
Combined result for s. 190B(5)
Subsection 190B(6) Prima facie case
Subsection 190B(7) Traditional physical connection
Subsection 190B(8) No failure to comply with s. 61A
Reasons for s. 61A(1)
Reasons for s. 61A(2)
Reasons for s. 61A(3)
Subsection 190B(9) No extinguishment etc. of claimed native title
Reasons for s. 190B(9)(a):
Reasons for s. 190B(9)(b)
Reasons for s. 190B(9)(c)
Attachment A Summary of registration test result

Introduction
This document sets out my reasons, as a delegate of the Native Title Registrar (the Registrar), for the decision to accept the further amended Widi People of the Nebo Estate # 1 claimant application (the application) for registration pursuant to s. 190A of the Act. 
I note that all references in these reasons to legislative sections refer to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) which I shall call ‘the Act’, as in force on the day this decision is made, unless otherwise specified. Please refer to the Act for the exact wording of each condition. 
Application overview
On 7 July 2014 the Registrar received from the Registrar of the Federal Court (the Court) a copy of the application, filed on 3 July 2014 pursuant to leave granted by Justice Collier on 23 June 2014.
Receipt of the application pursuant to s. 64(4) has triggered the Registrar’s duty to consider the claim made in the amended application under s. 190A.
I am satisfied that neither subsection 190A(1A) nor subsection 190A(6A) apply. 
Therefore, in accordance with subsection 190A(6) I must accept the claim for registration if it satisfies all of the conditions in ss. 190B and 190C. This is commonly referred to as the registration test.
Registration test
Section 190B sets out conditions that test particular merits of the claim for native title. Section 190C sets out conditions about ‘procedural and other matters’. Included among the procedural conditions is a requirement that the application must contain certain specified information and documents. In my reasons below I consider the s. 190C requirements first, in order to assess whether the application contains the information and documents required by s. 190C before turning to questions regarding the merit of that material for the purposes of s. 190B.
Pursuant to s. 190A(6) , the claim in the application must be accepted for registration because it does satisfy all of the conditions in ss. 190B and 190C. 
Information considered when making the decision
For the purpose of the registration test, I have had regard to the information contained in the following documents:
•	Form 1, including attachments and s. 62(1) affidavits as filed with the Court on 3 July 2014  pursuant to leave granted by Justice Collier on 23 June 2013.
•	Tribunal’s Geospatial Services ‘Geospatial Report and Overlap Analysis’ (the Geospatial Report), dated 15 July 2014, being an expert analysis of the external and internal boundary descriptions and mapping of the application area and an overlap analysis against the Register, Schedule of Applications, determinations, agreements and s. 29 notices and equivalent. 
I have not considered any information that may have been provided to the Tribunal in the course of the Tribunal providing assistance under ss. 24BF, 24CF, 24CI, 24DG, 24DJ, 31, 44B, 44F, 86F or 203BK, without the prior written consent of the person who provided the Tribunal with that information, either in relation to this claimant application or any other claimant application or any other type of application, as required of me under the Act.
Also, I have not considered any information that may have been provided to the Tribunal in the course of its mediation functions in relation to this or any other claimant application. I take this approach because matters disclosed in mediation are ‘without prejudice’. Further, mediation is private as between the parties and is also generally confidential (see ss. 94K and 94L of the Act).
Procedural fairness steps
As a delegate of the Registrar and as a Commonwealth Officer, when I make my decision about whether or not to accept this application for registration I am bound by the principles of administrative law, including the rules of procedural fairness, which seek to ensure that decisions are made in a fair, just and unbiased way. I note that the common law duty to afford procedural fairness may be excluded by express terms of the statute under which the administrative decision is made or by any necessary implication—Hazelbane v Doepel [2008] FCA 290 at [23] to [31]. The steps that I and other officers of the Tribunal have undertaken to ensure procedural fairness is observed, are as follows:
On 28 July 2014, the case manager for this matter sent a letter to the State, advising that any submissions in relation to the application should be provided to the Registrar by 14 September 2014. On 8 August 2014 the case manager advised the State that, as the matter is future act affected, the delegate would use her best endeavours to make a decision by 14 August 2014. Any submission by the State would be due by 12 August 2014. On the same day the State advised that it would not make a submission and no submissions were received.

Procedural and other conditions: s. 190C
Subsection 190C(2)
Information etc. required by ss. 61 and 62
The Registrar/delegate must be satisfied that the application contains all details and other information, and is accompanied by any affidavit or other document, required by sections 61 and 62. 
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190C(2), because it does contain all of the details and other information and documents required by ss. 61 and 62, as set out in the reasons below. 
In reaching my decision for the condition in s. 190C(2), I understand that this condition is procedural only and simply requires me to be satisfied that the application contains the information and details, and is accompanied by the documents, prescribed by ss. 61 and 62. This condition does not require me to undertake any merit or qualitative assessment of the material for the purposes of s. 190C(2)—Doepel at [16] and also at [35] to [39]. 
It is also my view that I need only consider those parts of ss. 61 and 62 which impose requirements relating to the application containing certain details and information or being accompanied by any affidavit or other document (as specified in s. 190C(2)). I therefore do not consider the requirements of s. 61(2), as it imposes no obligations of this nature in relation to the application.  I am also of the view that I do not need to consider the requirements of s. 61(5). The matters in ss. 61(5)(a), (b) and (d) relating to the Court’s prescribed form, filing in the Court and payment of fees, in my view, are matters for the Court. They do not, in my view, require any separate consideration by the Registrar. Paragraph 61(5)(c), which requires that the application contain such information as is prescribed, does not need to be considered by me under s. 190C(2), as I already test these things under s. 190C(2) where required by those parts of ss. 61 and 62 which actually identify the details/other information that must be in the application and the accompanying prescribed affidavit/documents.
Turning to each of the particular parts of ss. 61 and 62 which require the application to contain details/other information or to be accompanied by an affidavit or other documents:
Native title claim group: s. 61(1)
The application must be made by a person or persons authorised by all of the persons (the native title claim group) who, according to their traditional laws and customs, hold the common or group rights and interests comprising the particular native title claimed, provided the person or persons are also included in the native title claim group.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 61(1).
Part A of the application contains information regarding the persons authorised to make this application (pages 2 and 3 list the names of the persons comprising the applicant), and details regarding their authorisation by the native title claim group. Schedule A of the application describes the native title claim group as comprising the biological or adopted descendents of the persons listed at 3(a) to (m) (the apical ancestors).
I have confined my assessment of this requirement to the information contained in the application as this assessment does not involve me going beyond the application, nor does it require me to undertake any form of merit assessment of the material to determine if I am satisfied whether ‘in reality’ the native title claim group described is the correct native title claim group—Doepel at [37] and [39]. 
There is nothing on the face of the application that leads me to conclude that the description of the native title claim group does not include all of the persons in the native title group, or that it is a subgroup of the native title claim group. 
Name and address for service: s. 61(3)
The application must state the name and address for service of the person who is, or persons who are, the applicant.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 61(3)—Part B of the application contains the name and address for service of the persons who are the applicant.
Native title claim group named/described: s. 61(4)
The application must:
(a)	name the persons in the native title claim group, or
(b)	otherwise describe the persons in the native title claim group sufficiently clearly so that it can be ascertained whether any particular person is one of those persons.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 61(4)—Schedule A of the application contains a description of the persons in the native title claim group.
Affidavits in prescribed form: s. 62(1)(a)
The application must be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the applicant that:
(i)	the applicant believes the native title rights and interests claimed by the native title claim group have not been extinguished in relation to any part of the area covered by the application, and 
(ii)	the applicant believes that none of the area covered by the application is also covered by an approved determination of native title, and
(iii)	the applicant believes all of the statements made in the application are true, and
(iv)	the applicant is authorised by all the persons in the native title claim group to make the application and to deal with matters arising in relation to it, and
(v)	setting out details of the process of decision-making complied with in authorising the applicant to make the application and to deal with matters arising in relation to it. 
The application is accompanied by the affidavit required by s. 62(1)(a). The application is accompanied by two affidavits each from each of ten persons who comprise the applicant. 
The affidavits are signed and competently witnessed and both affidavits read together make all the statements required by this section including that the applicant is included in the native title claim group.
Application contains details required by s. 62(2): s. 62(1)(b)
The application must contain the details specified in s. 62(2). 
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(1)(b). 
The application does contain the details specified in ss. 62(2)(a) to (h), as identified in the reasons below.
Information about the boundaries of the area: s. 62(2)(a)
The application must contain information, whether by physical description or otherwise, that enables the following boundaries to be identified:
(i)	the area covered by the application, and
(ii)	any areas within those boundaries that are not covered by the application.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(a)—Schedule B and Attachment B of the application contain information about the boundaries of the area referred to in ss. 62(2)(a)(i) and (ii).
Map of external boundaries of the area: s. 62(2)(b)
The application must contain a map showing the boundaries of the area mentioned in s. 62(2)(a)(i).
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(b)—Attachment C contains a map of the external boundaries of the area referred to in s. 62(2)(b).
Searches: s. 62(2)(c)
The application must contain the details and results of all searches carried out by or on behalf of the native title claim group to determine the existence of any non-native title rights and interests in relation to the land and waters in the area covered by the application.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(c)—Schedule D of the application states that the applicant’s legal representative has not carried out any searches on behalf of the applicant.
Description of native title rights and interests: s. 62(2)(d)
The application must contain a description of native title rights and interests claimed in relation to particular lands and waters (including any activities in exercise of those rights and interests), but not merely consisting of a statement to the effect that the native title rights and interests are all native title rights and interests that may exist, or that have not been extinguished, at law.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(d)—Schedule E of the application contains a description of the native title rights and interests claimed.
Description of factual basis: s. 62(2)(e)
The application must contain a general description of the factual basis on which it is asserted that the native title rights and interests claimed exist, and in particular that:
(i)	the native title claim group have, and the predecessors of those persons had, an association with the area, and
(ii)	there exist traditional laws and customs that give rise to the claimed native title, and
(iii)	the native title claim group have continued to hold the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(e)—Attachment F, consisting of affidavits from Kenneth Dodd, Linda Wailu, Graham Sauney,  [Person 1 – name deleted] and the preliminary anthropological report of Mr [Anthropologist 1 – name deleted] (with the title ‘Registration Report for the Widi People of the Nebo Estate, Birri Gubba Region, Central Queensland’ of July 2013 by [Anthropologist 1 – name deleted], (‘Registration Report’)). They contain a general description of the factual basis. 
I have only considered whether the information regarding the claimants’ factual basis contained in Attachment F, in a general sense, addresses each of the particular assertions at s. 62(2)(e)(i) to (iii) and have not undertaken an assessment of its sufficiency. Any ‘genuine assessment’ of the details/information contained in the application at s. 62(2)(e), is to be undertaken by the Registrar when assessing the applicant’s factual basis for the purposes of s. 190B(5)—Gudjala FC at [92].   
Activities: s. 62(2)(f)
If the native title claim group currently carries out any activities in relation to the area claimed, the application must contain details of those activities.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(f)—Schedule G of the application contains details of activities currently being carried out by the native title claim group in relation to the application area. Schedule G also refers to the documents contained in Attachment F.
Other applications: s. 62(2)(g)
The application must contain details of any other applications to the High Court, Federal Court or a recognised state/territory body of which the applicant is aware, that have been made in relation to the whole or part of the area covered by the application and that seek a determination of native title or of compensation in relation to native title.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(g)—Schedule H of the application states that the applicant is not aware of any such other current applications. 
Section 24MD(6B)(c) notices: s. 62(2)(ga)
The application must contain details of any notification under s. 24MD(6B)(c) of which the applicant is aware, that have been given and that relate to the whole or part of the area covered by the application.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(ga)—Schedule HA of the application states that the applicant is not aware of notifications under s. 24MD(6B)(c). 
Section 29 notices: s. 62(2)(h)
The application must contain details of any notices given under s. 29 (or under a corresponding provision of a law of a state or territory) of which the applicant is aware that relate to the whole or a part of the area covered by the application.
The application contains all details and other information required by s. 62(2)(h)—Schedule I of the application refers to Attachment I which contains information that pertains to s. 29 notices of which the applicant is aware that relate to the application area ‘as at 24 September 2013’. I note that the Geospatial Report identifies two notices which fall within the external boundary of this application that were in notification when this application was filed. The two notices are not included in the applicant’s list in Attachment I.
Subsection 190C(3)
No common claimants in previous overlapping applications
The Registrar/delegate must be satisfied that no person included in the native title claim group for the application (the current application) was a member of the native title claim group for any previous application if:
(a)	the previous application covered the whole or part of the area covered by the current application, and
(b)	the previous application was on the Register of Native Title Claims when the current application was made, and
(c)	the entry was made, or not removed, as a result of the previous application being considered for registration under s. 190A.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190C(3).
The requirement that the Registrar be satisfied in the terms set out in s. 190C(3) is only triggered if all of the conditions found in ss. 190C(3)(a), (b) and (c) are satisfied—Western Australia v Strickland (2000) 99 FCR 33; [2000] FCA 652 (Strickland FC)—at [9]. Section 190C(3) may involve the Registrar addressing information ‘otherwise available’—Doepel at [16]. 
I have considered the Geospatial Report which identifies that there were no previously registered applications in relation to the area covered by this application at the time it was made. (i.e. the date the application was filed in Court—Strickland FC at [44] and [45]). 
Subsection 190C(4)
Authorisation/certification
Under s. 190C(4) the Registrar/delegate must be satisfied that either:
(a)	the application has been certified under Part 11 by each representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body that could certify the application, or
(b)	the applicant is a member of the native title claim group and is authorised to make the application, and deal with matters arising in relation to it, by all the other persons in the native title claim group.

Note: The word authorise is defined in section 251B.

Section 251B provides that for the purposes of this Act, all the persons in a native title claim group authorise a person or persons to make a native title determination application  . . . and to deal with matters arising in relation to it, if:
a)	where there is a process of decision–making that, under the traditional laws and customs of the persons in the native title claim group, must be complied with in relation to authorising things of that kind—the persons in the native title claim group . . . authorise the person or persons to make the application and to deal with the matters in accordance with that process; or 
b)	where there is no such process—the persons in the native title claim group . . . authorise the other person or persons to make the application and to deal with the matters in accordance with a process of decision–making agreed to and adopted, by the persons in the native title claim group . . . in relation to authorising the making of the application and dealing with the matters, or in relation to doing things of that kind. 
I must be satisfied that the requirements set out in either ss. 190C(4)(a) or (b) are met, in order for the condition of s. 190C(4) to be satisfied. 
Schedule R of the application states that the application has been certified by the North Queensland Land Council (NQLC) pursuant to s. 203BE(2). The certificate is attached at Attachment R. 
As the application is certified, the requirements of s. 190C(4)(a) must be met.
For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that the requirements of s. 190C(4)(a) are met.
The nature of the task at s. 190C(4)(a)
Section 190C(4)(a) imposes upon the Registrar conditions which, according to Mansfield J in Doepel, are straightforward—at [72]. All that the task requires of me is that I be ‘satisfied about the fact of certification by an appropriate representative body’—Doepel at [78], which necessarily entails:
•	identifying the relevant native title representative body and being satisfied of their power under Part 11 to issue the certificate; and  
•	being satisfied that the certification meets the requirements of s. 203BE—Doepel at [80]-[81]. 
Identification of the representative body and their power to certify
The document at Attachment R titled ‘Certificate for an application for a determination of native title under section 203BE of the Native Title Act (Cth)’ and dated 25 July 2013 is signed by [Director North Queensland Land Council – name deleted], Director North Queensland Land Council. 
The geospatial assessment identifies that NQLC is the only representative body for the area covered by the application. 
Section 203BE(1) is to the effect that a representative body is empowered with certification functions, including the ability to certify (in writing) applications for a determination of native title in relation to land and waters that fall wholly or partly within the areas for which that body is the representative body: see s. 203BE(1)(a). 
Having regard to the information contained in the certificate and the geospatial assessment I am satisfied that, as at 25 July 2013, the NQLC was the relevant representative body for the application area and that it was within its power to issue the certificate.
The requirements of s. 203BE
To be satisfied about ‘the fact of certification’—Doepel at [78], the certification must meet the requirements of s. 203BE, namely ss. 203BE(4)(a) to (c).
I note that the Registrar has no power to undertake a qualitative assessment or ‘critical analysis’ of the content of the certificate, beyond that which is set out in s. 203BE. That is, her task is confined to purely considering ‘its compliance with the requirements of s 203BE’―Doepel at [81] and [82].
Subsection 203BE(4)(a)
Subsection 203BE(4)(a) requires a statement from the representative body confirming that they hold the opinion that the requirements of subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) have been met. 
That certificate contains the required statement.
Subsection 203BE(4)(b)
Pursuant to s. 203BE(4)(b) the certificate must also briefly set out the body’s reasons for being of the opinion set out in s. 203BE(4)(a). 
In that regard, the certificate sets out details pertaining to the authorisation of the applicant and also the identification of the persons in the native title claim group, which include that: 
•	An authorisation meeting was held in Mackay on 16 July 2013 at which decisions were made following an agreed to, and adopted decision-making process.
•	At the meeting the members of the claim group, having regard to the agreed decision-making process adopted by the native title claim group, authorised the ten persons jointly comprising the applicant to be the new applicant for this amended claim and to deal with all maters arising in relation to it. 
•	The identification of the native title claim group has involved the engagement of consultant anthropologists  who have undertaken extensive research in the region, including research on the identity of the claim group by interviewing a cross-section of knowledgeable Elders and informants and researching and cross-checking of secondary resources.
•	The description of the native title claim group has been the subject of consideration and authorisation by the members of the native title claim group and instructions given to the legal representatives of the claimants confirming the description of the native title claim group.
•	An anthropological report in respect of the claim group has been prepared and considered by members of the claim group and reviewed internally by the NQLC in-house anthropologist.
The certificate briefly sets out the body’s reasons for being of the opinion in s. 203BE(4)(a). 
Subsection 203BE(4)(c)
This subsection applies where the application area is also covered by an overlapping application for determination of native title. 
Where applicable, the certificate must also set out what has been done by the representative body to meet the requirements of s. 203BE(3) in order to comply with s. 203BE(4)(c). 
The certificate states, and the geospatial assessment confirms, that the area of the application is not also covered by any other application. The certificate further states that the NQLC does not intend to lodge any overlapping claim nor is it aware of any other person’s intent to do so.
Merit conditions: s. 190B
Subsection 190B(2)
Identification of area subject to native title
The Registrar must be satisfied that the information and map contained in the application as required by ss. 62(2)(a) and (b) are sufficient for it to be said with reasonable certainty whether native title rights and interests are claimed in relation to particular land or waters.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(2). 
Area covered by the application 
Schedule B of the application states that the ‘external boundary of the amended application area is shown on the map and marked ‘Attachment C’ and is also identified by reference to the amended external boundary description set out in ‘Attachment B’.’
Attachment B is titled ‘QUD372/2006 WIRI CORE COUNTRY CLAIM (QC2006/014) – Amended’. It describes the application area by a metes and bounds external description, referencing native title determination applications, cadastral parcels, watersheds, roads, rivers and geographic coordinates referenced to GDA94.
Areas not covered by the application—internal boundaries
Attachment B specifically excludes four (dismissed/discontinued) native title applications and numerous cadastral parcels and part cadastral parcels.
In addition, Schedule B lists general exclusions to the land and waters covered by the application. 
Schedule C refers to Attachment C for an A3 map that is, in part, illegible and includes:
•	The application area depicted by a stipple;
•	Topographic background;
•	Two (2) insets showing cadastral parcels;
•	Scalebar, northpoint, coordinate grid and locality map; and
•	Notes relating to the source, currency and datum of data used to prepare the map.
The geospatial assessment concludes that the description and map are consistent and identify the application area with reasonable certainty.
Having considered the geospatial assessment and the material before me, I am of the view that ‘the information and map contained in the application as required by ss. 62(2)(a) and (b) are sufficient for it to be said with reasonable certainty whether the native title rights and interests are claimed in relation to particular land or waters’.              
Subsection 190B(3)
Identification of the native title claim group
The Registrar must be satisfied that:
(a)	the persons in the native title claim group are named in the application, or
(b)	the persons in that group are described sufficiently clearly so that it can be ascertained whether any particular person is in that group.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(3).
Under this condition, I am required to be satisfied that one of either s. 190B(3)(a) or (b) has been met. The application does not name the persons in the native title claim group but contains this description in Schedule A:

1. The native title claim group is comprised by the Widi People who, according to traditional laws acknowledged, and customs observed: 
(a) are traditionally connected with the area described in Schedule B ("the area claimed") through:
- spiritual, religious, and physical associations;
- biological, classificatory or adoptive descent through the four grandparental lines of father's father, mother's father, father's mother, and mother's mother; and
- processes of succession.
(b) have communal native title in the application area, from which rights and interests derive.

2. By definition the claimants, in relation to the area claimed, are comprised by all persons descended-from the Widi ancestors identified in paragraph (3).

3. The Widi ancestors referred to in paragraph (2) are more particularly identified as follows: 
The Native Title Claim Group is described as those Widi People (Wiri Language People of the Nebo Estate) who are the biological or adopted descendants of the following people:
a. Jean White, mother of Albert Butterworth;
b. Mr Clark ('of Suttor Station') & Jinny (of 'Stockton Station'), whose known children are Charlie Clark and Dick Clark
c. Jinny (of 'Stockton Station’), whose known child (with Mr Watson) is Charlie Watson;
d. Siblings Tommy Emmerson/Iffley and Arthur Emmerson;
e. Roger ('of Nebo district'), whose known child is Emily Rogers;
f. Neddy Thorney, whose known child is Sarah Mate Mate nee Thorney/Sauney;
g. Sophie ('of Nebo'), whose known children are Jack Skeen, William Skeen and Norman Skeen;
h. Dick ('of Nebo'), whose known child is Sam Murray;
i. Billy ('of Nebo') & Molly (of 'Oxford Downs Station'), whose known children are Jessie and Billy Sullivan;
j. Harry Monsell Snr ('of Lake Elphinstone') whose known children are Lily Sullivan, Flora Doyle and Harry Monsell Jnr;
k. King ('of Fort Cooper') & Meg ('of Fort Cooper'), whose known children are Johnny, Mick, Mitchell Dalton, Paddy, Emma and Annie;
I. Ida, whose known child is Rene Hess ('from Nebo');
m. Maggie, whose known children are Norman Brown Snr, George 'Duke' Barker and Ina Darwin.

See anthropological report of [Anthropologist 1 – name deleted] (July 2013) at Chapter 3 annexed to ‘Attachment F’ for explanation on reformulation of the claim group description. 

Pursuant to subsection 190B(3)(b) I must be satisfied that the description is sufficiently clear so that it can be ascertained whether any particular person is in the native title claim group.
The task of the Registrar in examining a description of the native title claim group for the purpose of s. 190B(3) was the subject of consideration in Doepel. Its focus is upon the adequacy of the description to facilitate the identification of the members of the native title claim group, rather than upon its correctness—at [37] and [51]. 
Further, Carr J in State of Western Australia v Native Title Registrar (1999) 95 FCR 93 found, in the way native title claim groups were described, that:
[i]t may be necessary, on occasions, to engage in some factual inquiry when ascertaining whether any particular person is in the group as described. But that does not mean that the group has not been described sufficiently—at [67]. 
In my view, describing the claim group as the ‘descendants’ of certain named persons provides a sufficiently reliable and objective means by which to ascertain a person’s membership of the group. It may be that some factual inquiry may be required to ascertain how members of the claim group are descended from the named apical ancestors, but that would not mean that the group had not been sufficiently described. 
I am therefore of the view that the native title claim group is described sufficiently clearly to enable identification of any particular person in that group. 
Subsection 190B(4)
Native title rights and interests identifiable
The Registrar must be satisfied that the description contained in the application as required by s. 62(2)(d) is sufficient to allow the native title rights and interests claimed to be readily identified.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(4).
Section 190B(4) requires the Registrar to be satisfied that the description of the claimed native title rights and interests contained in the application is sufficient to allow the rights and interests to be readily identified. The description must be in a clear and easily understood manner—Doepel at [91], [92], [95], [98] to [101] and [123]. An assessment of whether the rights and interests can be established, prima facie, as ‘native title rights and interests,’ as defined in s. 223, will be made under s. 190B(6) below.
The native title rights and interests claimed are set out at Schedule E of the application as follows:
The rights and interests claimed in relation to 

1) Land and waters where there has been no prior extinguishment of Native Title or where section 238 (the non-extinguishment principle) applies:
The native title rights and interests claimed are the right to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the claim area as against the whole world, pursuant to the traditional laws and customs of the claim group but subject to the valid laws of the Commonwealth of Australia and State of Queensland.

2) All remaining land and waters within the claim area the Native Title rights and interests claimed are not to the exclusion of all others and are the rights and interests set out in Paragraph 3 below:

3):
a. the right to live on the claim area;
b. the right to move about, be present on, travel over and access the claim area; 
c. the right to cook, camp, erect shelters and other structures in the claim area; 
d. the right to speak for and make decisions about the claim area;
e. the right to control others' access;
f. the right to maintain and protect places and areas of importance, such as sacred sites, rock art, camping areas, burial grounds and archaeological remains in the claim area;
g. The right to conduct meetings in the claim area;
h. the right to use, hunt, fish, gather, take and enjoy natural resources, such as food, water, medicinal plants and trees, tubers, charcoal (made by using fire), firewood, ochre, stone, resin and wax;
i. the right to make fire;
j. the right to share, exchange or trade resources;
k. the right to control others' use and enjoyment of resources;
I. the right to engage in cultural activities, such as conducting ceremonies, births, burial rites, and holding meetings;
m. the right to teach cultural activities, such as teaching the significance of areas and places of importance;
n. the right to maintain, protect and prevent the misuse of cultural knowledge, customs and practices;
o. the right to determine and regulate membership of the claimant group.

The application does not include a claim for exclusive possession over previous non-exclusive possession act areas as defined under section 23F of the Native Title Act 1993 save where the Native Title Act 1993 and/or the common law allows such a claim to be part of the Native Title Determination application.
It is my view that the native title rights and interests as claimed in the application are understandable and have meaning. The description is sufficient to allow the native title rights and interests to be readily identified.   
Subsection 190B(5)
Factual basis for claimed native title
The Registrar must be satisfied that the factual basis on which it is asserted that the native title rights and interests claimed exist is sufficient to support the assertion. In particular, the factual basis must support the following assertions:
(a)	that the native title claim group have, and the predecessors of those persons had, an association with the area, and
(b)	that there exist traditional laws acknowledged by, and traditional customs observed by, the native title claim group that give rise to the claim to native title rights and interest, and
(c)	that the native title claim group have continued to hold the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(5) because the factual basis provided is sufficient to support each of the particularised assertions in s. 190B(5), as set out in my reasons below.
I have considered each of the three assertions set out in the three paragraphs of s. 190B(5) in turn before reaching this decision.
The nature of the task at s. 190B(5)
The Court has established clear principles which must guide the Registrar when assessing the sufficiency of an application’s factual basis material: 
•	the applicant is not required ‘to provide anything more than a general description of the factual basis’—Gudjala FC at [92].
•	the nature of the material provided need not be of the type that would prove the asserted facts—Gudjala FC at [92].
•	the Registrar is not to consider or deliberate upon the accuracy of the information/facts asserted—Doepel at [47]. 
•	the Registrar is to assume that the facts asserted are true, and to consider only whether they are capable of supporting the claimed rights and interests. That is, is the factual basis sufficient to support each of the assertions at s. 190B(5)—Doepel at [17]. 
Justice Dowsett in Gudjala People # 2 v Native title Registrar [2007] FCA 1167 (Gudjala 2007) and Gudjala People #2 v Native Title Registrar [2009] FCA 1572 (Gudjala 2009) gave specific content to each of the elements of the test at s. 190B(5)(a) to (c). The Full Court in Gudjala FC did not criticise the approach taken by Dowsett J (Gudjala FC at [90] to [96]). His Honour, in my view, took a consonant approach in Gudjala 2009. I set out the relevant elements of s. 190B(5), as interpreted by Dowsett J, in my assessment below.
Dowsett J also held that ‘it was necessary that the alleged facts support the claim that the identified claim group [emphasis added] (and not some other group) held the identified rights and interests (and not some other rights and interests)’—Gudjala 2007 at [39]. This, in my view, confirms the need for adequate specificity within the claimants’ factual basis material in order to satisfy the delegate of its sufficiency for the purpose of s. 190B(5).  
Information considered 
The applicant has provided the following material in support of the factual basis for the claim made in the application:
Schedule F refers to Attachment F and notes that it consists of affidavits from Kenneth Dodd, Linda Wailu, [Person 1 – name deleted] and Graham Sauney and ‘a preliminary anthropological report of Mr [Anthropologist 1 – name deleted] of July 2013’. As noted above, the report is titled ‘Registration Report for the Widi People of the Nebo Estate, Birri Gubba Region, Central Queensland’. 
By way of background, I note that the Registration Report on page 4 explains the reason why the claim group which was formerly referred to as the ‘Wiri People’ is now referred to as the ‘Widi People of the Nebo Estate’. The change was made ‘to distinguish the Widi People from other Wiri Language People that belong to different, localised, landowning groupings associated with other estates, for example the Yuwibara People of the Mackay Estate, or the Wangan People of the Clermont Estate. Nonetheless, the Widi People and other Wiri Language People all belong to the same regional society, that is, they are all members of the Birri Gubba Society’. The Registration Report on page 5, quoting from Rares J’s determination of the Jangga People’s application (McLennan on behalf of the Jangga People v State of Queensland  [2012] FCA 1082 at [20]) which in turn refers to [Anthropologist 1 – name deleted]‘s research, explains that the Birri Gubba society had a ‘clearly recognisable regional system of common languages, traditions, laws and customs within which the smaller tribal entities with their own dialects, as well as individual traditions, laws and customs existed’. On page 8 the Registration Report explains that there are ‘several’ Birri Gubba subsets in total, naming 11, two of which are said to be ‘arguable’ subsets.
On page 24 the Registration Report notes the recommendations [Anthropologist 1 – name deleted] made in relation to the extent of the Nebo Estate, which lead to the amendment of this application and the lodgment of a the Widi People of the Nebo Estate # 2 application ‘so that portions of the Nebo Estate not currently claimed by the Widi People can be claimed’.  I note from the Registration Report that the combined area of the two applications now covers almost all of the Nebo Estate but for one remaining portion on the north-western side that is presently not claimed as it is covered by an active application brought by another group and NQLC, the applicant’s legal representative, has a policy of not lodging overlapping applications.  

Reasons for section 190B(5)(a)—that the native title claim group have, and the predecessors of those persons had, an association with the area
The Law
In my consideration of the applicant's factual basis material for the purposes of the assertion at s. 190B(5)(a), I am of the view that where that material discloses only an association with particular parts of the claim area, this may not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the condition —Martin at [26]. Similarly, the material may be insufficient where it fails to particularise the type of association asserted (it could be physical or spiritual) and contains only broad statements with no geographical particularity—Martin at [26]. 
The Court discussed the requirements of the factual basis material at s. 190B(5)(a) in Gudjala 2007, where it held that the following kind of information may be necessary to support the assertion:
•	that the claim group as a whole presently has an association with the area, although it is not a requirement that all members must have had an association at all times; and 
•	that there has been an association between the predecessors of the whole group and the area over the period since sovereignty—at [52].
I note that in Gudjala 2007, Dowsett J commented in relation to the above, that 'even if it be accepted that all members of the claim group are descended from people who had an association with the claim area at the time of European settlement, that says nothing about the history of such association since that time. Some members of the claim group and their predecessors may be, or may have been, so associated, but that does not lead to the conclusion that the claim group as a whole, and their predecessors, were similarly associated'—at [51]. 
The claimants factual basis material in support of the assertion at s. 190B(5)(a)
The Registration Report in part 5 states under the heading ‘NTCG and its predecessors have association with the area’ that the ethnographic, archival and literature connection research undertaken by [Anthropologist 1 – name deleted] evidence that the claim group and its predecessors have and had an association with the Nebo Estate, being essentially the combined area of this application and the Widi People of the Nebo Estate # 2 application. The relevant research material is summarised in a table (Figure 10 of the Registration Report) which highlights places in the Nebo Estate associated with successive generations of Widi People from each of the ten lineages identified as being part of the claim group. In addition, the Registration Report includes a map (Figure 7) which shows the locations of the towns and stations listed in the table. The Registration Report concludes that it is evident that the traditional association of Widi People were carried through the 20th century and into the present by successive generations. This is demonstrated, the Registration Report states, by how predecessors of the claim group in interviews with [Person 2 – name deleted] and also the following generations consistently identified and identify themselves as being ‘of Nebo’ or ‘of the Nebo district’ or of a particular station in the Nebo Estate. The town of Nebo within the application area, located close to the southern boundary.
In addition the affidavits attached to Schedule F by four members of the claim group provide further details in relation to the past and present association of the Widi People with the claim area. Below is a summary of some of the examples given:
[Person 1 – name deleted]:	At [21] [Person 1 – name deleted] explains that he has been told by his mother and uncle that Wiri country includes places like Homevale Station, Burton Downs, Nebo, Bungella, Hail Creek and Elphinstone. These places are either within the claim area or in the vicinity of it.
At [15] the affidavit refers to  [Dreaming being – name deleted], which I understand to be located within or close to this application area. At [4] [Person 1 – name deleted] states that his [Person 3 – name deleted] told him the story about [Direct quote from affidavit 1 – text deleted]. At [23] he also speaks about [Direct quote from affidavit 2 – text deleted], which is located within the area of Widi People of the Nebo Estate # 2 claim, noting that this is a place that ‘Wiri people strongly identify with’. It is a place he has visited with his uncle and son as well as his grandson and younger brother [24]. At [26] he explains that all Wiri People have the same rights in country, but each of the families have a close association and responsibility for certain parts of country. For his family the close connection is with [Direct quote from affidavit 3 – text deleted]. 
[Person 4 – name deleted]: 	At [8] he states that he lived five years at Urannah Station which is located within the claim area. Three times a year he does spot burning on that station as part of his traditional management of Wiri land. At [21] [Person 4 – name deleted] speaks of having seen [Direct quote from affidavit 4 – text deleted].
Linda Wailu: 	At [26] Mrs Wailu also notes the importance of [Direct quote from affidavit 5 – text deleted]. 
Graham Ian Sauney: 	At [8] he states that his father, a well known stock man, worked on Homevale, St Albans, Turrawulla and Exmore pastoral stations which are all located within Wiri country and I can see that they are either within or in close proximity to the claim area. At [43] Mr Sauney states that he lived in Eton which is part of Wiri country (both not covered by the two claims, I note) and that he has ‘a right to live on my country because my [Person 5 – name deleted] was born on and lived on country, my father lived on country and I live on country’. 
The above quoted material possesses sufficient geographical particularity to support an assertion of an association held by the claim group members and their predecessors with locations within this claim area. Whilst not part of the test before me, I note that the material also supports an assertion of an association held in relation to the whole of the Widi/Wiri People application areas combined. In my view, the fact that this application is supplemented by the Widi People of the Nebo Estate # 2 claim is significant in this regard and I refer to [Anthropologist 1 – name deleted]’s explanation (quoted above) for bringing the additional claim.
The material indicates that there is both a physical and spiritual aspect to the association of the claim group with this claim area (and in relation to the whole of two application areas combined). See for example [Anthropologist 1 – name deleted] and the above affidavits stating that particular members of the claim group live in the area and their predecessors lived and worked there, have been born there or are buried there. Apart from such physical association, the material contains the assertion of a spiritual association with certain places. For example [Direct quote from affidavit 6 – text deleted].
The material provides information about the association of at least some of the ancestors listed in Schedule A with the claim area around the time of European settlement which is said to have begun by the early 1860s or in the period shortly after. I understand the material to assert that the situation regarding the association of the claim group members with the area in the period between sovereignty and European settlement remained unchanged. The information before me, in my view, allows me to make the inference that the situation at settlement was the same as at sovereignty. On that basis, I am of the view that the material supports the assertion that at least some of the ancestors had an association with the claim area around the time of European settlement (and all of the apical ancestors had an association with the combined area of the applications at that time). 
I am further of the view that the material before me is sufficient to support an assertion of an association between the whole group by providing some tangible examples, originating from some members of the claim group, of how the whole group and its predecessors have been associated with the area over the period since sovereignty. 
In summary, I find that I am satisfied on the material before me that the application provides a sufficient factual basis to support the assertion that the group as a whole have, and the predecessors of the group had, an association with the claim area. 

Reasons for section 190B(5)(b)—that there exist traditional laws acknowledged by, and traditional customs observed by, the native title claim group that give rise to the claim to native title rights and interests
The claimants factual basis material in support of the assertion at s. 190B(5)(b)
As noted above, the relevant society is the Birri Gubba society and I refer to my summary of information contained in the Registration Report in relation to this society above. In addition, the Registration Report under the heading ‘Existence and continuity of traditional laws and customs’ states that recent connection research has led [Anthropologist 1 – name deleted]  to the conclusion that the society has ten sets of traditional laws and customs. Each has a system comprising formal rules, informal conventions and various arising customary practices that are acknowledged and observed by the members of the society. The Registration Report sets out details for each of these sets with regard to the pre-sovereignty society of the Birri Gubba region, their continuity from Initial European Settlement in 1861 to the present and how they give rise to the claim of particular native title rights and interests in the Nebo Estate.
Below is a brief summary of the information provided in the registration report in relation to each of these sets, set out as they are presented in the Registration Report:
Social organisation
How the society is in fact regional in nature
The regional system regulates intergroup activity and is underpinned by certain commonalities or broadly consistent and harmonised systems of recruitment to land-owning groupings, land tenure, kinship, class, totems, marriage, punishment for transgression, age, gender and knowledge based authority and religious beliefs. Pursuant to such commonalities, Bura Groupings have a set of traditional laws and customs by which they can negotiate and undertake activities such as trade, travel, encampment on other’s land, intermarriage, festivities, ceremonies of male or female initiation and mortuary rites. The regional system adapted to Initial European Settlement and the Birri Gubba Region over the 20th century came to comprise three sub-regions: the Western, Northern and Southern and their respective sub-sets. The regional system gives rise to the claimed native title rights and interests to control others’ access to the land and waters, their use and enjoyment of resources and the right to share, exchange or trade resources.  
How it obtains its members through recruitment to a localized, land-owning grouping (a ‘subset’)
It is highly likely that the pre-sovereignty society used either patrifiliation or patrilineal descent as a principal rule governing recruitment to the Bura Groupings. Initial European Settlement resulted in significant changes to the circumstances as the society had to address situations whereby children were being fathered by men, or being born to women, outside the society. In response, parental filiation became the governing rule. This system gives rise to the claimed native title right to determine and regulate membership of the Widi People and thus who holds rights and interests in the lands and waters of the Nebo Estate.
How each subset owns a defined tract of land and waters
The Birri Gubba Region was occupied by groupings more or less evenly spaced out along the waterways. Bura groupings were adaptable and there are examples of succession or movement to other tracts of land or changes to the names of Bura groupings which demonstrate that the pre-sovereignty society was adapting to the changes caused by Initial European Settlement in 1861. This adaption was pursuant to the traditional laws and customs of the society. The decline of Aboriginal populations over subsequent decades eventually meant that the framework of Bura Groupings was no longer viable and consequently remnant populations coalesced into enlarged Bura Groupings (which were recorded by [Person 2 – name deleted] as tribes in 1938). Since the advent of native title and cultural heritage management work substantially controlled by and involving Aboriginal people, there has been a renewed use of the tribal names. This is why contemporary Birri Gubba People will employ terms like Jangga and Widi. The system of land tenure gives rise to the claimed native title rights referred to in Schedule E as rights 3) a) to l). 
Regulating the activity of the subsets and interaction between them
Kinship
A description of the system is provided. The kinship system does not have any associated native title rights and interests. 
Class
There are two moieties, each moiety comprises two classes and each class has a male and female version of its name so that gender can be distinguished. Every Bura Grouping has its own unique set of moiety and class names. A person’s moiety is determined by their mother’s moiety. The class system is linked to the marriage system and the totemic system. The system is currently evidenced in two ways: totemic attributions and an adapted form which governs the marriage between the families that constitute the Birri Gubba society. The class system gives rise to the claimed native title right to determine and regulate the membership of the Widi People and thus who holds rights and interests in the lands and waters of the Nebo Estate.
Totems
There are different types of totems: moiety-based, class-based, personal and bura totems. Certain totems are the basis for the allotment of certain foodstuffs. Totems are also the basis for restricting people’s consumption of certain foodstuffs. A person holds certain totems of theirs to be sacred and must protect them and should not kill or eat them. Certain totems are used for supernatural means and provide omens about upcoming events. The totemic system is still acknowledged and observed by the Widi People in terms of both, the existence of personal and group totems, and of the taboos concerning the killing and eating of one’s totem. There is also continuity of certain (supernatural) customs derived from totemism. The totems system gives rise to the claimed native title right to use, hunt, fish, gather, take and enjoy resources and to control others’ use and enjoyment of them.
Marriage
There is an elaborate set of traditional laws and customs in relation to marriage, including that marriage must be in accordance with the class system. A person who marries or partners with a Birri Gubba person, for the time of their marriage has certain native title rights and interests. 
Punishment for transgressions
The society has an elaborate set of rules and conventions about punishing any transgressions of its traditional laws and customs. Essentially there are two forms of punishment: through human action or by supernatural means. The former has been either replaced by English Common Law for acts against persons or property or has been abandoned or there is reliance on shaming and/or shunning. Punishment through supernatural means is still acknowledged and observed. The system of punishment for transgressions gives rise to the native title rights and interests listed in Schedule E 3) d), e), f), k) and n).   
Age, gender and knowledge based authority
Several historic accounts reveal aspects of the system of age-, gender- and knowledge-based authority of the pre-sovereignty society and examples of are given of how this system is pronounced in contemporary Birri Gubba society.  The system gives rise to the native title rights claimed in Schedule E 3) d), f), l), m) and n).
Religious beliefs
The system of religious beliefs generated a large number of traditional laws and customs. They are most apparent in relation to male and female initiation, rituals pertaining to death, sorcery and mythology. Ceremonial activity associated with a person’s death is also relatively well recorded. The rituals fall into three categories: mourning, mortuary and post-death practices. Mourning practices included [Direct quote from affidavit 7 – text deleted]. Mortuary practices are determined by age, gender and status of the deceased and the circumstances of their death. Post death practices include [Direct quote from affidavit 8 – text deleted]. Examples are given of contemporary Widi People’s spiritual practices such as smoking ceremonies to cleanse people and places of bad spirits and the protection of spiritually important places within the Nebo Estate. The system of religious beliefs gives rise to the claimed native title rights in Schedule E 3) e), f), k), l), m) and n).
Consideration
The above factual basis material identifies the relevant pre-sovereignty society, being the Birri Gubba society, as the society of people living according to a system of identifiable laws and customs, having a normative content. The Widi People, the claim group, are a subset of this society. The apical ancestors of the claim group are members of this society and had an association with this claim area or the area claimed in the Widi People of the Nebo Estate # 2 claim at the time of European settlement.  As such, the factual basis material explains the link between the claim group and the claim area and identifies the relevant pre-sovereignty society from whom it is asserted the claim group’s laws and customs derive. The material describes the ten sets of traditional laws and customs of the pre-sovereignty Birri Gubba society in detail and also sets out how they have been continuously acknowledged and observed by past and current members of the Widi People. 
For the above reasons I am of view that the factual basis material is sufficient to support the assertion that there exist traditional laws acknowledged by, and traditional customs observed by, the native title claim group that give rise to the claim to native title rights and interests.

Reasons for s 190B(5)(c)—that the native title claim group have continued to hold the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs.
The Law 
Section 190B(5)(c) requires me to be satisfied that the factual basis is sufficient to support the assertion that the native title claim group has continued to hold the claimed native title rights and interests by acknowledging and observing the traditional laws and customs of a pre-sovereignty society in a substantially uninterrupted way.  This is the second element to the meaning of ‘traditional’ when it is used to describe the traditional laws and customs as giving rise to claimed native title rights and interests;  see Yorta Yorta at [47] and also at [87].
The claimants factual basis material in support of the assertion at s. 190B(5)(c)
As noted above, the Registration Report in part 5 contains information in relation to the factual basis for the assertion that the society in existence at sovereignty has continued despite interruption by European settlement and specifically addresses the question of continuity from Initial European Settlement in 1861 to the present. Part 6 sets out, under the heading of the specific native title rights and interests claimed, examples of the exercise of the rights by current members of the claim group and previous generations. 
In addition, the affidavits provided as part of Attachment F also include examples of members of the claim group and their predecessors having continued to hold their native title rights and interests in accordance with their traditional laws and customs. There are numerous examples in the factual basis material about the transmission of knowledge.
Consideration
From the material I understand that the members of the claim group continue to acknowledge and observe the traditional laws and customs passed on to them and previous generations by their ancestors or predecessors by traditional modes of oral transmission, teaching and common practice. This continues today amongst claim group members. 
Having considered the material before me I am satisfied that the factual basis provided is sufficient to support an assertion that the members of the claim group and their predecessors have continued to hold native title in accordance with the traditional laws and customs.
Combined result for s. 190B(5)
The application does satisfy the condition of s. 190B(5) because the factual basis provided is sufficient to support each of the particularised assertions in s. 190B(5), as set out in my reasons above.
Subsection 190B(6)
Prima facie case
The Registrar must consider that, prima facie, at least some of the native title rights and interests claimed in the application can be established.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(6). 
To meet the requirements of s. 190B(6) only one of the native title rights and interests claimed needs to be established prima facie. Only established rights will be entered on the Register—see s. 186(1)(g) and the note to s. 190B(6). 
In relation to the consideration of an application under s. 190B(6) I note Mansfield J’s comment in Doepel:
Section 190B(6) requires some measure of the material available in support of the claim—at [126].
On the other hand, s 190B(5) directs attention to the factual basis on which it is asserted that the native title rights and interests are claimed. It does not itself require some weighing of that factual assertion. That is the task required by s 190B(6)—at [127]. 
Section 190B(6) appears to impose a more onerous test to be applied to the individual rights and interests claimed—at [132]. 

The definition of ‘native title rights and interests’ in s. 223(1) guides my consideration of whether, prima facie, an individual right and interest can be established. In particular I take account of the interpretation of this section in:
•	Yorta Yorta (see s. 190B(5) above) in relation to what it means for rights and interests to be possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional customs observed by the native title claim group; and 
•	the High Court’s decision in Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1 [2002] HCA 28 (Ward HC) that a ‘native title right and interest’ must be ‘in relation to land or waters’.  

I also need to consider the case law relating to extinguishment when examining each individual right and interest claimed.
Any rights that clearly fall prima facie outside the scope of the definition of ‘native title rights and interests’ in s. 223(1) cannot be established.
The registration test is an administrative decision—it is not a trial or hearing of a determination of native title pursuant to s. 225, and therefore it is not appropriate to apply the standards of proof that would be required at such a trial or hearing. It is also not my role to draw definitive conclusions from the material before me about whether or not the claimed native title rights and interests exist, only whether they are capable of being established, prima facie.
In summary, s. 190B(6) requires me to carefully examine the asserted factual basis provided for the assertion that the claimed native title rights and interests exist against each individual right and interest claimed in the application to determine if I consider, prima facie, that they:
•	exist under traditional law and custom in relation to any of the land or waters under claim; 
•	are native title rights and interests in relation to land or waters (see chapeau to s. 223(1)); and 
•	have not been extinguished over the whole of the application area. 
In my consideration of the individual rights and interests claimed:
•	I take into account information contained in the application on activities conducted by the members of the claim group. While current activities by claimants in the claim area which are said to be in exercise of the claimed native title rights and interests are not determinative of the existence of a right and interest, they can be supportive of it; and 
•	I have grouped together rights which appear to be of a similar character and therefore rely on the same evidentiary material or rights which require consideration of the same law as to whether they can be established.
1. Exclusive rights and interests
I first consider the claim to ‘exclusive possession’. 
1. Land and waters where there has been no prior extinguishment of Native Title or where section 238 (the non-extinguishment principle) applies:

The native title rights and interests claimed are the right to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the claim area as against the whole world, pursuant to the traditional laws and customs of the claim group but subject to the valid laws of the Commonwealth of Australia and State of Queensland.
Ward HC is authority that the ‘exclusive’ rights can potentially be established prima facie in relation to areas where there has been no previous extinguishment of native title or where extinguishment is to be disregarded as a result of the Act. 
The majority in Ward HC considered that ‘[t]he expression “possession, occupation, use and enjoyment… to the exclusion of all others” is a composite expression directed to describing a particular measure of control over access to land’ (emphasis added). Further, that expression (as an aggregate) conveys ‘the assertion of rights of control over the land’, which necessarily flow ‘from that aspect of the relationship with land which is encapsulated in the assertion of a right to speak for country’ – at [89] and [93].
The Full Court in Griffiths v Northern Territory (2007) 243 ALR 7 indicates that the question of exclusivity depends upon the ability of the native title holders to effectively exclude from their country people not of their community, including by way of ‘spiritual sanction visited upon unauthorised entry’ and as the ‘gatekeepers for the purpose of preventing harm and avoiding injury to country’—at [127]. 
The Registration Report in part 6, which is said to address the requirements of s. 190B(6) and sets out certain claimed native title rights and interests, does not specifically mention the right to exclusive possession as expressed in Schedule E 1). I note, however, that reference is made to the ‘right to speak for and make decisions about [the claim area]’ and the ‘right to control others’ access’ and that that part of the Registration Report provides information about the contemporary exercise of these rights: In recent years the right to speak for and make decisions about the land and waters of the Nebo Estate is primarily illustrated by the range of cultural heritage management plans  and Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) negotiated, executed and implemented by Widi People – at [210]. The right to control others’ access is evidenced by Widi People inviting friends and other Birri Gubba people to accompany them on visits to country, to visit and stay at Urannah (once it was acquired for them by the ILC), or even participate in cultural heritage work on-country (as happens with elders from neighbouring Birri Gubba subsets). In doing so they teach others about dangerous places on-country, such as where a [Direct quote from affidavit 9 – text deleted].
In addition, part 5 of the Registration Report, as noted above, explains how the particular traditional laws and customs of the Birri Gubba society give rise to the native title rights and interests claimed. In my view this part of the Registration Report provides sufficient information to establish the existence of an exclusive right of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment in relation to the application area as a whole. In particular I refer to the reference in part 5 at [134] to the use of message sticks to invite others to one’s country to share in its resources and to formally offer the use of one’s property and at [151] to the territorial behaviour of the Bura groupings recorded in historical records which state that in the 1860s some of the Aboriginal people in the area offered the encroaching settlers to enter into a pact whereby the settlers had the area south of the Burdekin River while the local Aboriginal people had the area to the north. According to [Anthropologist 1 – name deleted] such a treaty demonstrates an inherent right of ownership of land and waters, as well as an inherent right to dispose of that right through negotiation with others. 

In relation to the claim of exclusive rights in relation to waters I note the following: The control and use of natural water resources in Queensland is the subject of extensive statutory intervention (for example, the Water Act 2000 (Qld)) and any exclusive native title right is unlikely to have survived in relation to waters. In my view, any native title rights in relation to waters would be non-exclusive only. I am supported by the many consent determinations in Queensland which only recognise non-exclusive native title rights over waters, most recently in September 2013 in Lampton on behalf of the Juru People v State of Queensland [2014] FCA 736.

I therefore find that prima facie the exclusive rights claimed are established over areas where there has been no prior extinguishment of Native Title or where section 238 (the non-extinguishment principle) applies and only to the extent that it does not cover flowing water resources. 
Outcome: established, prima facie

2. Non-exclusive rights and interests
I now turn to the claim to non-exclusive rights over areas where a claim to exclusive possession cannot be recognized:
 (a)—the right to live on the claim area 
(b) —the right to move about, be present on, travel over and access the claim area
(c)—the right to cook, camp, erect shelter and other structures on the claim area
In my view the Registration Report and the affidavits in Attachment F provide evidence that there are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed by the claim group that relate to and regulate the above native title rights and interests. I refer to my discussion above at s. 190B(5)(b) which refers to the particular laws and customs which are said to give rise to these rights. The material also contains information about activities which occur on the application area (and the wider area of the Nebo Estate) which necessarily require access to, travel over and being present on and moving about the application area and evidences that members of the claim group and their predecessors lived or are still living on the claim area.
The Registration Report provides in part 6 under the headings of the above claimed rights contemporary examples of the exercises of the above rights, including that numerous members of the claim group have moved about, been present on, travelled over and accessed the claim area during their childhood in the 1950s or over the last decade whilst undertaking cultural heritage management work or as stockmen on various stations. Reference is also made to the town camp along Nebo Creek where one of the claimants camped in the humpies during her visits and short stays as a child. The affidavits attached to Attachment F provide examples of current exercises of the above rights. 
Outcome: established, prima facie
(h)—the right to use, hunt, fish, gather, take and enjoy natural resources, such as food, water, medicinal plants and trees, tubers, charcoal (made by using fire), firewood, ochre, stone, resin and wax
(i)—the right to make fire 
(j) —the right to share, exchange or trade resources 
The material before me establishes, prima facie, that these rights exist under the traditional laws and customs of the claim group. 
As noted above, the Registration Report in part 5 sets out in detail the relevant laws and customs which give rise to the above rights and interests. It also contains examples in part 6 of the contemporary exercise of these rights. Such examples are also contained in the affidavits in Attachment F. 
For example [Person 1 – name deleted] in his affidavit states that he goes back to Wiri country as often as he can, generally two to three times a year. He has taken his children and grand children there and taught them to hunt and gather the same way he has been taught by his uncles. They hunt for, for example, kangaroo, porcupine, wallaby, goanna, plain turkey, crayfish and mussels. In his affidavit he explains how to prepare some of these over the fire. [Direct quote from affidavit 10– text deleted].
In addition, in his Registration Report [Anthropologist 1 – name deleted] states at [217] that the sharing, exchanging or trading of resources from the Nebo Estate was referred to by several interviewees when he did his field work, for example to friends and family claimant [Person 6 – name deleted] shares medicine created from the [Direct quote from affidavit 11– text deleted]. 
Outcome: established, prima facie
(g)—the right to conduct meetings in the claim area
(l)—the right to engage in cultural activities, such as conducting ceremonies, births, burial rites and holding meetings
The material before me establishes, prima facie, that these rights exist under the traditional laws and customs of the claim group. 
As noted above, the Registration Report in part 5 sets out in detail the relevant laws and customs which give rise to the above rights and interests. Part 6 notes as an example of the contemporary exercise of these rights that ‘recently’ [noting that the report was written in 2013] [Direct quote from affidavit 12– text deleted]. Further examples are also contained in the affidavits in Attachment F. 
Outcome: established, prima facie
(f)—the right maintain and protect places and areas of importance, such as sacred sites, rock art, camping areas, burial grounds and archaeological remains in the claim area
The Registration Report and affidavits in Attachment F contain evidence that the Widi People of the Nebo Estate protect and maintain places of cultural importance, for example, by undertaking cultural heritage management work. The example given in the Registration Report in part 6 in relation to this right is the survey and assessment work undertaken by 16 claim group members in relation to a proposed rail corridor running across the Nebo Estate. The affidavits also refer to specific sites and rock art and that these places must be protected. For example Linda Wailu refers to [Direct quote from affidavit 10– text deleted]. 
Outcome: established, prima facie
 (d)—the right to speak for and make decisions about the application area
(e)—the right to control others’ access
(k)—the right to control others’ use and enjoyment of resources
As noted above, I find that prima facie the exclusive rights claimed in Schedule E(1) are established over areas where there has been no prior extinguishment of Native Title or where section 238 (the non-extinguishment principle) applies and only to the extent that it does not cover flowing water resources. 
In my view the above rights are not capable of being established non-exclusively, as claimed in Schedule E(3)(d) for the reason set out in Sampi v State of Western Australia [2005] FCA 777 at [1072]:
the right to possess and occupy as against the whole world carries with it the right to make decisions about access to and use of the land by others.  The right to speak for the land and to make decisions about its use and enjoyment by others is also subsumed in that global right of exclusive occupation.
and Ward HC at [88]:
a core concept of traditional law and custom [is] the right to be asked permission and to ‘speak for country’. It is the rights under traditional law and custom to be asked permission and to ‘speak for country’ that are expressed in common law terms as a right to posses, occupy, use and enjoy land to the exclusion of all others— see also at [90] – [93].
I also note that in Neowarra v State of Western Australia [2003] Sundberg J was of the view that ‘the right to speak for country involves a claim to ownership’ and could only be recognised in relation to areas of exclusive native title rights and interests —at [494].
In contrast to the rights claimed in this application, I note that in Attorney General of the Northern Territory v Ward [2003] FCAFC 283 (Ward FC), the Court in making a consent decision recognised a similar, but qualified right ‘to make decisions about the use and enjoyment of land by Aboriginal people who will recognise those decisions and observe them pursuant to their traditional laws and customs’ as a non-exclusive right—at [27]. Also in Jango v Northern Territory of Australia [2006] FCA 318 (Jango), Sackville J considered that he was bound by the Full Court in Ward FC and held that a non-exclusive right ‘to make decisions about the use or enjoyment of the Application Area by Aboriginal people who are governed by the traditional laws and customs of the Western Desert bloc’ could be recognised—at [571]. 
Given the way the claim rights are expressed, for the reasons outlined above, I am not satisfied, that the above claimed rights can be prima facie established in relation to areas where a right to exclusively possess, occupy, use and enjoy is not claimed. 
Outcome: not established, prima facie
(m)—the right to teach cultural activities, such as teaching the significance of areas and places of importance 
(n)—the right to maintain, protect and prevent the misuse of cultural knowledge, customs and practices
The Court in Ward HC found the following in relation to rights expressed in a similar way to these right:
To some degree, for example respecting access to sites where artworks on rock are located, or ceremonies are performed, the traditional laws and customs which are manifested at these sites answer the requirement of connection with the land found in par (b) of the definition in s 223(1) of the NTA. However, it is apparent that what is asserted goes beyond that to something approaching an incorporeal right akin to a new species of intellectual property to be recognised by the common law under par (c) of s 223(1). The "recognition" of this right would extend beyond denial or control of access to land held under native title. It would, so it appears, involve, for example, the restraint of visual or auditory reproductions of what was to be found there or took place there, or elsewhere. It is here that the second and fatal difficulty appears.
In Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles Pty Ltd [49], von Doussa J observed that a fundamental principle of the Australian legal system was that the ownership of land and ownership of artistic works are separate statutory and common law institutions. That is the case, but the essential point for present purposes is the requirement of "connection" in par (b) of the definition in s 223(1) of native title and native title rights and interests. The scope of the right for which recognition by the common law is sought here goes beyond the content of the definition in s 223(1)—at [59] to [60].
In my view, the way the above rights are expressed without a reference to them applying to the land and waters claimed, means that they cannot be distinguished from the rights disallowed in Ward HC at [60]. I am therefore for the view that they cannot be established prima facie.
Outcome: not established, prima facie
o)—the right to determine and regulate membership of the claiming group
In my view the above is part of the claim group’s laws and customs rather than a right or interest in relation to land or waters—Alyawarr at [165].
Outcome: not established, prima facie
Conclusion
I am satisfied, having considered all the information before me, that some of the rights and interests claimed can be prima facie established under s. 190B(6) and should be registered. These rights seem to sit within the definition of native title rights and interests in s. 223 and I note also have not been found by the courts to fall outside the scope of that section.
Subsection 190B(7)
Traditional physical connection
The Registrar must be satisfied that at least one member of the native title claim group:
(a)	currently has or previously had a traditional physical connection with any part of the land or waters covered by the application, or
(b)	previously had and would reasonably be expected to currently have a traditional physical connection with any part of the land or waters but for things done (other than the creation of an interest in relation to the land or waters) by:
(i)	the Crown in any capacity, or
(ii)	a statutory authority of the Crown in any capacity, or
(iii)	any holder of a lease over any of the land or waters, or any person acting on behalf of such a holder of a lease.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(7).
This section requires that the evidentiary material be capable of satisfying the Registrar of a particular fact(s), specifically that at least one member of the claim group ‘has or had a traditional physical connection’ with any part of the claim area. While the focus is necessarily confined, as it is not commensurate with that of the Court in making a determination, it ‘is upon the relationship of at least one member of the native title claim group with some part of the claim area’—Doepel at [18]. 
I also understand that the term ‘traditional,’ as used in this context, should be interpreted in accordance with the approach taken in Yorta Yorta—Gudjala 2007 at [89]. In interpreting connection in the ‘traditional’ sense as required by s. 223 of the Act, the members of the joint judgment in Yorta Yorta felt that: 
[T]he connection which the peoples concerned have with the land or waters must be shown to be a connection by their traditional laws and customs … ”traditional” in this context must be understood to refer to the body of law and customs acknowledged and observed by the ancestors of the claimants at the time of sovereignty—at [86].   
Attachment F, in particular the Registration Report, contain many examples of claimants having a traditional physical connection with the application area. I refer to my reasons at ss. 190B(5) and (6) above. 
I am satisfied that at least one member of the claim group currently has or previously had a traditional physical connection with any part of the land or waters covered by the application. 
Subsection 190B(8)
No failure to comply with s. 61A
The application and accompanying documents must not disclose, and the Registrar must not otherwise be aware, that because of s. 61A (which forbids the making of applications where there have been previous native title determinations or exclusive or non-exclusive possession acts), the application should not have been made.

Section 61A provides:
(1)	A native title determination application must not be made in relation to an area for which there is an approved determination of native title.
(2)	If :
(a)	a previous exclusive possession act (see s. 23B) was done, and
(b)	either:
(i)	the act was an act attributable to the Commonwealth, or
(ii)	the act was attributable to a state or territory and a law of the state or territory has made provisions as mentioned in s. 23E in relation to the act;
a claimant application must not be made that covers any of the area.
(3)	If:
(a)	a previous non-exclusive possession act (see s. 23F) was done, and
(b)	either:
(i)	the act was an act attributable to the Commonwealth, or
(ii)	the act was attributable to a state or territory and a law of the state or territory has made provisions as mentioned in s. 23I in relation to the act;
a claimant application must not be made in which any of the native title rights and interests confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of any of the area to the exclusion of all others.
(4)	However, subsection(2) and (3) does not apply if:
(a)	the only previous non-exclusive possession act was one whose extinguishment of native title rights and interests would be required by section 47, 47A or 47B to be disregarded were the application to be made, and
(b)	the application states that ss. 47, 47A or 47B, as the case may be, applies to it.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(8). I explain this in the reasons that follow by looking at each part of s. 61A against what is contained in the application and accompanying documents and in any other information before me as to whether the application should not have been made.
Reasons for s. 61A(1)
Section 61A(1) provides that a native title determination application must not be made in relation to an area for which there is an approved determination of native title. 
In my view the application does not offend the provisions of s. 61A(1). 
The Geospatial Report states that no determinations of native title fall within the external boundaries of this application area. I agree with this assessment. 
Reasons for s. 61A(2)
Section 61A(2) provides that a claimant application must not be made over areas covered by a previous exclusive possession act, unless the circumstances described in subparagraph (4) apply. 
In my view the application does not offend the provisions of s. 61A(2).
Schedule B(2) of the application contains a number of general exclusions. In my view these exclusions encompass any areas covered by a previous exclusive possession act, other than in the circumstances described in subparagraph (4).  
Reasons for s. 61A(3)
Section 61A(3) provides that an application must not claim native title rights and interests that confer possession, occupation, use and enjoyment to the exclusion of all others in an area where a previous non-exclusive possession act was done, unless the circumstances described in s. 61A(4) apply. 
In my view, the application does not offend the provisions of s. 61A(3).
Schedule B(3) of the application states that exclusive possession is not claimed over areas which are subject to valid previous non-exclusive possession acts done by the Commonwealth or the State, unless the circumstances in s. 61A(4) apply.
Subsection 190B(9)
No extinguishment etc. of claimed native title
The application and accompanying documents must not disclose, and the Registrar/delegate must not otherwise be aware, that:
(a)	a claim is being made to the ownership of minerals, petroleum or gas wholly owned by the Crown in the right of the Commonwealth, a state or territory, or
(b)	the native title rights and interests claimed purport to exclude all other rights and interests in relation to offshore waters in the whole or part of any offshore place covered by the application, or
(c)	in any case, the native title rights and interests claimed have otherwise been extinguished, except to the extent that the extinguishment is required to be disregarded under ss. 47, 47A or 47B.
The application satisfies the condition of s. 190B(9), because it meets all of the three subconditions, as set out in the reasons below.
Reasons for s. 190B(9)(a):
The application satisfies the subcondition of s. 190B(9)(a).
Schedule Q of the application states that no claim is being made to the ownership of minerals, petroleum or gas wholly owned by the Crown. 
Reasons for s. 190B(9)(b)
The application satisfies the subcondition of s. 190B(9)(b).
Schedule P of the application states that the application does not claim exclusive possession of all or part of an offshore place. 
Reasons for s. 190B(9)(c)
The application satisfies the subcondition of s. 190B(9)(c).
Schedule B of the application provides for a number of categories of areas of land and waters to be excluded from the application area, namely those where native title rights and interests have been extinguished.
The application does not disclose, and I am not otherwise aware, that the native title rights and interests claimed have otherwise been extinguished.                                          [End of reasons]