Registration Decision

Application name	Kado Muir & Ors & State of Western Australia & Ors (Manta Rirrtinya)	
Name of applicant	Kado Muir, Harvey Murray, Luke George, Troy Chapman, Roslyn Narrier, Ivan Wongawol, Sandra Evans and Vanessa Thomas	
Federal Court of Australia No.	WAD453/2017	
NNTT No.	WC2017/005	
Date of Decision	21 December 2017	
Date of Reasons	2 March 2018	

Claim accepted for registration
I have decided that the claim in the Manta Rirrtinya application satisfies all of the conditions in ss 190B and 190C of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). Therefore the claim must be accepted for registration and entered on the Register of Native Title Claims.

___________________________________
Lisa Jowett
Delegate of the Native Title Registrar

Reasons for Decision
CASES CITED
Banjima People v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 171 (Banjima People)
Griffiths v Northern Territory of Australia [2007] FCAFC 178 (Griffiths)
Gudjala People #2 v Native Title Registrar [2007] FCA 1167 (Gudjala 2007)
Gudjala People # 2 v Native Title Registrar (2008) 171 FCR 317; [2008] FCAFC 157 (Gudjala 2008)
Gudjala People #2 v Native Title Registrar [2009] FCA 1572 (Gudjala 2009)
Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422; [2002] HCA 58 (Yorta Yorta).
Northern Territory of Australia v Doepel (2003) 133 FCR 112; [2003] FCA 1384 (Doepel)
Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1; (2002) 191 ALR 1; [2002] HCA 28 (Ward HC)
BACKGROUND
[1]	The application is filed on behalf of the Manta Rirrtinya native title claim group. It covers approximately 23,500 square kilometers of land and waters located at the junction of the Little Sandy and Great Victoria Deserts of Western Australia. The area is comprised of unallocated crown land to the east of Lake Carnegie. The Manta Rirrtinya claim area is surrounded on three sides by recognised Western Desert Cultural Bloc (WDCB) determined areas - the Wiluna (WAD6164/1998), Birrilibulu People (WAD6284/1998) and Ngaanyatjarra Lands (WAD6004/2004) determinations.
[2]	The Registrar of the Federal Court (the Court) gave a copy of the application and accompanying affidavits to the Native Title Registrar (Registrar) on 15 September 2017 pursuant to s 63 of the Act. This has triggered the Registrar’s duty to consider the claim made in the application under s 190A of the Act.
Registration conditions
[3]	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 (which deals mainly with the merits of the claim) and s 190C (which deals with 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.
[4]	Given that the claimant application was made on 15 September 2017 and has not been amended, I am satisfied that neither subsection 190A(1A) nor subsection 190A(6A) apply.
[5]	I have decided that the claim in the application must be accepted for registration because it satisfies all the conditions for registration and this document sets out my reasons for that decision. 
Information considered
[6]	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’.
[7]	I have had regard to information in the application. I have also considered documents provided by the applicant directly to Registrar on 26 October 2017: 
1.	Applicant’s Submissions on the Registration Test.
2.	Anthropological report for consideration by the Registrar pursuant to s 190A of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), [name removed], October 2017 ([name removed] Report).
3.	Affidavits sworn or affirmed by:
(i)	[name removed] on 8 July 2017,
(ii)	[name removed] on 8 July 2017,
(iii)	[name removed] on 8 July 2017,
(iv)	[name removed] on 7 July 2017, and
(v)	[name removed] on 18 July 2017.
[8]	I note there is no information before me obtained as a result of any searches conducted by the Registrar of State/Commonwealth interest registers.
[9]	The State of Western Australia (state government) has not provided any submissions in relation to the application of the registration test.
[10]	I may also have regard to such other information as I consider appropriate. I have considered information contained in a geospatial assessment and overlap analysis prepared by the Tribunal’s Geospatial Services in relation to the area covered by the application, dated 19 September 2017 (the geospatial report).
Procedural fairness
[11]	 As referred to above, I have considered additional material provided by the applicant. On 5 December 2017, I wrote to the state government advising that I would be relying on this information in my application of the registration test and that should they wish to make any submissions, they should do so by 15 December 2017. On 18 December 2017 the practice leader for the matter received confirmation that the state government had no comments or submissions to make in relation to the additional material. This concluded the procedural fairness processes.
Merits of the claim (s 190B) – Conditions met
Identification of area subject to native title – s 190B(2) condition met
[12]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190B(2), the Registrar must be satisfied that the information and map contained in the application identify with reasonable certainty the ‘particular land and waters’ where native title rights and interests are claimed. The two questions for this condition are whether the information and map provides certainty about: 
(a)	the external boundary of the area where native title rights and interests are claimed; and 
(b)	any areas within the external boundary over which no claim is made.  
Description of the area covered by the application
[13]	Schedule B refers to Attachment B which describes the external boundary of the claim area by metes and bounds, referring to the boundaries of native title determinations, parcels and Representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Bodies and to coordinated points (GDA94). 
[14]	Schedule C refers to Attachment C which is a colour map prepared by the Tribunal’s Geospatial Services, titled ‘Manta Rirrtinya Claim’ dated 17/07/2017. The map includes the application area depicted in bold blue outline, tenure as depicted by the legend, labelled with parcel identifier and name, a topographic background image depicting relief, roads, water courses and natural features, commencement point, scalebar and coordinate grid and notes relating to the source, currency and datum of data used to prepare the map.
[15]	Attachment B states that the area covered by the application excludes the native title Wiluna, Birriliburru People and Ngaanyatjarra Lands determination boundaries. Schedule B provides a list of general exclusions to define those areas not covered by the application.
Consideration
[16]	The information in relation to the external boundaries of the area covered by the application allows me to identify the location of those boundaries on the surface of the earth. The specific exclusions (noted above) provide added certainty as to the identification of those boundaries. The general exclusions used to describe other areas not covered by the application are, in my view, sufficient to offer an objective mechanism by which to identify areas that would fall within the categories listed.
[17]	The geospatial report in relation to the application makes the assessment that the description and the map are consistent such that the area covered by the application is readily identifiable. I agree with that assessment. I am therefore satisfied that the external boundary is identifiable and, along with the general and specific exclusions that set the internal boundaries, that it can be said with reasonable certainty whether native title rights and interests are claimed in relation to particular land or waters.
Identification of the native title claim group – s 190B(3) condition met
[18]	Schedule A of the application does not name the persons in the native title claim group but contains a description of that group, being the basis for its composition. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the application satisfies the requirements of s 190B(3)(b). I note the comments of Mansfield J in Doepel that the focus of s 190B(3)(b) is:
(a)	whether the application enables the reliable identification of persons in the native title claim group; and is
(b)	not on ‘the correctness of the description . . . but upon its adequacy so that the members [sic] of any particular person in the identified native title claim group can be ascertained’.
[19]	Carr J in Western Australia v Native Title Registrar was of the view that ‘it 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’.
[20]	The native title claim group is described at Schedule A as follows:
38. The native title claim group comprises those persons who hold native title rights and interests in part or all of the determination area according to traditional laws and customs through one or more of:
(a) their own birth on the application area;
(b) the birth of an ancestor on the application area;
(c) having religious, sacred or ritual authority for the application area;
(d) having one’s conception site on the application area;
(e) having burial sites of an ancestor on the application area;
(f) long traditional association with the application area through occupation, custodianship or use by one’s self and/or relevant kin; or
(g) asserting connection with the application area and having that assertion accepted by others.

39. At the date of this application, the persons referred to in paragraph 38 above includes the descendants of the following persons who assert and are recognised under the relevant traditional laws and customs by the other native title claimants as having rights in the application area:
a) Nukuwara/Paddy Bond;
(b) Thayangka;
(c) the siblings Yarltat/Joe Finch and Katapurna/George Finch;
(d) Tjiku Tjiku;
(e) the sisters Yalana, Rangka Rangka, Putjipa and Yiningka;
(f) the siblings Mikintji Well Jones, Albert Jones, Maraputa/Jenny Jones and Wilpirr Jones;
(g) Mungi Mungi;
(h) the siblings Maudie Hill, Willy Hill, Maisie Hill, Snowy Hill, Johnny Hill and Roly Hill;
(i) Nguru/ Charlie (Thorpe);
(j) Wogabu/Wakapu/Jimmy Walker;
(k) Tjujaru/ Anne Green (sometimes referred to as Annie Thutha); and
(l) Munda/ Lily Wongawol.
[21]	Based on this description, I understand that membership of the native title claim group is in accordance with a number of specifically defined traditional laws and customs and that a person will be a member of the group through descent of (one or more) identified ancestral lines. It may be that some factual inquiry is required to establish a person’s descent from any of the named ancestors or eligibility against the other principles for membership, but that would not mean that the group has not been sufficiently described.
[22]	I am satisfied the application describes at Schedule A the persons in the native title claim group sufficiently clearly so that it can be ascertained whether any particular person is in that group.
Identification of claimed native title – s 190B(4) condition met
[23]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190B(4), the Registrar must be satisfied that the application’s description of the claimed native title rights and interests is sufficient to allow the rights and interests to be readily identified. The question for this condition is whether the claimed rights are described clearly, comprehensively and in a way that is meaningful and understandable, having regard to the definition of the term ‘native title rights and interests’ in s 223 of the Act.
[24]	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. 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].
[25]	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. Schedule E of the application contains the description, as required by s 62(2)(d), of native title rights and interests claimed in relation to the area covered by the application:
12. In this SCHEDULE E, the following words and phrases have the following meanings:
exclusive rights means the exclusive rights of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of land and waters to the exclusion of all others; and 
non-exclusive rights mean the non-exclusive rights of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of land and waters.

13. In the lands and waters covered by the application:
(a) where native title rights and interests are not partially extinguished, the native title rights and interests claimed are exclusive rights; and
(b) in all other areas, the native title rights and interests claimed are non-exclusive rights.

14. Both the exclusive rights and the non-exclusive rights are:
(a) exercisable in accordance with the traditional laws and customs of the native title claim group; and
(b) subject to the valid laws of the State of Western Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia, including the common law.
[26]	When read together with the exclusion statements in the written description of the area covered by the application, I am of the view that the native title rights and interests claimed can be ‘properly understood’. I understand the application to claim possession, occupation, use and enjoyment to the exclusion of all others only in those areas where it can be recognised. In all other areas, the application claims the broad umbrella of non-exclusive rights of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of land and waters
[27]	Whether any of these rights fall outside the scope of s 223 is, in my view, a matter for consideration under s 190B(6), whether they can be prima facie established. The description of the claimed rights and interests are, in my view, readily identifiable in the sense of being intelligible and understandable.
[28]	I am satisfied the description contained in the application is sufficient to allow the native title rights and interests to be readily identified.
Factual basis for claimed native title – s 190B(5) condition met
[29]	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, 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].
[30]	The decisions of Dowsett J in Gudjala 2007 and 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) and his approach in Gudjala 2009 was in accord with this.
Information considered
[31]	In addition to the information contained in the application at Schedule E and Attachments F, G and M, the applicant has provided additional material directly to the Registrar, as listed above at [7]. I have had regard to all of this material in my consideration of the factual basis for the claim made in the application.
[32]	Attachment F to the application provides a generalised but comprehensive overview addressing the factual basis requirements and this serves as the foundation of my discussion of the sufficiency of the material to support each of the three assertions. I refer in my reasons below primarily to the applicant submissions which have extracted and summarised the information contained in the [name removed] Report and the claimant affidavits. Where the factual basis requirements have necessitated further support than provided in the applicant submissions, I have turned to the source material directly.
The area covered by the application and the Western Desert Cultural Bloc
[33]	The area covered by the application is located approximately 300kms east of the town of Wiluna in the Western Desert region. To the north, west and east are areas where native title has been determined on the basis that the respective claim areas were governed by the laws and customs of the Western Desert Cultural Bloc (WDCB). The Manta Rirrtinya native title claim group assert to acknowledge and observe the traditional laws and customs of the larger system of the WDCB.
s 190B(5)(a)
[34]	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. Specific to the factual basis for the claim made in this application, it is not necessary for it 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 to show that the claim group as a whole has an association with the area.
[35]	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].
[36]	Attachment F states that the association (connection) of the native title claim group historically and currently includes spiritual, physical, historical, (customary) legal, economic and social elements. Each of these elements are briefly extrapolated:
(a)	Spiritual – the belief system and customary and ritual life of members of the native title claim group is based on the WDCB precept of the tjukurrpa (Dreaming) which has force in the form and existence of the landscape and governs people’s rights and responsibilities to protect country, beliefs and practices. There are tjukurrpa specifically associated with the claim area.
(b)	Physical – comprises the physical presence on the claim area of the claim group and its predecessors on the claim area, their use of its resources, their activities associated with protecting and maintaining places their intergenerational transfer of knowledge about the land and waters of their country.
(c)	Historical – the claim group and its predecessors have maintained a connection with the claim area that has endured for a long-established period of time.
(d)	Customary – the claim group acknowledges and observes traditional laws and customs that give status to the ‘proper’ people in relation to important and significant sites, the spiritual features and generally the land and the waters of the claim area.
(e)	Economic - visiting and utilising the resources of the land and waters of the claim area under traditional law and custom, including for sustenance, trade and exchange.
(f)	Social – the kinship relationships between people, between people and country and those associations of people and country with the tjukurrpa.
[37]	It is within the context of these elements that the claimant affidavits relate the stories and circumstances of their connection and their predecessors connection with the area covered by the application.
Association of the predecessors of the native title claim group with the application area
[38]	Exploration in the late 1800s through the claim area provides recorded evidence of habitation and use of resources in the vicinity of known sites within the claim area. Explorers John Forrest and David Carnegie both recorded the presence of Aboriginal people and their occupation of the area, in particular in the vicinity of Empress Springs (in the south western region of the claim area). 
[39]	The [name removed] Report states that the members of the native title claim group can trace their descent from ancestors whose traditional countries are encompassed by the boundaries of claim area. The research has evidenced the birth places and areas of particular association for the named ancestors, including Mangkili area (to the north), the eastern side of Prenti Downs Pastotral Station (western reaches of the claim area), Empress Springs (south western reaches of the claim area), northern portion of the Lake Wells system and the north western corner of the claim area near Carnegie Station. Discussion about the apical ancestors and their descendant families is followed by the conclusion:
In summary, because the Manta Rirrtinya claim area is located within what is known as the WDCB and all living Claimants have an ancestor born within or adjacent to the Manta  Rirrtinya Claim area, then it is my view that all Claimants can and do legitimately assert ‘ownership’ and traditional native title rights and interests to all or part of the Manta Rirrtinya claim area under the laws and customs of the WDCB through the association of their predecessors to the area—at 6.54.
[40]	The applicant asserts in its submissions that ‘contemporary evidence provided with these submissions can be relied upon to establish an inference that the predecessors of the current claim group members had an association with the Manta Rirrtinya Claim area’. That is, members of the native title claim group know the stories of this predecessors travelling through and occupying the area, the association of their ancestors with the area is how rights to country have been transferred to them.  This is demonstrated in the claimant affidavits included in the applicant’s additional material.
[41]	[name removed] attests to the Manta Rirrtinya claim area as his ngurra because it is the country of his mother and father: ‘They travelled right through the country; from Tjirrkarli right through to Mulga Queen – through Empress Springs Area, and Lake Wells’, ‘zigzagging; following rock holes, water and hunting places through the country…’.
[42]	[name removed] sets out his genealogy and the association of his predecessors with the claim area – his mother’s parents and grandparents were from Mangkili, which was their ngurra (in the far north east of the claim area). His grandparents lived ‘pretty much from Mangkili and down through the Rirrti [Empress Springs] area and towards Mulga Queen’. {name removed]’s grandparents and parents lived and travelled throughout their lives east of the claim area. His mother was taken by her grannie through the southern part of the claim area and later [name removed]’s parents were living nomadic lives around Mulga Queen, Yandal, Melrose, Weebo, on Kaluwiri and Albion Downs pastoral stations. His parents spent time living and working (his father’s dogging job) in the Manta Rirrtinya claim area – including Rirrti (Empress Spring), the Wantarurru (Ernest Giles Range), Tort Tort and Wanan (Ida Range) – all in the south and central part of the claim area.
[43]	[name removed] is connected to his country in the claim area through his great grandfathers, his grandmother and grandfather and through his mother. He speaks of this connection through being taught by the old people about places in the Mangkili and Empress Springs areas – Mangkili is his homeland and ‘is like a refuge for my people’—at [75]-[80]. He describes connection of other families to the Mangkili area, the area north of Lake Wells to the Gunbarrel Highway.
[44]	[name removed] states her mother and father are from the claim area, that there is still evidence of the presence of the old people. [name removed] speaks of his old people who walked around the Mangkili area. [name removed] speaks of his mother’s association with the claim area, looking after country, camping at the rockholes as she was travelling with the old people. It is through her that he can speak for the important Empress Springs site.
[45]	The applicant submits that the claimants’ affidavits evidence knowledge and understanding of their predecessors association with the claim area and demonstrates the direct occupation of the area by their ancestors and predecessors dating back to the assertion of sovereignty and first European contact in the area.
Current association of the native title claim group with the application area
[46]	The applicant submits that although members of the claim group do not reside on the claim area, they continue to their maintain association, including a physical association with it. Members of the claim group have been born in, or adjacent to the claim area, some spent periods of their childhoods living in the claim area. The claimant affidavits evidence that members of the claim group continue to travel through and visit the claim area. They have an intimate knowledge of the tjukurrpa that travel through the claim area and acknowledge and observe the responsibilities associated with them.
[47]	Although he has lived all his life away from the claim area, [name removed] spent time as child at Empress Springs – his mother teaching him the names of places for country, the stories of her earlier life, passing on her knowledge of the country. As an intitiated man, [name removed] knows the tjukurrpa stories that explain the features of the landscape:
•	for [name removed] in the north east of the claim area, told to him by his ‘old aunty’ who was born there;
•	the story and songline that goes in a line north from the Ernest Giles Range (south of the claim area) to the Ida Range (in south/central part of the claim area);
•	for the claypans north of Lake Wells and around the western boundary of the claim area;
•	the stories for the area of Rirrti (Empress Springs) and the sandhills north of that area that keep going towards Tjirrkali (east of the claim area);
•	the sacred and secret stories around Empress Springs and Lake Wells that are important for men’s law business.
[48]	[name removed] describes the extent of his country which includes both the claim area and areas proximate to and beyond it. He says it starts in the north of the claim area at Mangkili and goes down to Rirrti (Empress Springs), out to the west and back through Lake Wells. On his country he can hunt, gather food, visit places, chop wood, teach his children, mine ochre, take rocks. 
[49]	[name removed] is a senior wati (initiated man) for the claim area. His father owned the area of Mangkili and told him the stories, the tjukurrpa, of that area. He knows  the Mangkili area well – he grew up there as child  - walking around …’right up to Mungulu, Tjilukurru (Well No. 16 Canning Stock Route) right back to Wiluna’. [name removed] speaks of Lake Wells (in the central-west of the claim area) and Prenti Downs, the birth place of two of her brothers, a cousin-brother, that this area is their ngurra. [name removed] knows the ‘bottom area, going from Mulga Queen [west of the clam area] towards Tjirrkali, including the Empress Springs area’. [name removed] speaks for Empress Springs, Mangkili and Lake Wells. He goes out to Lake Wells often and knows the dreaming stories for that area.
Consideration
[50]	Given the extent to which the native title claim group’s current association with the area is governed by its ancestral links to the predecessors of the group, it is clear to me that the group has a previous association with the area of the application. The group’s current association is evident to the degree it is because that connection has been passed down through the generations – to which the claimants all attest in their affidavits and which is clear in the overview of WDCB law and custom provided in the [name removed] Report and applicant submissions. Particularly, this is demonstrated by the ancestral links to ngurra. These principles of descent are what currently relate the claimants to their ngurra, a connection they have through their ancestors with its consequent rights and responsibilities.
[51]	I consider that the factual basis material is sufficient to demonstrate the association that members of the claim group, have and its predecessors had, with the area covered by the application. The extensive personal detail in the affidavits of the members of the native title claim group provides particular evidence to illustrate the claim group’s abiding connection to the land and waters of the application area through birth, descent, long term association and/or ancestral connection to that area. In this way it is clear that this current association has its origins in the preceding generations’ association with the area.
[52]	For these reasons I am satisfied that the native title claim group has, and its predecessors had, an association with the area.
s 190B(5)(b)
[53]	This subsection requires that I be satisfied that the material before me provides a sufficient factual basis for the assertion that there exist traditional laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group which give rise to the native title rights and interests it claims.
[54]	In Gudjala 2007, Dowsett J considered that the factual basis materials for this assertion must demonstrate:
•	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;
•	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; and
•	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’.
[55]	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 exists ‘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. In my view, there is sufficient factual account in the application and claimant affidavits to support the proposition, that under the traditional laws and customs of the claim group, there exist rights and interests that relate to the land and waters of the area covered by the application.
The relevant society
[56]	The [name removed] Report identifies that the native title claim group’s system of laws and customs falls within the Western Desert Cultural Bloc. Attachment F provides an overview of the traditional laws and customs of the native title claim group who are members of the larger society of the WDCB. The claim group is governed by a ‘functioning set of laws, rules, customs, practices and beliefs that allow the members of the native title claim group to live their daily lives according to shared physical, social and cultural norms’. These are underpinned by the ‘fundamental belief system’ of the tjukurrpa which provides moral, social and judicial guidance, the rules and principles that govern relationships and conduct of people in relation to country and explains the formation of, and is evidenced in, the landscape of the claim area. The traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed by members of the claim group is given normative force through commitment to the tjukurrpa – through the value of the sacred; the operation of sanctions for breaches of law and custom; linking the past and present, people and the natural environment. Tjukurrpa shapes the claim group’s relationship to country, the experience and understanding of people’s socio-cultural system and provides a framework for engaging with and accessing country, sites and dreaming tracks.
[57]	The [name removed] Report states that the ‘Manta Rirrtinya claimants continue to observe and to acknowledge the laws and customs observed by their ancestors, being laws and customs of the WDCB’. In summary, the report concludes that 3 indicators demonstrate that the WDCB is the relevant society in the claim area under which the ‘normative rules give rise to the native title rights and interests claimed in the application: the location of the claim area falls within the widely recognized boundary of the WDCB; the languages spoken by the claimants are those associated with WDCB, and the claimants adhere to laws and customs established by the WDCB and their shared belief in the tjukurrpa.
Traditional laws and customs
[58]	The claim group acknowledges and observes the traditional laws and customs of the WDCB which includes:
•	rules and principles for the recognition of rights and interests held in relation to an area;
•	the nature and extent of those rights governed by such matters as birth on the claim area, birth of an ancestor, having religious, sacred, ritual, practical and/or historical knowledge, having one’s conception, initiation or burial site on the application area, long association with or identification with the area, having an accepted assertion of connection to the area;
•	imposition of sanctions for wrongful presence on or use of country;
•	respect and care for the spiritual features of the landscape, observance of rituals and practice, transmission and maintenance of restrictions in relation to those places and features;
•	social organisation;
•	acknowledgement and respect for the seniority and authority of knowledgeable people;
•	ceremonies and rituals and life stages;
•	activities associated with the foraging, preparation and distribution of resources.
[59]	The applicant submissions reference statements made in the affidavit material in support of the assertion that the Manta Rirrtinya claim group acknowledge and observe the traditional laws and customs of the WDCB:
•	I learnt about the law going bush and learning the songs lines about the country. Law business still happening today;
•	the law from the tjukurrpa is the same law that applies across the desert; places which have the same law are Alice Springs, Warburton, Wiluna, Jigalong, Cosmo, Coonana and Mulga Queen. The desert law applies to the Manta Rirrtinya claim area;
•	my sons have been through the law in Wiluna, quite a while ago now. They can go to men’s sacred sites; now they are bundu [initiated man], but I can’t. The law they got is the same law as at Ranges [Warburton], Wiluna – all over. Different from Perth though; we aren’t Noongar and we don’t know their law.
[60]	[name removed] speaks of his grandparents parents who were from Mangkili long before white people arrived, that this was their ngurra, that they ‘followed the same desert law we have today’. [name removed] explains the basis for the law in the tjukurrpa, the imprints of tjukurrpa on the landscape it created, that the law from the tjukurrpa is the same law that applies across the desert as applies to the Manta Rirrtinya claim area. He is an initiated man which makes him responsible for sites and sacred places, his rights and responsibilities coming from the tjurkurrpa. He explains that the ultimate authority for country is tjukurrpa. Rights in country are gained by learning and following the tjukurrpa and abiding by the laws and customs. Knowledge of the stories means a person can travel a dreaming track and recognize country and resources. [name removed] illustrates the effect of rights to country gained through conception – his dreaming comes from the place in which he was conceived. He says rights to country also come through birth or can become part of your ngurra if you have lived there a long time.
[61]	The accounts in these affidavits illustrate the content of the claim group’s traditional laws and customs – the importance of a person’s conception site as a means to rights in country; the rules that pertain to kinship through skin grouping; the rules that pertain to the authority held by certain persons and elders; the responsibilities that come with dreaming stories shared with an animal or plant. Law and custom governs hunting and harvesting and the access to and use of the natural resources of the claim area – that cooking is done correctly, that the resources are shared and conserved and sometimes traded. Access to country is integral to looking after ngurra and is governed by rights to ‘speak for country’, knowing about places and sites and the right people with the knowledge making decisions about who can and cannot access the claim area.
[62]	The [name removed] Report speaks of claimants holding ‘native title rights through the pathway of having religious, sacred, ritual, practical and historical knowledge’. This includes such activities as the maintenance and protection of sacred knowledge about the area and places in it;  passing on that sacred knowledge;  looking after sacred objects; being actively present at ritual engagements; cultural heritage protection, landscape management and site custodianship; and asserting connection with the area and having that assertion accepted by others.
Consideration
[63]	The factual basis material supports the proposition that there was a society comprised of the predecessors of the native title claim group acknowledging and observing traditional laws and customs in the area of the application on the assertion of British sovereignty in Australia, and at the time of first European contact. The application asserts that this is the society that has continued, largely uninterrupted, since that time. That is, the predecessors of the native title claim group acknowledged and observed the laws and customs of the WDCB, the society that existed at sovereignty in the region of the claim area. It is this society from which the claim group’s current traditional laws and customs are derived.
[64]	Information in the application and additional material provides details that pertain to the group’s traditional law and custom in respect of the area of the application: pertaining to family and ancestors, rules of affiliation to country, special places and stories, hunting and gathering and the passing on of traditional and cultural knowledge. The statements made in the affidavits demonstrate how the claim group has handed down its laws and customs from generation to generation, in the sense defined in Yorta Yorta—showing an inter-generational transmission of traditional law and custom from the predecessors of the claim group.
[65]	The personal detail provided in the affidavits supports and illustrates the information set out in the application, the applicant’s submissions and the [name removed] Report. I am satisfied that the factual basis for the claim supports that there exist traditional laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group and that these give rise to the native title rights and interests it claims.
s 190B(5)(c)
[66]	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. To be satisfied that there is a factual basis for s 190B(5)(c) there must be some material which addresses those matters outlined by Dowsett J in Gudjala 2007.
[67]	Attachment F states that members of the native title claim group are the biological and social descendants of members of the WDCB society that existed at the time sovereignty was asserted in the region of the claim area. It is asserted that the claim group’s acknowledgement and observance of WDCB traditional laws and customs has adapted but continued since that time. Members of the claim group and their predecessors have at all times since sovereignty occupied and used the land and waters of the claim area and maintained their spiritual connection to the area and under those WDCB traditional laws and customs, possessed the rights and interests they claim in the application.
[68]	The claimant affidavits are replete with examples of how WDCB laws and customs, through the belief system of the tjukurrpa, have been passed from generation to generation such that they continue to be acknowledged and observed today amongst the current generations of the claim group. [name removed] learned about country from older people like his mother and uncles and now he teaches his own children about country. He encourages his children to paint the country and important stories, he will take one of his sons to Mangkili. Mr Muir speaks of the importance of teaching about country, culture and history. [name removed] teaches his children where the important places are, he tells them the stories so that they know their country. [name removed] acknowledges the importance of understanding how the previous generations lived so as to know how to look after country.
[69]	All of the material sufficiently demonstrates that the native title claim group has continued in such matters as its cultural practices and use of the natural resources of the land and that this knowledge has been passed down from their ancestors and continues to be passed down to successive generations. It is in this way that the claim group continues to acknowledge and observe the traditional law and custom of their ancestors in relation to the claim area.
Conculsion
[70]	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).
Prima facie case – s 190B(6): condition met
[71]	The Registrar ‘must consider that, prima facie, at least some of the native title rights and interests claimed can be established.’ I note the following comments by Mansfield J in relation to this condition:
(a)	it requires some measure of the material available in support of the claim;
(b)	although s 190B(5) directs attention to the factual basis on which it is asserted that the native title rights and interests are claimed, this does not itself require some weighing of that factual assertion as that is the task required by s 190B(6);
(c)	s 190B(6) appears to impose a more onerous test to be applied to the individual rights and interests claimed.
[72]	I have examined the factual basis for the assertion that the claimed native title rights and interests exist against the rights and interests claimed in the application to determine whether prima facie, 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
•	are rights and interests that have not been extinguished over the whole of the application area.
(a) where native title rights and interests are not partially extinguished, the native title rights and interests claimed are exclusive rights
exclusive rights means the exclusive rights of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of land and waters to the exclusion of all others; and 
[73]	This right is evidenced in the material before me, suggesting it exists under the traditional laws and customs of the native title claim group.
[74]	The majority decision 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‘. Further, it considered that the 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’. 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.
[75]	The decisions of the Full Court in Griffiths and Banjima People indicate that for this right to be established, it must be accompanied by evidence that the practice of seeking permission to go onto another’s country is grounded in a spiritual imperative that gives the practice normative force. This may be expressed by way of 'spiritual sanction visited upon unauthorised entry' and as the 'gatekeepers for the purpose of preventing harm and avoiding injury to country'. In the more recent case of Banjima, the Full Court referred to these statements from Griffiths and held that ‘controlling access to country, expressed by the need to obtain permission to enter under pain of spiritual sanction ... is readily recognisable as a right of exclusive possession’.
[76]	The applicant submissions state that the right to give permission to access country is a fundamental aspect of the acknowledgement of land ownership for members of WDCB society and the Manta Rirrtinya claim group. The submissions provide numerous examples from the claimant affidavits that demonstrate the continuing exercise of the right to control access. There are clear consequences, or sanctions, when permission protocols are not observed and these are spoken of in the claimant affidavits.
[77]	[name removed] highlights the continuing need for outsiders to seek permission and explains the consequences which will flow from failing to do so:
All of this [Manta Rirrtinya] country is sacred land that needs to be treated with respect. For example, if someone wanted to come to Rirrti [Empress Springs] they would need to talk to the bosses of the country, the wati, first to avoid bad things happening. At the end of the day we would just tell them not to go there because there is men’s law associated with the area. If they go there without our permission then they would be disrespecting the land and the land will retaliate—at [79].
[78]	[name removed] speaks of the traditional and contemporary sanctions:
If people come to the area from Kalgoorlie way, they would need to get permission. If they came without permission they will get an ear bashing. Back in the older days the tribal men would give them big trouble if they came without permission; they’d get speared—at [23].
[79]	The [name removed] Report concludes that the claimants continue, in accordance with the traditional laws and customs of the WDCB, the practice of asking for and receiving permission to enter another’s country, and continue to expect that visitors to their country will seek to receive permission from the claimants:
•	I don’t need no permission because we can go there because it’s my country. I can do anything because it’s our land.
•	People from, say, Tjuntjuntjarra have to ask permission – I might say yes, I might say no;
•	Don’t need permission [to access country]. People know that Empress Springs is the country of me and my family.
•	There are protocols for strangers. They should see the elders that are the traditional owners for that country. They need permission [to enter]. Under traditional law and custom, they would need to speak to the boss for that country.
•	We know whose country it is. You can’t just go – Noongar, Yamatji. Gotta be man from that country to look after country. Man from that Tjukurrpa should speak for that country.
•	I have the right to give or not give permission for people to go on my country.
[80]	I consider that the exclusive right can be prima facie established.
(b) in all other areas, the native title rights and interests claimed are non-exclusive rights.
non-exclusive rights mean the non-exclusive rights of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of land and waters.
[81]	This right is evidenced in the material before me, suggesting it exists under the traditional laws and customs of the native title claim group.
[82]	The submissions provide the following basis for claiming this right:
There is a small area of land within the Manta Rirrtinya claim area the subject of the Prenti Downs Pastoral Lease (N050653) (Prenti Downs), where the Applicant concedes that:
(a) should Prenti Downs be validly granted; and
(b) assuming there are no other issues affecting the validity of that pastoral lease,
then native title is partially extinguished over Prenti Downs.
In that event, the Applicant submits that the only native title right or interest that has been extinguished, (as compared to affected or impaired) is the right of exclusivity. All other native title rights and interests survive the grant of Prenti Downs, albeit that from time-to-time, the exercise of those rights and interests may be affected or impaired by the activities of the Prenti Downs pastoralist. The Applicant further submits therefore, that the above evidence establishes, prima facie, that the native title claim group have the right to possess, occupy, use and enjoy the land and waters as a non-exclusive right over Prenti Downs—at [90]-[91].
[83]	The right is expressed in non‐exclusive composite terms and potentially gives rise to conceptual difficulties because the concepts of possession and occupation at common law involve notions of control of access. A non‐exclusive composite claim begs the question of what the residual rights and interests might be which do not involve elements of control of access to and use of the claim area. 
[84]	The submissions address this question and the prima facie case for this right as framed in terms of access to and use of resources, care for country, maintenance and protection of places, sites and objects of significance. The [name removed] report concludes that Manta Rirrtinya claimants continue to use and occupy the claim area and provides examples from claimants describing activities such as burning off, visiting and camping in the claim area that claimants continue to carry out in accordance with their traditional laws and customs.
[85]	All of the claimant affidavits illustrate the continuing practice of these activities in accordance with the claim group’s traditional laws and customs. The material before me describes numerous incidents of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the claim area by members of the native title claim group, and their predecessors, separate to notions of control of access. Members of the claim group have continuously occupied, used and enjoyed the areas of and proximate to the claim area through camping, hunting, gathering; collection of resources for a multitude of purposes; caring for country and protecting and maintaining places of importance; conducting ceremony; and the passing on of the Tjukurrpa to the younger generations. As referred to above in relation to my consideration of the factual basis, the claimant affidavits are replete with references to their life-long possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of Manta Rirrtinya country.
[86]	I am satisfied that the non-exclusive right can be established prima facie, however, I have, for the sake of unequivocal interpretation that the right is claimed non-exclusively, decided that the definition of non-exclusive rights is better framed as follows (and is consistent with the way ‘exclusive rights’ is defined):
non-exclusive rights mean the non-exclusive rights of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of land and waters not to the exclusion of all others
[87]	I consider that the non-exclusive right can be prima facie established.
Conclusion
[88]	I consider that the claimed rights can be established on a prima facie basis and the application satisfies the condition of s 190B(6).
Physical connection – s 190B(7): condition met
[89]	Attachment M provides a general summary of the conduct of activities undertaken by members of the native title claim group who currently visit the claim area: accessing, travelling through, and camping in the application area, cleaning out rock holes, hunting and gathering bush foods, performing ceremonies, and activities aimed at inter-generational transfer of knowledge. Specifically:
Portions of the application area are regularly traversed when claimants travel back and forth between Mungilli Community to the north of the application area, to Mulga Queen and Cosmo Newberry Communities, and the regional centres of Laverton and Leonora, all to the southwest of the application area. Such trips provide opportunities, indeed, often make necessary, the sourcing of different bush foods from within, and adjacent to, the application area. These trips require, and further develop and disseminate, the specific knowledge and technologies pertaining to hunting, food collection, and burning practices that have been transmitted to senior claimants from their antecedents. Kangaroos, emus, and goannas are some of the larger game that is hunted. The present-day adherence by members of the native title claim group to traditional methods of killing, preparing and cooking hunted animals demonstrates a continuance of traditional physical connection to the application area—at [78].
[90]	It is stated that the extensive skills and knowledge held by members of the claim group are founded on the acknowledgement and observance of their traditional laws and customs as they exist in relation to tjukurrpa stories and the physical connection they have to the claim area. The claimant affidavits demonstrate that members of the claim undertake activities in exercise of the rights and interests claimed in the application and illustrate the extent of their physical and spiritual connection to the claim area. Sufficient material is provided to show that, in their acknowledgement and observance of WDCB traditional laws and customs, members of the native title claim group have a traditional physical connection with the land and waters of the application area. The material is referred to and quoted extensively in the consideration above for both ss 190B(5) and 190B(6).
[91]	I am satisfied that at least one member of the claim group currently has a traditional physical connection with parts of the application area.
[92]	The application satisfies the condition of s 190B(7).
No failure to comply with s 61A – s 190B(8): condition met
[93]	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):
Requirement	Information addressing requirement	Result	
s 61A(1) no native title determination application if approved determination of native title	Geospatial report 	Met	
s 61A(2) claimant application not to be made covering previous exclusive possession over areas	Schedule B, paragraph 9(c) & (d)	Met	
s 61A(3) claimant applications not to claim certain rights and interests in areas covered by previous non-exclusive possession acts	See reasons below	Met	
Section 61A(3)
[94]	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 E makes the statement that exclusive rights are only claimed in relation to areas where native title rights and interests are not partially extinguished. Schedule B states at para 8 that a significant proportion of the area covered by the application may be subject to the benefit of s 47B, whereby prior extinguishment may be disregarded.
No extinguishment etc. of claimed native title – s 190B(9): condition met
[95]	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):
Requirement	Information addressing requirement	Result	
(a) no claim made of ownership of minerals, petroleum or gas that are wholly owned by the Crown	Schedule Q	Met	
(b) exclusive possession is not claimed over all or part of waters in an offshore place	Schedule P	Met	
(c) native title rights and/or interests in the application area have otherwise been extinguished	Schedule B, paragraph 9(e)	Met	
Procedural and other matters (s 190C)—Conditions met
Information etc. required by sections 61 and 62 – s 190C(2): condition met
[96]	I have examined the application and I am satisfied that it contains the prescribed information and is accompanied by the prescribed documents.
[97]	To meet s 190C(2), the Registrar must be satisfied that the application contains all of the prescribed details and other information, and is accompanied by any affidavit or other document, required by ss 61 and 62. This condition does not require any merit or qualitative assessment of the material to be undertaken.
Subsection 61
[98]	The application contains the details specified in s 61.
Section	Details	Form 1	Result	
s 61(1)	Native title claim group 	Schedule A	Met	
s 61(3)	Name and address for service 	Part B	Met	
s 61(4)	Native title claim group named/described 	Attachment A	Met	
Subsection 62
[99]	The application contains the details specified in s 62.
Section	Details	Form 1	Result	
s 62(1)(a)	Affidavits in prescribed form	Accompanying application	Met	
s 62(2)(a)	Information about the boundaries of the area	Schedule & Attachment B	Met	
s 62(2)(b)	Map of external boundaries of the area	Attachment C	Met	
s 62(2)(c)	Searches	Attachment D	Met	
s 62(2)(d)	Description of native title rights and interests	Schedule E	Met	
s 62(2)(e)	Description of factual basis: 	Attachment F	Met	
s 62(2)(f)	Activities	Schedule G	Met	
s 62(2)(g)	Other applications	Schedule H	Met	
s 62(2)(ga)	Notices under s 24MD(6B)(c)	Attachment HA	Met	
s 62(2)(h)	Notices under s 29	Attachment I	Met	
No previous overlapping claim group – s 190C(3): condition met
[100]	The requirement that the Registrar be satisfied in the terms set out in s 190C(3) is only triggered if there is a previously registered claim, as described in ss 190C(3)(a), (b) and (c). Section 190C(3) relates to ensuring there are no common native title claim group members between the application currently being considered for registration (‘the current application’) and any overlapping ‘previous application’ that is a registered application when the current application was made in the Court.
[101]	The Tribunal’s geospatial report confirms that no native title determination applications fall within the external boundaries of the current application. As the Manta Rirrtinya application is not overlapped by any other applications, there is no requirement that I consider the issue of common claim group membership.
[102]	I am satisfied that no person is included in the native title claim group for this application that was a member of the native title claim group for any previous overlapping application.
Identity of claimed native title holders – s 190C(4): condition met
[103]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190C(4), the Registrar must be satisfied that the requirements set out in either ss 190C(4)(a) or (b) are met. Schedule R refers to Attachment R which comprises a certification made by Central Desert Native Title Services (CDNTS). As the application purports to be certified by the representative body for the area, the relevant consideration for me is at s 190C(4)(a). This imposes upon the Registrar conditions which, according to Mansfield J, are straightforward. All the task requires is that I be ‘satisfied about the fact of certification by an appropriate representative body’ which necessarily entails:
•	identifying the relevant native title representative body (or bodies) and being satisfied of its power under Part 11 to issue the certification; and
•	being satisfied that the certification meets the requirements of s 203BE.
Identification of the representative body 
[104]	The geospatial report confirms that CDNTS is the only representative body for the whole of the area covered by the application. It is therefore the only body that could certify the application under s 203BE.
[105]	The certificate provides that its statements and reasons are made pursuant to s 203FEA(1), that CDNTS is funded to perform all the functions of a representative body pursuant to s 203FE(1). The certificate is dated 15 September 2017 and is signed by the Principal Lawyer for CDNTS.
Does the certificate meet the requirements of 203BE
[106]	For the purposes of s 203BE(4)(a), the certificate contains statements in relation to the requirements of paragraphs 203BE(2)(a) and (b), that is CDNTS certifies:
•	that all the persons in the native title claim group have authorised Kado Muir, Harvey Murray, Luke George, Troy Chapman, Roslyn Narrier, Ivan Wongawol, Sandra Evans and Vanessa Thomas (collectively, the applicant) to file the application and to deal with all matters arising in relation to it; and
•	that all reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the application describes or otherwise identifies all the other persons in the native title claim group.
[107]	For the purposes of s 203BE(4)(b), the certificate briefly sets out the reasons for CDNTS being of that opinion, namely:
•	CDNTS have provided legal and anthropological services in the area covered by the application since 2010, with CDNTS satisfied that the anthropologists and community engagement officers who have worked with the native title claim group have made all reasonable efforts to ascertain and identify all the members of the group;
•	staff members of CDNTS have attended various meetings of the native title claim group and thereby observed the decision-making process it follows and taken instructions arising from that process; and
•	CDNTS is confident that the requirements for authorisation have been met with the applicant authorised to make and deal with the application in accordance with the native title claim group’s traditional decision-making processes.
[108]	In my view, the statements made in the certificate, as summarised above, are sufficient for it to be said that the certificate briefly sets out the reasons for CDNTS being of the opinion that the requirements of s 203BE(2)(a) and (b) have been met.
[109]	For the purposes of s 203BE(4)(c), the representative body must also briefly set out how it has met the requirements of s 203BE(3), providing for a representative body’s obligations to make all reasonable efforts to reach agreements between any overlapping claimant groups and to minimise the number of overlapping applications. The certificate makes no statement in relation this requirement. I am of the view this does not invalidate the certification as s 203BE(3) expressly states that a failure by the representative body to comply with the requirement does not invalidate any certification by the representative body. The geospatial report does not identify any existing overlapping applications.	
[110]	I am satisfied that the application has been certified under Part 11 by the representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body that could certify the application and that it complies with requirements of s 190C(4)(a).

End of reasons
Attachment A
Information to be included on the Register of Native Title Claims
Application name	Kado Muir & Ors & State of Western Australia & Ors (Manta Rirrtinya)	
NNTT No.	WC2017/002	
Federal Court of Australia No.	WAD453/2017	
Section 186(1): Mandatory information
In accordance with ss 190(1) and 186 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), the following is to be entered on the Register of Native Title Claims for the above application.
Application filed/lodged with:
Federal Court of Australia
Date application filed/lodged:
15 September 2017
Date application entered on Register:
21 December 2017
Applicant:
Kado Muir, Harvey Murray, Luke George, Troy Chapman, Roslyn Narrier, Ivan Wongawol, Sandra Evans, Vanessa Thomas
Applicant’s address for service:
Central Desert Native Title Services Limited 
76 Wittenoom Street 
EAST PERTH WA 6004 
Phone: (08) 9425 2000
Area covered by application:
As per Schedule of Applications
Persons claiming to hold native title:
As per Schedule of Applications
Registered native title rights and interests:
12. In this SCHEDULE E, the following words and phrases have the following meanings:
exclusive rights means the exclusive rights of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of land and waters to the exclusion of all others; and 
non-exclusive rights mean the non-exclusive rights of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of land and waters not to the exclusion of all others.

13. In the lands and waters covered by the application:
(a) where native title rights and interests are not partially extinguished, the native title rights and interests claimed are exclusive rights; and
(b) in all other areas, the native title rights and interests claimed are non-exclusive rights.

14. Both the exclusive rights and the non-exclusive rights are:
(a) exercisable in accordance with the traditional laws and customs of the native title claim group; and
(b) subject to the valid laws of the State of Western Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia, including the common law.
Attachments:
As per Schedule of Applications

___________________________________
21 December 2017
Delegate of the Native Title Registrar pursuant to sections 190, 190A, 190B, 190C, 190D of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) under an instrument of delegation dated 23 August 2017 and made pursuant to s 99 of the Act.