Registration test decision

Application name	Mitakoodi and Mayi People #5	
Name of applicant	Pearl Connelly, Jeffrey Biffin, Lethesia Biffin, Karl Howard, Carl Ketchup, Kay Douglas, Allan (Benny) Kum Sing, Tanya Kum Sing, Sharon Cummins, Emily Patricia Asse, Sharn Fogarty, Brenda Lucas, Ronald Major, Beverley Cummins, George Kenny	
NNTT file no.	QC2015/009	
Federal Court of Australia file no.	QUD556/2015	
Date application made	8 July 2015	
		
I have considered this claim for registration against each of the conditions contained in ss 190B and 190C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth).
For the reasons attached, I am satisfied that each of the conditions contained in ss 190B and 190C are met. I accept this claim for registration pursuant to s 190A of the Act.
	Date of decision:	25 September 2015	

___________________________________

Susan Walsh
Delegate of the Native Title Registrar pursuant to sections 190, 190A, 190B, 190C, 190D of the Act under an instrument of delegation dated 4 May 2015 and made pursuant to s 99 of the Act. 

Edited Reasons for decision
Introduction
[1]	The Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia (the Court) gave a copy of the Mitakoodi and Mayi People claimant application (QUD556/2015) to the Native Title Registrar (the Registrar) on 23 July 2015, pursuant to s 63 of the Act. This has triggered the Registrar’s duty to consider the claim made in the application for registration in accordance with s 190A: see subsection 190A(1). 
[2]	Sections 190A(1A), (6), (6A) and (6B) set out the decisions available to the Registrar under s 190A. Subsection 190A(1A) provides for exemption from the registration test for certain amended applications and s 190A(6A) provides that the Registrar must accept a claim (in an amended application) when it meets certain conditions. Section 190A(6) provides that the Registrar must accept the claim for registration if it satisfies all of the conditions of s 190B (in relation the merits of the claim) and s 190C (in relation to procedural and other matters). Section 190A(6B) provides that the Registrar must not accept the claim for registration if it does not satisfy all of the conditions of ss 190B and 190C. 
[3]	This document sets out my reasons, as the delegate of the Registrar, for my decision to accept the claim for registration pursuant to s 190A of the Act. Given that the claimant application was first made on 8 July 2015 and has not been amended, I am satisfied that neither subsection 190A(1A) nor subsection 190A(6A) apply to the claim made in this application. It is my view that the claim satisfies all of the conditions in ss 190B and 190C and pursuant to ss 190A(6) and (6B), the claim in the application must be accepted for registration.
Information considered when making the decision
[4]	Section 190A(3) sets out the information to which the Registrar must have regard in considering a claim under s 190A and provides that the Registrar ‘may have regard to such other information as he or she considers appropriate’.
Subsection 190A(3)(a): Application and other documents provided by the applicant
[5]	As required by s 190A(3)(a), I have had regard to information in the application and its accompanying documents. I have also considered additional material provided by the applicant to the Registrar on 7 and 8 September 2015 in response to information provided by [Person #1–name deleted], which is detailed in my reasons below at s 190B(5).
Subsection 190A(3)(b): Searches conducted by the Registrar of State/Commonwealth interest registers
[6]	There is no information before me of the kind identified in s 190A(3)(b). 
Subsection 190A(3)(c): Information supplied by Commonwealth/State
[7]	There is no information before me of the kind described in s 190A(3)(c). On 18 September 2015, the State of Queensland advised that it did not wish to make submissions in relation to the claim or the applicant’s additional information. I have no information from the Commonwealth in relation to the registration test. 
Section 190A(3): other information to which Registrar considers it appropriate to have regard
[8]	I have considered information contained in an overlap analysis and geospatial assessment by the Tribunal’s Geospatial Services dated 29 July 2015 (the geospatial report).
[9]	I have also had regard to the information provided to me by [Person #1–name deleted], a member of the claim group who disputes the applicant’s authority because of her view that the descendants of the apical ancestor, Minnie, over-represent the applicant, to the detriment of the descendants of the other three apical ancestors. I have decided that it is appropriate to have regard to this information under the concluding words of s 190A(3) as some of it has been signed by some of the persons who make up the applicant and raises questions about the sufficiency of the asserted factual basis as it pertains to Minnie and her descendants. My consideration of the information, as it pertains to the sufficiency of the factual basis is discussed in my reasons below at s 190B(5). I have not had regard to the information as it pertains to the condition of s 190C(4), because the application has been certified by Queensland South Native Title Services (QSNTS). The reasons for this are discussed further below.
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
Description of the area covered by the application
[10]	The area covered by the application is in the north-western reaches of the QSNTS representative body region in the vicinity of Cloncurry. Attachment B of the application provides a written description prepared by QSNTS which uses metes and bounds, adjoining native title application boundaries, topographic features and coordinate points, shown to six decimal points and referencing GDA94. Attachment B of the application clarifies that there is to be no overlap with the Kalkadoon native title determinations to the west, the Gkuthaarn and Kukatj People native title claim and the Carpentaria Land Council regional area to the north-west and the North Queensland Land Council regional area to the north-east. 
[11]	Attachment C of the application is an A3 colour map showing the external boundaries depicted by a bold blue outline and stippled fill. The map shows the commencement point referred to in the written description, a topographic background, scalebar, north point and coordinate grid. The map contains notes of the source, currency and datam of data used to prepare the map.
[12]	The information within the written description and the map about the external boundaries is comprehensive, detailed and consistent. Armed with this information, the external boundaries of the area can be located on the earth’s surface with a reasonable degree of certainty. Accordingly, the information satisfies the requirements of s 190B(2) insofar as the external boundaries are concerned.
Description of the areas not covered by the application
[13]	Schedule B of the application contains a written description of internally excluded areas by excluding any areas affected by ‘previous exclusive possession acts’ as defined in s 23B, save where such extinguishment is to be disregarded under ss 47, 47A or 47B. The final part of Schedule B excludes areas where native title rights and interests have otherwise been extinguished.
[14]	This formulaic exclusion is reasonably clear for the purposes of this condition. It will be possible to work out any excluded areas within the external boundaries affected by a previous exclusive possession act or other extinguishment, once a search of historical and current tenure for the application area has been completed. 
[15]	The application satisfies the condition of s 190B(2).
 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.
[16]	Schedule A of the application states that the claim group is made up of families whose members identify as Mitakoodi and Mayi People in accordance with the traditional laws and customs of the claim group. It also states that Mitakoodi and Mayi People are the people who are the biological descendants of one or more of four apical ancestors, Minnie, Thomas ‘Tiger’ Mitchell, Dinah and Topsy and the people who were adopted under traditional law and custom by an ancestor at or about the time of effective sovereignty or by a person descended from one of those ancestors.
[17]	I interpret the description to mean that a person is ascertained to be a member of the claim group if they can show biological or adoptive descent from one or more of the ancestors, and if their identification as Mitakoodi and Mayi is recognised by the families who make up the claim group. The description is sufficiently clear so that it can be ascertained whether any particular person is in the native title claim group. Descent is an essential criterion, followed by identification, both of which are mediated by the traditional laws and customs of the claim group. These two elements of the description provide a ‘substantial factual element’ and a clear basis for a ‘factual inquiry’ such that a person’s status is capable of being ascertained with a sufficient degree of clarity.
[18]	The application satisfies the condition of s 190B(3).
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.
[19]	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 identified—Doepel at [92]. In Doepel, Mansfield J refers to the Registrar’s consideration:
The Registrar referred to s. 223(1) and to the decision in Ward. He recognised that some claimed rights and interests may not be native title rights and interests as defined. He identified the test of identifiability as being whether the claimed native title rights and interests are understandable and have meaning. There is no criticism of him in that regard—at [99].
[20]	On this basis, for a description to be sufficient to allow the claimed native title rights and interests to be readily identified, it must describe what is claimed in a clear and easily understood manner. 
[21]	Schedule E of the application states that the native title rights and interests claimed are the right to exclusively possess, occupy, use and enjoy the area, where such a claim can be recognised because there has been no prior extinguishment or any extinguishment must be disregarded under ss 238, 47, 47A or 47B. Schedule E makes an alternative claim over areas where exclusive possession cannot be recognised to a bundle of rights that can co-exist with the legal rights of others in relation to the application area, such as those of a pastoralist. The items in the bundle include rights to access, be present on, move about and travel over the area, to camp and live temporarily on the area, to hunt, fish and gather there and to take and use the natural resources and waters of the area. Rights relating to the conduct of ceremonial life on the application area and looking after its significant places are also claimed.
[22]	The description is sufficient to allow the native title rights and interests claimed to be readily identified. The rights have been clearly and comprehensively described in a way that is meaningful and understandable, having regard to the definition of the expression ‘native title rights and interests’ in s 223.
[23]	The application satisfies the condition of s 190B(4).
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
[24]	I consider each of the three assertions set out in the three paragraphs of s 190B(5) in turn in my reasons below.
[25]	For the application to meet this merit condition, I must be satisfied that a sufficient factual basis is provided to support the assertion that the claimed native title rights and interests exist and to support the particularised assertions in paragraphs (a) to (c) of s 190B(5). In Doepel (and this was approved by the Full Court in Gudjala People #2 v Native Title Registrar [2008] FCAFC 157 (Gudjala FC) at [82] to [85]), Mansfield J stated that:
Section 190B(5) is carefully expressed. It requires the Registrar to consider whether the `factual basis on which it is asserted’ that the claimed native title rights and interests exist `is sufficient to support the assertion’. That requires the Registrar to address the quality of the asserted factual basis for those claimed rights and interests; but only in the sense of ensuring that, if they are true, they can support the existence of those claimed rights and interests. In other words, the Registrar is required to determine whether the asserted facts can support the claimed conclusions. The role is not to test whether the asserted facts will or may be proved at the hearing, or to assess the strength of the evidence which may ultimately be adduced to establish the asserted facts—at [17].
[26]	The decisions of Dowsett J 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) also give specific content to each of the elements of the test at ss 190B(5)(a) to (c). The Full Court in Gudjala FC, did not criticise generally the approach that Dowsett J took in relation to these elements in Gudjala 2007, including his assessment of what was required within the factual basis to support each of the assertions at s 190B(5). His approach in Gudjala 2009 was consistent with the approach he took in Gudjala 2007.
[27]	Arising from these decisions are clear principles that guide the Registrar when assessing the sufficiency of a claim’s factual basis. In summary, they are: 
a.	the applicant is not required ‘to provide anything more than a general description of the factual basis’—Gudjala FC at [92].
b.	the nature of the material provided need not be of the type that would prove the asserted facts—Gudjala FC at [92].
c.	the Registrar is not to consider or deliberate upon the accuracy of the information/facts asserted—Doepel at [47]. 
[28]	In my view, the test in s 190A involves 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 not the task of the delegate to make findings about whether or not the claimed native title rights and interests exist. It is not the role of the delegate to reach definitive conclusions about complex anthropological issues pertaining to the native title claim group’s relationship with its country as that is a judicial enquiry.
Reasons for s 190B(5)(a)
[29]	This subsection requires that I be satisfied that the factual basis is sufficient to support the assertion that the native title claim group has, and its predecessors had, an association with the area of the application. It is not necessary for the factual basis to support an assertion that all members of the native title claim group have an association with the area all of the time. However, it is necessary that the material before the Registrar shows cumulatively an association between the whole group and the whole area of the claim—Gudjala (2007) at [51] and [52]. Further, Dowsett J also observed:
Similarly, there must be evidence as to such an association between the predecessors of the whole group and the area over the period since sovereignty—at [52].

Association generally
[30]	I will consider the two limbs in turn: is there a sufficient factual basis for the assertion that the predecessors had an association and is there a sufficient factual basis for the assertion that the claim group currently has an association with the area?
[31]	The Mitakoodi and Mayi People’s claim is located in the south-western reaches of Queensland, just below the Gulf of Carpentaria region. The application area falls within the QSNTS regional area and includes the town of Cloncurry, which is located in the central to south-west of the application area. Julia Creek lies just outside its southeastern boundary. The river systems of the Cloncurry (upper and lower), McKinley, Gilliat Channels, Flinders and Saxby are located within the application area and are referred to in the factual basis materials, as are a number of pastoral stations—Canobie, Fort Constantine, Wurung and Boomara Stations.
[32]	Attachment F asserts that the Mitakoodi and Mayi People have maintained a continuity of occupation, connection and association with the area from pre-sovereignty until the present day—para 3.
Association of the predecessors of the native title claim group with the application area
[33]	Attachment F of the application contains information about the association of the claim group’s predecessors with the area. This is a summarised account of that information, as it relates to the historical and ethnographic record that places the predecessors of the claim group in the area at or around the time of settlement of the area:
a.	It is claimed that the traditional country of the claim group was occupied by Mitakoodi and Mayi people from before sovereignty and during exploration and sustained settlement of the area by Europeans from the 1860s to the 1880s, which has continued until the present day—paras 2 and 3.
b.	The pre-sovereignty association with the area by the claim group’s predecessors is said to be supported by the fact that the Burke and Wills expedition of 1860–61 passed through Mitakoodi and Mayi country following the Cloncurry River and recorded the presence of Aboriginal inhabitants in January 1861 at a place likely to be the upper Cloncurry River drainage area. Later that month Wills noted again the presence of an Aboriginal person hiding in trees close to them—para 4. (I note that the Cloncurry River runs along part of the south-western boundary of the area and traverses the area relatively centrally, above the town of Cloncurry).
c.	It is said that the pastoral and mining industries occurred rapidly in the two decades following Burke and Wills’ traverse of the area. Edward Palmer founded Canobie Station in 1864. The town of Cloncurry was established in 1865 following discovery of copper. Fort Constantine Station was settled in 1867 and in the 1870s, the discovery of gold brought an influx of Chinese and Europeans—para 5. (I note that Canobie Station, Cloncurry and Fort Constantine Station are located within the application area, in its south-western and north-western reaches).
d.	It is asserted that there was a society of Aboriginal people associated with the area at sovereignty and when it was settled in the 1860s to 1870s. These Aboriginal people were described by Walter Roth in 1897 as the Mitakoodi [= Mita-Thakurt] of the Cloncurry River and its branches. They were described by Roth as the messmates of the Mikoolun [=Mayi-kulan] and the Miubbi [=Mayi-yapi] around Canobie Station—paras 6 and 7.
e.	Tindale (1974) recorded a number of variant spellings of the Mitakoodi, Mayi-kulan and Mayi-yapi, listed in paras 8, 9 and 10. It is claimed that the contemporary claimants refer to themselves as the Mitakoodi and Mayi people or more commonly Mitakoodi people and they assert native title rights over traditional country that takes in the upper portions of the Cloncurry River, the McKinlay River, the Gilliat Channels, the Flinders and Saxby Rivers. They assert that their traditional country includes the following stations, Fort Constantine, Canobie, Boomara, Wurung, Byrimine and Donors Hill—para 11.
f.	The Mayi languages were mapped by Gavan Breen in 1981 under the names: ‘Mayi-thakurti (Mitakoodi)’, on the upper Cloncurry and south of Canobie station; ‘Mayi-yapi’ north of Canobie Station on the lower parts of the Cloncurry River; and ‘Mayi-kulan’ north east of Canobie station—para 12. It is claimed that the neighbours of the Mitakoodi and Mayi people are the Kalkadoon to the west, the Wanamara to the east, the Yulluna south of the Selwyn Range, Koa to the southeast of McKinlay, Gkulan and Kukatj to the north and Tagalaka people to the northeast—para 13.
[34]	It is claimed that the four apical ancestors of the claim group are all associated with the application area and an account of each of the four apical ancestors and the information that connects them to the application area is provided in para 15. The following is a summarised account of the information provided as to the association with the area by each of the four apical ancestors:
[35]	Minnie:
a.	Minnie is identified as a Mitakoodi person in the oral history of her descendants. It is said that there is limited documentary evidence for Minnie. Minnie gave birth to a daughter Ethel at Boomara Station around 1898. 
b.	In July 1908, Minnie left Granada station to work for Mrs Hillcoat. The Hillcoat family were associated with Boomara Station. Minnie tribally married Kenny Wilson/Smith at Canobie station around 1931, and her surname is recorded as ‘Hillcott’. [Claimant’s name deleted] who is related to the claim group’s apical ancestor Topsy, recalled that Minnie visited her family at Canobie station from Wurung station, both of which are said to be in the claim area. This, it is claimed, ‘reinforces the probability that Minnie was, like Topsy, a Mitakoodi woman’. 
c.	When Minnie died at Fort Constantine Station in April 1941, the family record of her death noted that she was a ‘full blood’ Aboriginal whose children were [Claimants’ names deleted]. 
d.	Minnie’s daughter Ethel married Robert Ah Sam in 1921 and they had 10 children. Minnie’s son was transferred from Coolullah and Boomara Station to Palm Island in 1923, where he married in 1925 and fathered 14 children. 
e.	[Claimant’s name deleted] (a descendant of the second of the four apical ancestors, Topsy) identified an image of Minnie from an 1897 photo album compiled anonymously from Canobie Station. The photo shows an image of a young Aboriginal woman with the recorded name ‘Mangelo’. It is claimed that Minnie’s descendants believe that Mangelo was Minnie’s Aboriginal name. The Aboriginal man Jackaroo is identified in the record as being a ‘traditional Aboriginal’ who lived at Canobie station and was presented with a breast plate titled ‘Jackaroo, King of Canobie, Cloncurry River’. He and his partner Emily left no descendants. Minnie’s descendants believe that Jackaroo was the brother of Minnie and a Mitakoodi man.
[36]	Topsy:
a.	Topsy had an association with the application area around Canobie Station where she lived her whole life and died there in 1932 at Six Mile Outstation. Topsy gave birth to six children on Canobie station, three with her spouse Alick Smith, an Aboriginal man who was born around 1890 on Canobie Station. Her last child was born in 1925 on Canobie station. 
b.	[Claimant’s name deleted] described her mother Topsy in an affidavit she made in 2003 as a ‘full blood Aboriginal’ and Topsy’s daughter Ethel remembered Topsy in a personal communication to [name and relationship to Ethel deleted] as a Mitakoodi woman. [Claimant’s name deleted] said that her mother and her grandmother Topsy ‘belonged to the Canobie tribe’. 
c.	Although there is little in the historical records for Topsy, it is said that ‘it is probable that she was from one of the Mayi speaking language groups’.
[37]	Thomas ‘Tiger’ Mitchell:
a.	Tiger Mitchell was a ‘Maijabi [=Mayi-yapi] man born on Talawanta station near to Alexander River, citing Norman Tindale’s ID card for Tiger in 1938. Tiger was the son of Charlie Mitchell, a ‘Maijabi’ man of Talawanta and Kitty a ‘Maikundung’ woman of Lorraine Station. (I note that Talawanta and Lorraine lie proximate to and outside the north-western boundary of the application area).
b.	When interviewed by Tindale in 1938, Tiger Mitchell gave his age as 60 years, making his year of birth around 1878—para 15(c)(i). It is said that Tiger Mitchell had a relationship with the fourth apical ancestor, Dinah, and they had two sons born on Canobie around 1891–1895 and Canobie or Lorraine between 1895–1897. Neither child has any known living descendants. Their third child, Molly Mitchell Kitchener, was born on Canobie station and when she was around 8 years old in 1905, Walter Roth recorded her name as Mary. In 1938 she was living at Palm Island, her year of birth was estimated between 1900 and 1910. Molly had four children from relationships with two Aboriginal men Kitchener and Billy Womble.
c.	Tiger Mitchell was sent to Palm Island in 1927, where he married the Bara:ra woman Polly. There is no record of any children from this relationship. Tiger passed away on Palm Island in 1946 at the age of 70 years. It is claimed that the descendants of Tiger Mitchell identify as members of the claim group through Tiger and through their descent through his partner Dinah. I have inferred from the information in relation to Tiger and Dinah that the only known descendants of Thomas Mitchell are from the daughter that he had with Dinah—Molly Kitchener, nee Mitchell.
d.	Tiger Mitchell is said to have lived traditionally with his family on Mayi-yapi country, which incorporated the northwest portion of the application area. When interviewed by Tindale on Palm Island in 1938, he recalled meeting his first white person when he was ‘wild as [sic] child’. He later worked on Canobie station and his wife Dinah grew up there.
[38]	Dinah:
a.	Dinah was a ‘Myiakoon’ [=Mayi-kulan] woman who was estimated to be around 28 to 30 years old in 1903, giving her a birth year of approximately 1873 or 1875. It is said that Dinah was ‘reared’ on Canobie station, as recalled by Frank Dyer, who remembered her running around the station as a young girl. 
b.	Dinah had three children to apical ancestor Tiger Mitchell, of which only their daughter Molly Kitchener is identified as having descendants. 
c.	Prior to her relationship with Tiger, Dinah had a child named Maude Adams to Edward Adams. Maude was born in 1890 at Monkey Station which later became part of Canobie. Maude married George Cummins, a non-indigenous man and they had 11 children together. 
d.	Few records exist for Dinah, as she died between 1903 and 1905. It appears that Dinah’s descendants stem from two lines—firstly from her daughter Molly Kitchener nee Mitchell, her child with apical ancestor Tiger Mitchell and secondly from her daughter Maude Cummins nee Adams, her child with Edward Adams.
[39]	The information provided by [Person #1–name deleted] and signed by three of the persons who are part of the applicant, [names of these three persons have been deleted], questions the association with the claim area of the first of the four apical ancestors, Minnie. [Text deleted so as not to identify persons who provided this information to the Registrar]. 
[40]	The complaint from these persons is that the descendants of Minnie, whilst comprising a minority within the group overall, have an unfair majority of representation as part of the applicant. (I note that of the 15 applicant persons, nine assert descent from Minnie and two each assert descent from the remaining three apical ancestors, Tiger Mitchell, Topsy and Dinah). These persons say in their letter that Minnie’s status as Mitakoodi relies on ‘oral history and not on documented evidence’, which is unfair to the rest of the claim group who have had to be ‘open and telling our stories and documents’. The inference in the letter is that the same kind of detail, or proving of connections, is not required of Minnie’s descendants.
[41]	The response of the applicant to this information is found in a submission from their legal representative QSNTS. The following is a summarised account of the QSNTS submission:
a.	QSNTS acknowledges that the documentary evidence to support the inclusion of Minnie is ‘not conclusive beyond reasonable doubt’, but that this could be said of the evidence concerning all four apical ancestors and ‘is not unusual for native title groups especially in areas, such as the area of this claim, where the impact of colonization was felt harshly.’
b.	QSNTS submits that ‘oral evidence, especially that handed down through the generations, has strong probative value and should be afforded equal if not greater merit when developing an understanding of the nature of a native title society, including its membership.’ 
c.	QSNTS note that the application provides some documentary evidence which gives Minnie an association with the claim area in the 19th century. QSNTS say that this evidence:
... combined with strong oral testimony of generational connection to the Claim area of descendants of Minnie and their belief that Minnie was part of the relevant society reasonably allows for the making of a prima facie inference that Minnie was associated with the Claim area at the time of first sustained European contact and was a part of the relevant pre-sovereignty society. 
d.	QSNTS conclude in relation to Minnie that it is not aware of any evidence that contradicts this inference.
[42]	My opinion is that the factual basis is sufficient to support an assertion that the predecessors of the native title claim group, including Minnie and the other three apical ancestors, had an association with the application area in the period when sustained settlement of that area occurred in the 1860s and 1870s. I agree with the QSNTS submission that there is some documentary evidence relating to Minnie, which, if read with the inter-generational oral history of her descendants, does support the assertion that she was an Aboriginal person from the area and thus likely to be a part of the society of Aboriginal people for that area, with a particular association in the north and central western parts of the application area around Boomara, Canobie, Fort Constantine and Cloncurry. 
[43]	I note that the documentary record outlined in Attachment F for all four apical ancestors is somewhat sparse. However, I agree with the QSNTS submission that this record must be given weight, particularly if there is information to support the inter-generational transmission of an oral history from the known children of the apical ancestors to current members of the claim group. I am also mindful that it is not my job to cast an overly forensic eye on the factual basis materials or to insist on the production of the kind of evidence which would be required at a trial of the applicant’s case.
[44]	With these considerations in mind, I find that the factual basis is sufficient to support an assertion that the apical ancestors had an association with the area when it was settled in the 1860s and 1870s. It appears that all four apical ancestors were born before settlement and lived in the application area. Their association is most strongly found in the north-western reaches of the area, particularly around the pastoral runs in the late 19th and early 20th centuries of Fort Constantine, Canobie and Boomara and also extending beyond the north-western boundary to Talawanta station, Lorraine station and the more westerly parts of Boomara station. 
[45]	My opinion is that it is an acceptable inference that the four apical ancestors belonged to the relevant pre-sovereignty society, given their status as known Aboriginal persons in that area during the period of European settlement of the area.
[46]	As to the sufficiency of the factual basis for the assertion that the association by the predecessors of the claim group related to the area as a whole, I have taken account of the submission from QSNTS that:
a.	there is evidence that ‘points to a broad society that encompasses all of the Mayi speaking languages, including some not included in the Claim, such as the Wanamara to the east of Julia Creek and the Ngawun to the north east’; 
b.	there is ‘no evidence to date that the Mitakoodi and Mayi people were broken into separate societies consisting of, for example the Mayi-kulan, Mayi-yappi, and Mayi-thakurti’.
[47]	QSNTS refer to the information provided in Attachment F about:
a.	the research by Gavan Breen, who mapped the Mayi languages and reported in 1981 that the ‘Mayi-yapi and Mayi-kulan were dialects of a group of closely related languages’;
b.	the earlier observations in 1897 by Roth who described the ‘Miakoodi as messmates of the ‘’Mikoolon” [=Mayi-kulan] and the “Miubbi” [=Mayi-yappi]’. Roth explained that ‘messmates were members of different tribes who were “able to render themselves pretty mutually intelligible, and possess in common various trade-routes, markets, and hunting grounds, customs, manners, and beliefs”’.
[48]	QSNT submit that the ‘whole of the Claim area is within the relevant native title society; accordingly, the fact that the historical evidence to date is weighted towards an association of the ancestors to the north western parts of the Claim area does not compromise the assertion of rights and interests to other parts of the Claim area’.
[49]	QSNTS submit that:
Over a series of generations there has been a coalescing of descendants of the four apical ancestors in and around Cloncurry as they come in search of work, education and services. It is understandable that contemporary evidence of use and occupancy and the continued vitality of the Mitakoodi and Mayi society predominantly relates to the southern areas. However, the traditional laws acknowledged by and traditional customs observed by contemporary Mitakoodi and Mayi people are applicable across the whole claim area and are the same, albeit adapted, to those that regulated the rights and interests of the Mitakoodi and Mayi ancestors.
[50]	I am of the opinion that the factual basis is sufficient to support an assertion that the predecessors of the native title claim group had an association with the whole of the claim area, as recorded by the ethnographer and first Northern Protector of Aborigines in 1897, WE Roth, and later by Gavan Breen. This then is supported by the particular associations described in the materials that the four apical ancestors had with the area in the late 19th century, which appears based on their belonging to the relevant Mitakoodi and Mayi native title society operating in the area before and after settlement, as identified by WE Roth. 
Current association of the native title claim group with the application area
[51]	Attachment F provides information about the two generations following that of the apical ancestors having an association with the application area, which has continued until the present. The following is a summarised account of this information:
a.	It is said that Topsy’s daughter, [Claimant’s name deleted], is still alive today. Topsy lived her life on Canobie station and [Claimant’s name deleted] recalls trips onto country to fish and collect traditional foods. [Claimant’s name deleted] also recalls that the apical ancestor Minnie took her to fish along the river and collect food and one event has stayed with her, which was eating an egg that Minnie had found her and afterwards being carried home on Minnie’s shoulders. 
b.	It is claimed that Minnie lived at Old Boomara station, Wurung and Fort Constantine station and would also use traditional skills to gather plants, to fish and to go hunting. Minnie’s daughter Ethel Sweeney was born on Old Boomara station. It is claimed that Ethel became an influential elder for her family and there are accounts from her grandchildren, alive today, of the important part that Granny Ethel played in the passing of knowledge and skills around finding bush tucker and water, making fishing lines, trapping fish, catching goanna or porcupine and how to cook and prepare these foods. Ethel and her eight children and their children too, lived in the Aboriginal reserve on Coppermine Creek in Cloncurry. It is claimed that many of the older claimants descended from Minnie and Ethel have lived on, worked on and travelled over Mitakoodi country all their lives and have passed their traditional knowledge and skills around hunting and gathering to their children.  
c.	It is claimed that Maud Cummins nee Adams, the daughter of apical ancestor Dinah lived at old Boomara station and Dolomite on the application area. Maud also lived in a tin shack with her family on a branch of the Cloncurry River, outside the town of Cloncurry. They ate fish and mussels from the river, built bough sheds and dug soaks in the river for drinking. They accessed the bush for plant foods and medicines. It is said that Maud’s descendants live today in Cloncurry and from there they continually access and use the claim area. The descendants of Maud observe spiritual protocols when visiting sites and cutting hair. 
[52]	The application is accompanied by the affidavits of two members of the native title claim group, [Claimants’ names deleted], in support of the asserted factual basis.  These persons are descended from Minnie [text deleted so as not to identify claimants]. They talk of being born and living on the claim area, in Cloncurry, of travelling through country with their families as children, hunting, fishing and camping. They have been taught the boundaries of their country by their elders; of learning traditional bush, hunting and gathering skills and being shown sites and how to call out to these places.
[53]	QSNTS has provided the Registrar with further affidavit evidence to support the asserted association by the claim group with the area. These affidavits have been made by [Claimants’ names deleted], descendants of Dinah.  
[54]	[Claimant’s name deleted] states in her affidavit that she was taken on country by her family and Elders and learnt its important places and the traditional boundaries of their country. She learnt how to fish, to gather food, the group’s special ceremonial foods, medicinal uses for plants and about language, dreaming stories and totems. 
[55]	The Registrar received a letter via email from [Person #1–name deleted], which was also signed by two other persons [names deleted], stating that the latter two persons did not want the additional information in their affidavits to be used to support the registration of the claim.  I provided this letter to QSNTS asking if it still holds instructions from the applicant that these affidavits are to form part of the applicant’s additional information for the purposes of the registration test. QSNTS replied that their instructions are to do all things necessary to progress the claim and the lodgement of the additional information, including these two affidavits, which were provided by the applicant under those instructions, and remain unchanged.  In the circumstances, I have formed the view that the affidavits comprise ‘information provided by the applicant’ and is something that I must have regard to under s 190A(3)(a). I am therefore unable to accede to the request from certain persons to not have regard to it.
[56]	The information provided by [names of these two persons deleted] tells of a life-long association with the area that stems back to the times of their apical ancestor, Dinah and her daughter Maud Cummins. They live in Cloncurry with their families and the area between Julia Creek and Cloncurry is part of their country, inherited from their father, [text deleted so as not to identify these two persons]. They have had a lifelong association with the area, including around Malbon (southwest of Cloncurry), across to Julia Creek in the east and up to Bloodwood, on Four Mile Creek south of Canobie station. Their father and uncles taught them many things about living on country, including to fish, to hunt and which foods to gather. They learnt about sacred places that were to be avoided, how to kill top-knot pigeons, to make spears and woomeras, to cook meat on a fire using the coals, where to gather conkerberries, wild oranges, split pea and gidgee gum and sharing of food with family members. They learnt about spiritual protocols. They have spent their lives travelling across their country, camping there and are especially drawn to its rivers and fishing sites. 
[57]	I find that the factual basis is sufficient to support an assertion that the native title claim group has an association with the area. The totality of the information provided speaks of an enduring association over the entire period since European settlement until the present with a sufficiently wide geographic compass that appears related to the claim area as a whole and appears grounded in the inter-generational transmission of a Mitakoodi and Mayi identity and understanding of their country and its laws and customs, which appears to stem back to the settlement period of the late 19th century.
Conclusion
[58]	There is a factual basis that goes to showing the history of association that members of the claim group have, and that their predecessors had, with the area covered by the application—see Gudjala 2007 at [51]. This is supported by the information at Attachment F and further substantiated by the information in the affidavits from the five persons in the claim group referred to above. I am satisfied that the information before me supports the existence of a link between the current claim group and its predecessors. The information (as outlined above) supports the claim group’s ongoing association with the application area and that this has its origins in the preceding generations’ association with the area. This is sufficient for me to be satisfied that the native title claim group has, and its predecessors had, an association with the area.
Reasons for s 190B(5)(b)
[59]	In the context of the registration test (and explicitly the task at s 190B(5)(b)), there must be factual material capable of supporting the assertion that there are ‘traditional’ laws and customs acknowledged and observed by the native title claim group, and that they give rise to the claimed native title rights and interests—Gudjala 2007 at [62] and [63]. Justice Dowsett again considered the requirements of s 190B(5) when he addressed the adequacy of the factual basis underlying an applicant’s claim in Gudjala 2009. He makes statements about the assessment of the adequacy of a general description of the factual basis of the claim, which in summary mean that:
a.	assertions should not merely restate the claim; and
b.	there must be at least an outline of the facts of the case—at [29].
[60]	In Gudjala 2007, Dowsett J considered that the factual basis materials for this assertion must demonstrate:
a.	that the laws and customs currently observed by the claim group have their source in a pre–sovereignty society and have been observed since that time by a continuing society—at [63];
b.	the identification of a society of people living according to a system of identifiable laws and customs, having a normative content, which existed at the time of sovereignty—at [65] and see also at [66]; and
c.	the link between the claim group described in the application and the area covered by the application, ‘identifying some link between the apical ancestors and any society existing at sovereignty’—at [66].
The relevant society
[61]	The following is a summarised account of the factual basis provided in Attachment F as to the identity of the relevant pre-sovereignty society:
a.	It is claimed that the relevant pre-sovereignty society for the area was described by WE Roth in 1897 as the Mitakoodi [=Mita-Thakurti] of the Cloncurry River and its branches, who were the messmates of the Mikoolun [Mayi-kulan] and the Miubbi [=Mayi-yapi] around Canobie station—paras 6 and 7. 
b.	It is said that Gavan Breen mapped the Mayi languages in 1981. Breen placed the Mayi-Thakurti (Mitakoodi) on the upper Cloncurry River and south of Canobie station; the Mayi-yapi north of Canobie station on the lower parts of the Cloncurry River; and the Mayi-kulan north-east of Canobie—paras 12. 
c.	It is claimed that the Mitakoodi and Mayi hold communal rights and interests notwithstanding that the relevant laws and customs of the pre-sovereignty society provided that particular families or descent groups are responsible for the primary duties of speaking for and caring for country in localized sub-sections of the application area—para 16. 
d.	It is said responsibility for and rights to land pass from their mothers and fathers through descent from one of the four apical ancestors and is contingent on recognition of identification as Mitakoodi and Mayi by the group as a whole—para 17. 
e.	There is said to be a classificatory system of kinship in which a person’s actual parents and grandparents, as well as closer relatives who stand in these relationships, play a role in passing on knowledge, rights and responsibilities—para 19.
The links between the pre-sovereignty society, the claim group and their apical ancestors 
[62]	The following is a summarised account of the factual basis provided as to these links:
a.	A lot of information is provided in Attachment F which links the current members of the claim group to the four apical ancestors. These apical ancestors are all identified via a mix of oral and recorded history as having been born at or around the time of European settlement and having a close association with lands covered by a number of pastoral runs that covered the area north of Cloncurry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The detail provided is considerable and in my opinion, allows an inference to be reasonably drawn, to the effect that the apical ancestors belonged to the Mitakoodi and Mayi society described by Roth at the end of the 19th century.
b.	The assertion is that present members of the Mitakoodi and Mayi are not only the established descendants of these ancestors, but have continued to practice the traditional laws and customs of their ancestors, as passed on to them through the generations from the known children of the ancestors, who are the grandparents of some of the more senior members of the claim group. This inter-generational transmission of law and custom is well articulated in the affidavits I have reviewed by [Claimants’ names deleted]. 
[63]	I am mindful that it is not appropriate to require evidence to a standard that would be required at the trial of the proceedings in this claim. I am of the view that the evidentiary affidavits by the five persons in the claim group discussed above provide a sufficient factual basis, when read with the description of the factual basis for this assertion in the application. Each of the deponents speaks to the matters asserted in Attachment F concerning the continuity over time of a shared system of traditional law and custom whereby rights are generated as a result of descent from an ancestor, including rights to speak for country, to hunt, camp and fish there, as passed down to them over the generations. There is detailed information about the acknowledgement and observance of common laws and customs relating to hunting, fishing, gathering of food, observing spiritual protocols when going onto country and of teaching the young about country and its stories and places. The information is that the ancestors themselves passed this onto their children and the latter’s transmission of law and custom was undertaken within living memory of the more senior members of the native title claim group.
[64]	Having regard to this information, I am satisfied that the factual basis is sufficient to support the assertion that the relevant laws and customs, acknowledged and observed by this society, have been passed down through the generations, by word of mouth and common practice, to the current members of the claim group, and have been acknowledged by them without substantial interruption.
Reasons for s 190B(5)(c)
[65]	This subsection requires that I be satisfied that there is sufficient factual basis to support the assertion that the native title claim group continues to hold native title in accordance with its traditional laws and customs.
[66]	There is a sufficient factual basis to support the continuation of traditional law and custom giving rise to the continued holding of the claimed native title. It appears that this has been possible because the members of the claim group and their predecessors have continued to live, work and travel through the area covered by the application. The information that I have reviewed above relating to the existence of traditional laws and customs that stem from the relevant pre-sovereignty society show a sufficient factual basis for this assertion also. It appears that the harsh impacts of colonisation on the Mitakoodi and Mayi have been mitigated by:
a.	the apical ancestors of the Mitakoodi and Mayi people maintaining contact with their country through work on the various pastoral stations located within and adjacent to the current claim area; people travelled, worked and resided in the towns and camps proximate to and within the current claim area, particularly around the major regional centre within the area of Cloncurry and Julia Creek, which lies just outside the south-eastern boundary;
b.	laws and customs relating to country, important sites and ceremonies, stories, hunting and gathering, fishing and bush tucker were passed down by the apical ancestors to their children and then from those persons to the younger generations and continue to be passed on today.
[67]	There is sufficient information before me to support the assertion that the native title claim group continues to hold native title in accordance with traditional laws and customs.
[68]	I am satisfied that the factual basis is sufficient to support an assertion that the native title claim group have continued to hold the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs. I rely on my reasons above for the assertion of s 190B(5)(b) setting out why I was satisfied that the factual basis is sufficient to support an assertion that there exist traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed by the native title claim group that give rise to the claim to native title rights and interests. The information there referred to is likewise sufficient, in my view, to support a sufficient factual basis for the assertion that the claim group have continued to hold the native title in accordance with their traditional laws and customs.
Conclusion
[69]	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).
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.
[70]	Under s 190B(6) I must be satisfied that at least one of the native title rights and interests claimed by the native title group can be established, prima facie. I refer to the comments made by Mansfield J in Doepel about the nature of the test at s 190B(6):
a.	it is a prima facie test and ‘if on its face a claim is arguable, whether involving disputed questions of fact or disputed questions of law, it should be accepted on a prima facie basis’—Doepel at [135]
b.	it involves some ‘measure’ and ‘weighing’ of the factual basis and imposes ‘a more onerous test to be applied to the individual rights and interests claimed’—Doepel at [126], [127] and [132].
[71]	I have examined the factual basis for the assertion that the claimed native title rights and interests exist against each individual right and interest claimed in the application to determine whether prima facie, they:
a.	exist under traditional law and custom in relation to any of the land or waters under claim;
b.	are native title rights and interests in relation to land or waters (see chapeau to s 223(1)); and
c.	are rights and interests that have not been extinguished over the whole of the application area.
[72]	I note that, in my view, as set out above at s 190B(5), the application provides a sufficient factual basis to support the assertion that there exist traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed by the native title claim group that give rise to the claimed native title rights and interests.
Consideration
1. Over areas where a claim to exclusive possession can be recognised (such as areas where there has been no prior extinguishment of native title or where s238, ss47, 47A or 47B apply), the Mitakoodi and Mayi People claim the right to possess, occupy, use and enjoy the lands and waters of the application area as against the whole world, pursuant to the traditional laws and customs of the claim group.
Not established
[73]	The majority decision of the High Court in Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1; (2002) 191 ALR 1; [2002] HCA 28 (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‘. 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]. Ward HC is authority that, subject to the satisfaction of other requirements, a claim to exclusive possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of lands and waters can be established, prima facie.
[74]	In Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia [2007] FCAFC 178 (Griffiths FC) the Full Court explored the relevant requirements to proving that such exclusive rights are vested in a native title claim group, stating:
. . . the question whether the native title rights of a given native title claim group include the right to exclude others from the land the subject of their application does not depend upon any formal classification of such rights as usufructuary or proprietary. It depends rather on consideration of what the evidence discloses about their content under traditional law and custom—at [71] (emphasis added).
[75]	The Full Court stressed that it is also:
important to bear in mind that traditional law and custom, so far as it bore upon relationships with persons outside the relevant community at the time of sovereignty, would have been framed by reference to relations with indigenous people—at [127] (emphasis added).
[76]	Attachment F states that ‘under traditional law and custom particular families or descent groups are responsible for the primary duties of speaking for and caring for country in localized sub-sections of the application area’—para 16. However, this would appear to relate to the inter-mural allocation of responsibility within the claim group, as opposed to their relationship with the outside world. There is no material that sets out how the group had such a right in relation to the area at the time of sovereignty or continues to acknowledge and observe traditional laws and customs as they relate to the right to exclusive possession.
[77]	In my view, the right to exclusive possession cannot be established, prima facie as it is not sufficiently evidenced how this claimed right exists under the traditional laws and customs of the native title claim group.
 2. Over areas where a claim to exclusive possession cannot be recognised, the Mitakoodi and Mayi People claim the following non-exclusive right to:
a) access, and be present on, move about on and travel over the application area; 
b) camp, and live temporarily on the application area as part of camping, and for that purpose build temporary shelters;
Established
[78]	There is evidence of these rights in the material before me, suggesting they exist under the traditional laws and customs of the native title claim group. Significant information is provided about the native title claim group’s previous and continuing access to the area covered by the application. I refer to the following examples:
a.	the apical ancestors lived and worked on country within what is now the area during the early pastoral industry, including Tiger Mitchell, Topsy and Minnie—Att F, paras 25 to 28;
b.	Minnie’s daughter Ethel Sweeney became an influential member for her people imparting knowledge through trips onto her country, as reported in supporting affidavits by [Claimants’ names deleted];
c.	there is evidence from a variety of sources that the claimants live on the claim area, particularly around Cloncurry and travel over it, including when visiting their traditional lands—Att F, paras 33 to 37;
d.	the construction of huts for shelter in the Cloncurry district among the Mitakoodi people was described by WE Roth in the late 19th / early 20th century, established in areas where there was reliable water and there are campsites dotted around the rivers that frame and traverse the claim area, such as Rockhole or Split Rock on Fort Constantine and the Williams River north-east of Cloncurry —Att F, paras 39 to 41; and
e.	[Claimant’s name deleted] describes an important fishing and camping site he and his family regularly visited at Malbon southwest of Cloncurry, at the splitting of the rivers where the Malbon meets the Cloncurry River—para 8, Affidavit dated 3 September 2015.
(c) hunt, fish and gather on the land and waters of the application area for personal, domestic, commercial and communal purposes;
(d) take, use, share and exchange natural resources from the land and waters of the application area for personal, domestic, commercial and communal purposes;
(e) take and use the water of the application area for personal, domestic, commercial and communal purposes;
i) light fires on the application area;
Established
[79]	There is ample information provided to show the prima facie existence of law and custom pertaining to the exercise of rights related to hunting, fishing and gathering, use of resources, lighting of fires. I refer to the following examples:
a.	It is said that the primary food of the plains people of the Flinders and Cloncurry Rivers, including the Mitakoodi and Mayi People were flock-pigeons, bush bustards, emus, ducks and fish, as noted by Edward Palmer in 1884—Att F, para 46.
b.	WE Roth recorded the fishing practices of the claim group in the late 19th century, including construction of nets (moo-na) which was usually obtained in barter from the Woonamurra (their eastern neighbours) and poisoning of water by a shrub (too-ta)—Att F, paras 13, 47–49.
c.	The apical ancestors and others of their group were able to survive by living off the land in the early 20th century and continued traditional practices of gathering plants for food and medicine, fishing and hunting. For example, apical ancestor Minnie’s daughter Ethel had much knowledge about plants passed to her by her mother and she passed this to her children and grandchildren, including [Claimants’ names deleted] who discuss this knowledge in their accompanying affidavits dated 6 July 2015.
d.	[Claimant’s name deleted] describes traditional fishing practices taught to her by her mother, a daughter of Jessie Kitchener, in turn the child of apical ancestors Tiger Mitchell and Dinah. [Claimant’s name deleted] always picks up sand and throws it in the water to attract the fish and she knows the best places to catch fish in her country. She describes catching mussels from the Coppermine Creek. Sharn was taught where to find sweet potatoes, where to hunt kangaroos, goannas and bush turkeys and where to find snotty gobbles, a vine with edible nectar—paras [27]–[36], affidavit dated 3 September 2015. 
e.	The waterways of the Mitakoodi and Mayi served as trading routes linking them with neighbouring language groups and provided an important food resource, which continues to the present day—Att F, paras 53 to 56.
f.	Water is used to prepare traditional plant medicines, such as boiling water to break down leaves, bark and seeds of the Sandlewood tree, used to treat wounds and sores—Att F, para 59.
g.	There is evidence of trade in resources amongst the Mitakoodi and their neighbours, including red and yellow ochre, a bluish copper stone, coolamons for carrying water, women’s opossum-twine waist belts, fighting poles, shields, hand spears and whitewood boomerangs, reported by WE Roth—Att F, paras 60–61.
h.	There is evidence of lighting of fires, for cooking hunted game and fish, using the coals. [Claimant’s name deleted] recalls being taught the traditional way to light fires by her granny Ethel—Att F, para 85–87
f) conduct ceremonies and dance on the application area;
g) hold meetings on the application area;
(h) teach on the area the physical and spiritual aspects of the application area;
(j) maintain places of importance and areas of significance to the native title holders under their traditional laws and customs, and protect those places and areas from physical harm
(k) be accompanied onto the application area by certain non-native title holders, being:
a. immediate family of native title holders, pursuant to the exercise of traditional laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title holders; and
b. people required under the traditional laws acknowledged and traditional customs observed by the native title holders for the performance of, or participation in, ceremonies and dance.
Established
[80]	There is evidence of ceremonial life by the Mitakoodi and Mayi peoples of the late 19th century, reported by Edward Palmer, on Canobie station where elders would form an open council to settle serious quarrels and punish offenders under Aboriginal law—Att F, para 69. Palmer reported a mayi-kulan initiation ceremony in 1884—Att F, para 72. Roth reported a Mitakoodi initiation ceremony for a young boy in the late 19th century around Cloncurry west to Grenada and Devoncourt stations—Att F, para 71. There is a fenced off bora ground near Fort Constantine Station where young boys were initiated by senior men; it is said that the dancing ground is clearly visible and considered a sacred site by the claim group—Att F, para 72. [Claimant’s name deleted], daughter of apical ancestor Topsy recalls corroborees when she was growing up in the 1930s on Canobie Station—Att F, para 73.
[81]	There is evidence of observance of ceremony whilst on the claim area and holding of meetings found also from the following sources:
a.	[Claimant’s name deleted] learnt about sacred sites for men and women and for giving birth—para 14, affidavit dated 6 July 2015;
b.	[Claimant’s name deleted] provides a lot of information about use of ceremonial foods, special law places and woman’s sites, dreaming stories, rituals associated with birth and death and passing of this knowledge to the next generation—affidavit dated 6 July 2015.
[82]	There is evidence that the Mitakoodi and Mayi look after their sacred sites, as this is part of their traditional laws and customs. Attachment F tells of rights and interests being ‘exercised within the context of an all powerful and at times dangerous spirituality’ which regulates and prescribes customs that mandate behavior and actions whilst on country. This includes avoidance of places, respect for country and its resources, prohibition on removal of objects and when to acknowledge and speak to spirits so that they can be mollified or placated—Att F, para 23. The following examples are found within the material:
a.	a named claimant regularly visits sacred sites around Cloncurry to ensure they are undamaged—Att F, para 81;
b.	senior claimants have all participated in cultural heritage work, protecting special places subject to mining and mineral resource exploration activities—Att F, paras 82–83;
c.	other claimants always acknowledge the old people, letting the spirits know that they are there, when visiting a water hole at Black Mountain—Att F, para 84;
d.	[Claimant’s name deleted] describes being taught by her granny Ethel about where to fish, what plants to eat and use for medicines, where special sites were and she takes her children and grandchildren out on country to show them these things as well—para 11, affidavit dated 6 July 2015;
e.	[Claimant’s name deleted] has consolidated the knowledge she acquired from her elders about traditional plant medicines in a published work and has passed this to her children and grandchildren—para 12, affidavit dated 6 July 2015;
f.	there is a place that Granny Ethel told [Claimant’s name deleted]  was a men’s site and never to go there as it was not for women—para 14, affidavit dated 6 July 2015;
g.	[Claimant’s name deleted] travels over country to check for damage, such as cutting away of riverbanks and gravel being removed from the river. Pearl describes how it is important to clean up the rubber vine at the Fort, as it kills the trees and this erodes the river banks. They have just received funding to fence off the granite site close to Cloncurry township, which is a sacred site to her people—para 15, affidavit dated 6 July 2015.
[83]	Attachment F provides information about the interaction between different groups, observed by Palmer in the late 19th century on Canobie Station, who recorded that when they met at certain places such as large lagoons in another’s hunting ground, they did so with the permission or consent of the owner of that place—Att F, para 88. Roth described market centres at Canobie and Fort Constantine where visitors from neighbouring country would travel to meet for exchange and ceremony and walk along designated trade routes that followed rivers—Att F, para 89.
Conclusion
[84]	I have considered the rights claimed in the application against existing law in relation to whether or not they are capable of being recognised and whether the application provides sufficient information to establish, prima facie, their existence. I am satisfied, having considered the information before me, that some of the rights claimed in this application can be established, prima facie.
[85]	The application satisfies the condition of s 190B(6).
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.
[86]	Under s 190B(7), I must be satisfied that at least one member of the native title claim group currently has or previously had a traditional physical connection with any part of the land or waters covered by the application. In Doepel, Mansfield J considered the nature of the Registrar’s task at s 190B(7) which was approved by the Full Court in Gudjala FC:
Section 190B(7) imposes a different task upon the Registrar. It does require the Registrar to be satisfied of a particular fact or particular facts. It therefore requires evidentiary material to be presented to the Registrar. The focus is, however, a confined one. It is not the same focus as that of the Court when it comes to hear and determine the application for determination of native title rights and interests. The focus is upon the relationship of at least one member of the native title claim group with some part of the claim area. It can be seen, as with s 190B(6), as requiring some measure of substantive (as distinct from procedural) quality control upon the application if it is to be accepted for registration—at [18].
[87]	Having read the affidavits provided by [Claimants’ names deleted], I am satisfied that they are all members of the native title claim group and all have a traditional physical connection with the claim area. They all have a lifelong association and connection with the area, which has a physical dimension and appears to be grounded in a common system of traditional law and custom whereby they have inherited rights and responsibilities for country from their parents and grandparents.
[88]	I am satisfied that at least one member of that group currently has a traditional physical connection with parts of the application area.
[89]	The application satisfies the condition of s 190B(7).
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 s61A (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.
[90]	In the reasons below, I look 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.
Section 61A(1)
[91]	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. The geospatial report dated 29 July 2015 and a search that I have made of the Tribunal’s geospatial databases on the day of my decision confirms that there are no approved determinations of native title over the area covered by the application.
Section 61A(2)
[92]	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. Schedule B contains a statement that the application excludes any area where a previous exclusive possession act was done in relation to the area covered by the application.
Section 61A(3)
[93]	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. Schedule B states that exclusive possession is not claimed over areas subject to valid previous non-exclusive possession acts.
Conclusion
[94]	The application does not offend the provisions of ss 61A(1), 61A(2) and 61A(3) and therefore the application satisfies the condition of s 190B(8).
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.
[95]	I consider each of the subconditions of s 190B(9) in my reasons below.
Section 190B(9)(a)
[96]	Schedule Q contains the statement that ‘the native title claim group does not claim ownership of minerals, petroleum or gas where they are wholly owned by the Crown’.
Section 190B(9)(b)
[97]	The application area is located well inland of the coast and does not relate to any offshore places.
Section 190B(9)(c)
[98]	Schedule B at paragraph 6 states that the application excludes land or waters where the native title rights and interests claimed have been otherwise extinguished.
Conclusion
[99]	The application does not offend the provisions of ss 190B(9)(a), (b) and (c) and therefore the application meets the condition of s 190B(9).
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. 
[100]	The application satisfies the condition of s 190C(2), because it contains all of the details and other information and documents required by ss 61 and 62, as set out in the reasons below. 
[101]	Section 190C(2) ‘directs attention to the contents of the application and supporting affidavits’ and ‘seeks to ensure that the application contains ‘all details’ required by s 61’. 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]. In other words, does the application contain the prescribed details and other information? 
[102]	Below I consider each of the particular parts of ss 61 and 62, which require the application to contain certain details/other information or that it is accompanied by an affidavit or other documents.
Native title claim group: s 61(1)
[103]	One of the requirements of my consideration of the application under s 190C(2) is ‘to consider whether the application sets out the native title claim group in the terms required by s 61’—Doepel at [36]. Specifically:
If the description of the native title claim group were to indicate that not all the persons in the native title claim group were included, or that it was in fact a sub-group of the native title claim group, then the relevant requirement of s 190C(2) would not be met and the Registrar should not accept the claim for registration—Doepel at [36].
[104]	The details relevant to my consideration at this condition are set out in the application at Part A, 1 and 2 and at Schedules A and R. There is nothing on the face of the application that suggests that the application is not brought on behalf of all members of the native title claim group and I am satisfied that the application meets the requirements of this condition. The application contains all details and other information required by s 61(1). 
Name and address for service: s 61(3)
[105]	Part B of the application states on page 16 the name and address for service of the persons who are the applicant. The application contains all details and other information required by s 61(3). 
Native title claim group named/described: s 61(4)
[106]	Schedule A provides a description of the persons who comprise the native title claim group. The application contains all details and other information required by s 61(4).
Affidavits in prescribed form: s 62(1)(a)
[107]	The application is accompanied by affidavits from each of the 15 persons who comprise the applicant. The affidavits are signed by each deponent and witnessed and make all the statements required of this section. The application is accompanied by the affidavit required by s 62(1)(a).
Details required by s 62(1)(b)
[108]	Subsection 62(1)(b) requires that the application 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)
[109]	Schedule B provides a list of general exclusion statements for those areas not covered by the application and refers to Attachment B for the description of the external boundaries of the area covered by the application which is a metes and bounds description of those geographical external boundaries.
Map of external boundaries of the area: s 62(2)(b)
[110]	Schedule C refers to Attachment C being a map showing the external boundaries of the area covered by the application.
Searches: s 62(2)(c)
[111]	Schedule D provides the statement that no searches have been carried out.
Description of native title rights and interests: s 62(2)(d)
[112]	Schedule E provides a description of the native title rights and interests claimed in relation to the area covered by the application.
Description of factual basis: s 62(2)(e)
[113]	Schedule F refers to Attachment F which provides information in support of the factual basis for the claim made in the application.
Activities: s 62(2)(f)
[114]	Schedule G provides details activities undertaken by the native title claim group.
Other applications: s 62(2)(g)
[115]	Schedule H states that there are no other applications.
Section 24MD(6B)(c) notices: s 62(2)(ga)
[116]	Schedule HA states that the applicant is not aware of any such notices made in relation to the whole or part of the area covered by the application.
Section 29 notices: s 62(2)(h)
[117]	Schedule I contains a list of known s 29 notices.
Conclusion
[118]	The application contains the details specified in ss 62(2)(a) to (h), and therefore contains all details and other information required by s 62(1)(b).
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.
[119]	The geospatial report reveals that there are no previously registered applications that overlap the area of the Mitakoodi and Mayi application, such that there is no requirement for me to consider the issue of common members.
[120]	The application satisfies the condition of s 190C(3).
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.
Nature of the task
[121]	The task under s 190C(4) is to find whether the application has been certified by all representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies that could certify the application in performing its functions.  If the application has not been certified, I must form an opinion that 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. 
[122]	A certificate in this case accompanies the application from QSNTS at Attachment R.
Information from [Person #1–name deleted]
[123]	I note that [Person #1–name deleted] has provided me with information outlining a dispute that has potentially arisen in relation to the applicant’s authority.   I have not considered this information in relation to this condition because of my view that I am not empowered to ‘look behind’ the reasons expressed in the representative body’s certification or to question the merits of the representative body’s certification. My task is merely to ensure that the certification meets the requirements for a valid certification under s 203BE(4); it is not to consider whether the applicant is, in fact, authorised.  
Certification
[124]	I find that the application has been certified under Part 11 of the Act. 
[125]	In this case, there is only one representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body for the area—Queensland South Native Title Services Limited. The geospatial report confirms that QSNTS is the only representative body for the whole of the area covered by the application. QSNTS is funded to perform all the functions of a representative body in southern and western Queensland pursuant to s 203FE. It is therefore the only body that could certify the application under s 203BE.
[126]	The certification by QSNTS is provided in Attachment R of the application. It is signed by the Chief Executive Officer of QSNTS and is dated 2 July 2015. 
[127]	To meet the requirements of this condition, the certification must comply with the provisions of s 203BE(4)(a) to (c). For the reasons that follow, I find that these requirements are met.
[128]	The certification complies with subsection (a) as it contains the required statement of the representative body’s opinion that all persons in the native title claim group have authorised the applicant to make the application and deal with all matters in relation to it and all reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the application describes or otherwise identifies all the other persons in the native title claim group. 
[129]	The certification complies with subsection (b) as it briefly sets out the reasons for being of the above opinion. The brief reasons that are set out in the certificate refer to the convening by QSNTS of an authorisation meeting held in Mount Isa and via video-conference in Rockhampton, Townsville and Brisbane. The certificate sets out that the meeting was extensively advertised through notices placed in a variety of newspapers. This public advertising was supplemented by a mail out to members of the Mitakoodi and Mayi peoples, contact via telephone to those persons and posting of details of the meeting on the QSNTS website. It sets out that a well attended information session was held in Mount Isa and via video-conference from a range of locations on 12 June 2015. The certificate states that the authorisation meeting was well attended on 13 June 2015 and the CEO states his opinion that  through the holding of the authorisation meeting all necessary steps and processes have been followed to ground the opinions expressed in the certificate that all persons in the native title claim group have authorised the applicant to make the application and to deal with matters arising in relation to it and all reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the application describes or otherwise identifies all the other persons in the native title claim group.
[130]	Subsection (c) requires the representative body to, ‘where applicable, briefly set out what the representative body has done to meet the requirements of s 203BE(3)’. Section 203BE(3) requires the representative body to make all reasonable efforts to achieve agreement between competing claimants and to minimise the number of overlapping applications over an area of land and waters. The certificate is silent as to this requirement, however, there is nothing before me to indicate that there are any competing claimants or overlapping applications which would need to be discussed in the certificate, such that it appears that this requirement has not been activated in relation to the certification.
[131]	The application meets the requirements of s 190C(4)(a). 

[End of reasons]