Registration Decision

Application name	Giniyjawarrni Yoowaniya Riwi 	
Name of applicant	Mervyn Street, Helen Malo, June Davis, Eric Cox, Frances Dawson, Marion Dolby, Nathan Lennard, Jane Holloway, Wayne Wallaby	
Federal Court of Australia No.	WAD610/2017	
NNTT No.	WC2017/006	
Date of Decision	11 June 2018	
Date of Reasons	11 June 2018	

Claim accepted for registration
I have decided that the claim in the Giniyjawarrni Yoowaniya Riwi 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.

___________________________________
Stephanie Clark
Delegate of the Native Title Registrar

Reasons for Decision
CASES CITED
Aplin on behalf of the Waanyi Peoples v State of Queensland [2010] FCA 625 (Aplin)
Corunna v Native Title Registrar [2013] FCA 372 (Corunna)
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)
Hazelbane v Doepel [2008] FCA 290 (Hazelbane)
Martin v Native Title Registrar [2001] FCA 16 (Martin) 
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)
Sampi v State of Western Australia [2005] FCA 777 (Sampi)
Strickland v Native Title Registrar [1999] FCA 1530 (Strickland)
Western Australia v Native Title Registrar (1999) 95 FCR 93; [1999] FCA 1591 (WA v NTR) 
Western Australia v Ward (2002) 213 CLR 1; [2002] HCA 28 (Ward HC) 
BACKGROUND
[1]	The application was filed on behalf of the Giniyjawarrni Yoowaniya Riwi native title claim group. It covers land and waters in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. It is bordered to the west and southwest by the Gooniyandi Combined #2 native title determination (WAD6008/2000), to the north and east by the Yurriyangem Taam native title determination application (WAD268/2010), and to the south by the Jaru native title determination application (WAD45/2012). The application covers portions of the following pastoral leases:
•	Fossil Downs (PL N050221);
•	Lansdowne (PL N050414);
•	Mt Amherst (PL N050119); 
•	Louisa Downs (PL N049737); and
•	Margaret River (PL N050504).
[2]	A previous native title claim, Yarrangi Riwi Yoowarni Gooniyandi (WAD274/2012), was registered over the same area as the current application, however this claim was discontinued prior to the current claim being filed in the Federal Court (the Court).
[3]	The Registrar of the Court gave a copy of the application and accompanying affidavits to the Native Title Registrar (Registrar) on 4 December 2017 pursuant to s 63 of the Act. 
[4]	If the claim in the application satisfies all the registration test conditions in ss 190B and 190C, then the Registrar must accept the claim for registration. If it does not satisfy all the conditions, the Registrar must not accept the claim for registration.
[5]	I have decided that the claim satisfies all of the registration test conditions and my reasons on each condition follow below.
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 had regard to the following material supplied directly to the Registrar by the applicant on 18 May 2018:
•	a connection report prepared by Dr Heather Lynes dated November 2017;
•	a map prepared following an anthropological field trip in May and July 2016; and
•	a map prepared by anthropologist Anthony Redmond in 2016 showing various sites in and around the claim area.
[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 (the State) has not provided any submissions in relation to the application of the registration test, nor in relation to the additional material supplied on 21 May 2018.
[10]	I have also 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 20 December 2017 (the geospatial report).
Procedural fairness
[11]	As a delegate of the Registrar and a Commonwealth Officer, when I make my decision about whether or not to accept this application for registration I am bound by the principles of administrative law, including the rules of procedural fairness. Those rules seek to ensure that decisions are made in a fair, just and unbiased way. I note that the common law duty to afford procedural fairness may be excluded by express terms of the statute under which the administrative decision is made or by any necessary implication. The steps undertaken to ensure procedural fairness is observed are as follows:
•	On 6 December 2017, the practice leader for this matter sent a letter to the State enclosing a copy of the application and accompanying documents. The letter informed the State that any submission in relation to the registration this claim should be provided by 8 January 2018.
•	The practice leader, also on 6 December 2017, wrote to inform the applicant that any additional information should be provided by 8 January 2018.
•	The State did not provide any submissions in relation to the application, nor did the applicant provide any additional information at that time.
•	On 30 April 2018 the practice leader wrote to the applicant advising my preliminary view was that the material provided was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the registration test, and inviting the applicants to submit further materials by 22 May 2018.
•	On 21 May 2018 the Kimberley Land Council, on behalf of the applicants, provided further materials to the Tribunal comprising the connection report and maps.
•	On 23 May 2018 the practice leader sent a letter to the State providing the further materials and advising the State that any submission in relation to the registration of this claim should be provided by 29 May 2018.
•	The State did not provide any submissions in relation to the further materials.
Merits of the claim (s 190B) – Conditions met
Identification of area subject to native title – s 190B(2) condition met
[12]	I am satisfied the claim meets the requirements of s 190B(2). The information provided about the external boundary and internally excluded areas are sufficient to identify with reasonable certainty the particular land or waters over which native title rights and interests are claimed.
What is required to meet this condition?
[13]	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. 
Does the information about the external boundary meet this condition?
[14]	Attachment B provides a written description of the external boundary of the application area. It describes the application area as covering all the land and waters within the external boundary, referencing native title determinations and applications, topographic features, land parcels and coordinate points. 
[15]	Attachment C is a copy of a colour map prepared by the Tribunal’s Geospatial Services, titled Giniyjawarrni Yoowaniya Riwi and dated 7 November 2017. The map shows the external boundary of the application area as a dark blue outline, and also shows topographical features, underlying tenure, a scalebar, location diagram, legend, coordinate grid and notes relating to the source, currency and datum of data used to prepare the map. On 20 December 2017 the Tribunal’s Geospatial Services conducted an assessment of the description of the claim area in Schedule B and the accompanying map at Attachment C. The geospatial report concluded the description in Schedule B and the map at Attachment C are consistent and identify the application area with reasonable certainty.
Does the information about excluded areas meet this condition?
[16]	Schedule B describes areas not covered by the application using general exclusion clauses. I consider this method of describing excluded areas sufficient for the purposes of s 190B(2), and consider these areas could be identified with precision once historical tenure searches for the area are completed.
Identification of the native title claim group – s 190B(3) condition met
[17]	I am satisfied the claim meets the requirements of s 190B(3). Schedule A describes the persons in the native title claim group sufficiently clearly so that it can be ascertained whether any particular person is in the group.
What is required to meet this condition?
[18]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190B(3), 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.
[19]	The only question for this condition is ‘whether the application enables the reliable identification of persons in the native title claim group’: whether the claim has been made on behalf of the correct native title claim group is not relevant.
Does the description of the persons in the native title claim group meet this condition?
[20]	The description of the persons comprising the native title claim group is set out in Schedule A in the following terms:
The members of the native title claim group comprise the following:
(a)	Aboriginal persons descended from … [30 apical ancestors].
(b)	Aboriginal persons recognized by those people in (a) above as having traditional rights and interests in the area under traditional law and custom.
[21]	I note there is no connecting word (e.g. ‘and’, ‘or’) between (a) and (b). It is my understanding of the description of claim group membership in Schedule A that in order to be identified as a member of the group, a person may satisfy either criteria (a) or (b). A person can be a member of the claim group by being a descendant of one of the listed apical ancestors. However, a person may also be found to be a member of the claim group by being recognized by those people identified under criterion (a) as having traditional rights and interests in the area under traditional law and custom.
[22]	I consider it is possible to identify with sufficient clarity whether a person is a member of the claim group under criterion (a) by conducting a factual inquiry (such as genealogical research) to determine whether they are descended from one of the listed apical ancestors. The fact that factual enquiry may be needed to identify if a person is a member of the claim group does not mean the description is unclear. 
[23]	In relation to criterion (b), there is no clear, external reference point via which a person can initially be identified as a member of the claim group. In Aplin, the Court held it is not necessary that all of the members of the claim group be identified in the application, but it is necessary that such identification be possible at any future point in time. I consider that with a certain amount of factual inquiry it is possible to identify whether a person is a member of the claim group under criterion (b). Such a process would likely involve locating claim group members identified under criterion (a) and asking them a series of questions to determine whether the factors in criterion (b) apply to the person claiming group membership.
[24]	I consider it is possible for persons to be identified as members of the claim group through the application of the criteria listed in Schedule A.
Identification of claimed native title – s 190B(4) condition met
[25]	I am satisfied the description in Schedule E is sufficient for me to clearly understand and identify the itemised rights as ‘native title rights and interests’.
What is required to meet this condition?
[26]	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.
Does the description of the native title rights and interests meet this condition?
[27]	The native title rights and interests claimed in Schedule E are described in relatively broad terms. Paragraph one of Schedule E is a claim to the exclusive right of possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of land and waters as against all others. Paragraph two sets out three broad categories of non-exclusive rights and interests being claimed, which are rights to:
(a)	have access to, remain on and use the land and waters;
(b)	access and take for any purpose the resources of the land and waters; and
(c)	protect places, areas and things of traditional significance on the land and waters.
[28]	Despite the relatively broad terms used to describe the native title rights and interests in Schedule E, I am satisfied that they are understandable and have meaning. In its entirety, the description is clear. When paragraphs one and two are read in conjunction with the restrictions described in paragraphs five and six, the full extent of the native title rights claimed become apparent.
[29]	I have considered the description of the native title rights and interests claimed in Schedule E and, after consideration of the provisions of s 223 of the Act, I consider that they fall within the scope of that section and are readily identifiable as native title rights and interests.
Factual basis for claimed native title – s 190B(5) condition met
[30]	I am satisfied that the factual basis on which it is asserted that the claimed native title rights and interests exist is sufficient to support the assertion. In particular, there is a sufficient factual basis for the three assertions of subsections 190B(5)(a), (b) and (c).
What is needed to meet this condition?
[31]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190B(5), the Registrar must be satisfied there is sufficient factual basis to support the assertion that the claimed native title rights and interests exist. 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;
(b)	that there exist traditional law acknowledged by, and traditional customs observed by, the native title claim group that give rise to native title rights and interests; and
(c)	the native title claim group have continued to hold the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs. 
[32]	The question for this condition is whether the factual basis is sufficient to support these assertions. To answer that question, I must assess whether the asserted facts can support the existence of the claimed native title rights and interests, rather than determine whether there is ‘evidence that proves directly or by inference the facts necessary to establish the claim’. 
[33]	Section 62(2)(e) requires only a ‘general description’ of the factual basis. However, where the facts provided are not at a sufficient level of detail to enable a genuine assessment of the application by the Registrar, the application may not be able to satisfy the condition. The material must comprise ‘more than assertions at a high level of generality’ and address the particular native title, claimed by the particular native title claim group, over the particular land and waters of the application area.
[34]	Therefore I understand the test at s 190B(5) requires adequate specificity of particular and relevant facts within the claimants’ factual basis material going to each of the assertions, before the Registrar can be satisfied of its sufficiency for the purposes of s 190B(5).
[35]	The factual basis material is contained in Schedule F and an undated anthropological report (titled ‘Registration Test Report’) for the claim group, which is Attachment F. It is also contained in the affidavits of two native title claimants, which are Attachments F.1 and F.2. While the anthropologist’s report is undated, I take it to be completed relatively close to the filing of the native title claim in the Court. This is because the report names the application as the ‘Ginyjawarrani Yoowaniya Riwi (formerly Yarrangi Riwi Yoowarnu Gooniyandi (YRYG) Part A)’. I note from my searches of the Tribunal’s registers that Yarrangi Riwi Yoowarnu Gooniyandi (WAD274/2012) was the native title claim previously registered over the current claim area. My searches of the Tribunal’s databases disclose this claim was discontinued on 1 December 2017, the same day as the current native title claim was filed in the Court. The circumstances therefore lead me to conclude the anthropologist’s report is contemporaneous with the filing of the current native title application.
[36]	I rely on the statements contained in the affidavits sworn by each of the applicant persons pursuant to s 62(1)(a) that accompany the application, that each deponent believes the statements contained in the application to be true in accepting the asserted facts as true.
What is required to provide a sufficient factual basis for s 190B(5)(a)?
[37]	In order to meet the requirements of s 190B(5)(a), the factual basis must support the assertion that ‘the native title claim group have, and the predecessors of those persons had, an association with the area.’ I understand this requires sufficient factual material to support the assertion that:
•	there is ‘an association between the whole group and the area’, although not ‘all members must have such association at all times’;
•	the predecessors of the group were associated with the area over the period since sovereignty; and
•	there is an association with the entire claim area, rather than an association with part of it or ‘very broad statements’, which for instance have no ‘geographical particularity’.
Is there a sufficient factual basis for the requirement at s 190B(5)(a)?
[38]	Attachment F identifies the claim area sitting between the Gooniyandi Combined #2 native title determination, the Yurriyangem Taam native title claim and the Jaru native title claim. It covers part of Fossil Downs Station, Lansdowne Station, Margaret River Station and Mount Amhurst Station. Mount Amhurst Station covers the majority of the claim area. The anthropological report states the native title claimants identify themselves as Gooniyandi and Kija speaking peoples, who sometimes use a mix of those language identifiers. Attachment F goes on to state these language names have consistently been associated with both the people and the country of that region from the very first ethnographic recordings, which took place in 1900. 
[39]	Attachment F states all of the earliest anthropological reports place Gooniyandi and Kija peoples in and around the claim area, with Jaru peoples closely bordering those groups to the southeast. It points to the records of surveyor and anthropologist R.H. Mathews who compiled ethnographic recordings of the region in 1900 in an effort to examine the geographical reaches of the kinship system in parts of central Australia. According to Mathews, the ‘tribes’ in the Kimberley region (including the claim area) included ‘Lunga [Kija], Keha [Kija], Perrakee, Mayu, Goonien [Gooniyandi], Nigena [Nyikina], Booneba [Bunuba], Jarrou [Jaru], and Walmaharri [Walmajarri]’. A later anthropologist, A.P. Elkin, visited the Kimberley region in 1927 and created a map which placed the ‘Kunan [Gooniyandi], Djaru [Jaru] and Lunga [Kija]’ around the location of the claim area. A student of Elkin, Phyllis Kaberry, conducted her PhD research in the Kimberley where the claim area is located. Kaberry published a map of the ‘tribal’ distribution of the region, which places the ‘Kunian [Gooniyandi]’ and ‘Lunga [Kija]’ peoples in the vicinity of the claim area. Attachment F also cites other later anthropologists as placing Gooniyandi and Kija-speaking peoples in the vicinity of the claim area.
[40]	Attachment F identifies ‘settlement’ to have occurred somewhere around 1890 in that region, based upon records of the government opening up the area for pastoral leases. It also states that frontier violence and the gradual establishment of pastoral stations in the claim area during that period caused the ancestors of the claim group to be settled onto various pastoral stations, allowing them to remain on or close to their traditional country.
[41]	Ethnographic research occurring in the early to mid-20th century records the presence of the apical ancestors and their families on the pastoral stations covered by the claim area. According to Attachment F, the oldest ancestors of each of the families are recorded in the various genealogies as being born somewhere around the date of settlement. Many of the eldest living members of the claim group were born on pastoral stations in the claim area in the 1940s and 1950s, and can recall details of their families, and their families’ connection to country.
[42]	The connection report dated November 2017, lists the apical ancestors set out in Schedule A. It discusses where in the claim area they are from and which families are descended from them. This information addresses the relationships of the applicants to the ancestors and what parts of the claim area they speak for. I also consider this information explains the connection of the ancestors with the lands and waters of the claim area.
[43]	One of the claimants explains her great grandmother was Moogoo/Maudie, who came from the claim area.  I note that Moogoo/Maudie is an apical ancestor of the claim group, as listed in Schedule A. The connection report lists Moogoo/Maudie as coming from the Mueller Ranges/Imanarra area. The claimant states the country was passed on to her father and then to her, giving her rights in the claim area. She describes how the group’s ‘old people’ would take her and others fishing and camping in the claim area for holidays, and teach them the stories for that country. She also talks about how she took her family camping and fishing near Rock Hole Yard, which is in the north west part of the claim area.
[44]	The connection report lists the claimant as a member of one of the families that is considered by the claim group as the ‘right people for country’ for that area. Giniyjawarrni Yoowaniya Riwi people have traditionally taken their children onto their areas of country to teach them how to hunt and gather food, look after country and pass on their stories and songs about their particular part of country. Support for this can be seen in the connection report where the work of Kaberry in 1937 talks about how children wander their father’s country with their parents, who teach them about the land and waters, the stories of that country and how to hunt and gather food.
[45]	When the claimant talks about her old people taking her onto country to camp and fish, and teach her the stories for country, I take it to mean that she was taken to the parts of the claim area for which her family have custodianship and for which they have the rights to the relevant stories. The materials in the connection report show that the relevant area is the Imanarra area in the north west portion of the claim area. The claimant supports this when she states how she takes her own family to Rock Hole Yard to camp and fish as Rock Hole Yard is in that area. This has further support in the connection report where the author records the applicant, along with another applicant who has rights in that area, telling the author about how they first came to Rock Hole Yard with the claimant’s father and other families to go fishing and camping. I note the families listed in that anecdote are listed in the connection report as the descendants of Moogoo/Maudie and Lena are noted as the ‘right people’ for that area of country.
[46]	Another of the claimants deposes his country extends from Yiyili to Maanjoowa, near Margaret Gorge, and into the claim area. The claimant is an artist in the Kimberley region and in order to discover his age, I was able to conduct an internet search which provided me with some information about him, including his date of birth, on an aboriginal art agency website. I discovered that he was born on Louisa Downs pastoral station, which abuts the southern border of the claim area. He states he is connected to that country through his great grandmother, Ningali. I note Ningali is an apical ancestor of the claim group, as listed in Schedule A. He also explains that his grandmother took him camping on the claim area during holidays and she would teach him stories and how to fish and hunt. 
[47]	He states the area in the north of the claim area (Imanarra) is kangaroo country where the group’s old people used to live before they were taken to work on pastoral stations. The claimant then says the old people told him and others in the claim group they could go to that area, and that artefacts such as spears and grinding stones can still be found there, from the old people. Tribunal mapping confirms that Imanarra is in the north western portion of the claim area, and is the north-south running portion of the Mueller Ranges. 
[48]	Mapping prepared by the Tribunal’s Geospatial Services indicates that Yiyili, Margaret Gorge and Maanjoowa are all outside of the claim area, although quite close to its south western border.  I note that Margaret Gorge and Maanjoowa are within the Mueller Ranges, which are comprised of Imanarra (the north-south running portion of the Mueller Ranges, and which covers a fair portion of the east part of the claim area) and Birndoowa (the east-west running portion of the Mueller Ranges). While most of Imanarra is within the boundaries of the claim area, Birndoowa is mostly below the southern boundary except for a part that runs through the south eastern spur of the claim area. I have examined the mapping provided by the applicants as part of their further materials. The roots of the Mueller Ranges in the Birndoowa part appear topographically to run into the southern boundary of the claim area. I have examined the maps provided by the applicant and I can see there are a large number of sites within Birndoowa along the course of the Margaret and O’donnell Rivers. What I note about the Mueller Ranges (Birndoowa) is the concentrated clusters of sites along it. The Mueller Rangers are part of the joowari story, which travels down through Imanarra and right through Birndoowa. Accordingly, the Mueller Ranges are comprised of significant sites and may be called a site complex. I also note the claim area sits in the middle of a larger area of native title determinations and claims that involve the larger Gooniyandi, Kija and Jaru groups of that area. While certain sites are not strictly within the claim area boundaries, their importance and the greater site complex itself do come within the boundaries of the claim area.
[49]	The information related in Attachment F.2 regarding the old people living in the north of the claim area then being moved onto pastoral stations correlates with the evidence in Attachment F, which describes the claim group’s ancestors being settled onto pastoral stations following settlement in the area. What also becomes clear when Attachments F.1 and F.2 are read alongside Attachment F is that there appears to be generally three generations between the apical ancestors named in Schedule A and the deponents in Attachments F.1 and F.2. 
[50]	I have also considered the genealogy of the applicant in Attachment F.2 in considering Ningali’s connection to the time of settlement. The applicant was born in 1950, and I would assume that his mother would likely have been in her 20s at that time, meaning she was likely born in the period between 1920 and 1930. I make the same assumption that the applicant’s grandmother was likely to be around 20 years of age when the applicant’s mother was born, meaning she was likely born somewhere between 1900 and 1910. This places Ningali’s (the applicant’s great grandmother) likely period of birth to the time around settlement.
[51]	The totality of the information appears to place the apical ancestors as born in the claim area around or shortly after the time of settlement and connects them with members of the current claim group.
[52]	The deponents in Attachments F.1 and F.2 talk about the knowledge they have from their grandparents and ‘old people’ about the country and their ancestors’ presence on the country. As discussed above, in Attachment F.2 at [9] the deponent speaks of how the claim group’s old people used to live in Imanarra, which is kangaroo country, until they were taken to work on pastoral stations. He states the claim group’s old people told him and other claim group members they could go there and they would find various artefacts such as spears and grinding stones there from the old people (who I take to mean the people living there at the time of settlement) who used to live there. Cultural information about access to Imanarra and the presence of artefacts has clearly been passed from those who lived there at the time of settlement to successive generations, all the way down to the current claim group members.
[53]	There is also clearly a spiritual connection between the deponents and the claim area, as the deponents talk about various stories associated with specific areas within the claim area, and cultural practices they carry out to connect with ancestral spirits within the claim area. For example, the deponent in Attachment F.2 at speaks of the joowarri story which runs from Imanarra down to Maanjoowa and crosses through into Birndoowa, all the way through to Palm Spring. While Imanarra is within the boundaries of the claim area, Maanjoowa is just outside of the eastern claim area boundary. Palm Spring is also outside the boundaries of the claim area, however it is clear that this story runs through the application area. 
[54]	The applicant in Attachment F.2 also talks about the sacred site called Garlooga, which is on the [removed for cultural reasons]. Maps provided by the claimants with the further materials confirms the location of Garlooga to be as the applicant describes. The applicant states his granny told him its story and that it is a dreamtime crocodile breeding place . I note this site is within the area described in the connection report as the traditional country of Ningali, the applicant’s great grandmother. The applicant’s grandmother (Ningali’s daughter) told him the story of Garlooga, which provides a spiritual connection to the country as a dreamtime story.
[55]	The connection report recounts various conversations between various members of the claim group and the anthropologist who wrote the report. One applicant speaks about coming to Birinali, which is near Garlooga in the south west of the claim area. The applicant speaks of how bush tobacco grows in a cave there, how he first came with his grandmother as a child in the 1950s and how he brought his kids, wife, grandchildren, nieces and nephews as well as rangers. 
[56]	Another claimant spoke of visiting Six Mile, where there is a lot of bream, crocodile and turkey, and how she first came to visit there with her old people who worked around there. I note that Six Mile is on the northern border of the claim area. 
[57]	One claimant speaks of how another applicant knows the country around Margaret River Homestead and Mount Amhurst Homestead, which is his country. I note that Mount Amhurst Station covers most of the claim area and Margaret River Station covers the south east tip of the claim area. The connection of that claimant to the area is supported in the connection report where that claimant is listed as a descendant of Ngiliyayiny and listed as the ‘right person’ for that area of country. This was further supported in the connection report which explains that the author drove around the south east portion of the claim area between the Margaret River Homestead and the Top Spring/Pannikin Springs area with that claimant who led the way and discussed the stories and the people of that area.
[58]	The material names various places with which the claim group and their predecessors are and were associated. This includes sacred sites, restricted places, places where people lived, camped, hunted, gathered and fished. The places mentioned appear to be in various parts of the claim area (or within the greater Mueller Ranges area), not just one particular part of the application area. I am satisfied the factual basis is sufficient to support the assertion set out in s 190B(5)(a).
What is required to provide a sufficient factual basis for s 190B(5)(b)?
[59]	In order to satisfy the requirements of s 190B(5)(b), the factual basis must support the assertion ‘that there exist traditional laws acknowledged by, and traditional customs observed by, the native title claim group that give rise to the claim to native title rights and interests’. I note the wording is almost identical to paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘native title rights and interests’ within s 223(1) of the Act. It is therefore imperative that the observations of the High Court in Yorta Yorta about the meaning of the word ‘traditional’, as it applies in the context of s 223(1), be considered.
[60]	In Yorta Yorta, a law or custom is ‘traditional’ where:
•	‘the origins of the content of the law or custom concerned are to be found in the normative rules’ of a society that existed prior to sovereignty, where the society consists of a body of person united in and by its acknowledgment and observance of a body of law and customs’;
•	the ‘normative system under which the rights and interests are possessed (the traditional laws and customs) is a system that has had a continuous existence and vitality since sovereignty’;
•	the law or custom has been passed from generation to generation of a society by word of mouth and common practice, but is firmly rooted in pre-sovereignty laws and customs;  and
•	those laws and customs have been acknowledged and observed without substantial interruption since sovereignty, having been passed down the generations to the claim group.
[61]	In Gudjala 2009, Dowsett J discussed some of the factors that the Registrar or their delegate may require in assessing the asserted factual basis, including that:
•	the factual basis demonstrates the existence of a pre-sovereignty society and identifies the persons who acknowledged and observed the laws and customs of the pre-sovereignty society;
•	if descent from named ancestors is the basis of membership to the group, the factual basis demonstrates some relationship between those ancestral persons and the pre-sovereignty society from which the laws and customs are derived; and
•	the factual basis contains an explanation as to how the current laws and customs of the claim group are traditional (that is laws and customs of a pre-sovereignty society relating to rights and interests in land and waters). Further, the mere assertion that current laws and customs of a native title claim group are traditional is not a sufficient factual basis for the purposes of s 190B(5)(b).
Is there a sufficient factual basis for the requirement at s 190B(5)(b)?
[62]	As I have already noted, the claim group identify themselves as Gooniyandi and Kija-speaking peoples. Attachment F speaks of archival and contemporary ethnographic records concerning the Kimberley region including the claim area, which support the notion of a regional society comprised of various language-identifying groups united in their cosmological belief system, known as Ngarranggarni, as well as the traditional laws and customs derived from Ngarranggarni. It states the most likely interacting groups would have been Gooniyandi, Kija, Jaru, Walmajarri and Bunuba, and the records all agreed that Gooniyandi and Kija shared a large degree of socio-cultural principles with each other. 
[63]	Attachment F analyses anthropological and ethnographic records that pertain to the claim area and notes the records show that Gooniyandi and Kija land affiliations, which lead to rights and interests in land and waters, are claimed through paternal and maternal descent, as well as spirit conception/spirit centre and totemic affiliations. Attachment F explains a person can be connected to a particular part of country by being conceived or born there, as that is where their spirit comes from. It concludes that Gooniyandi and Kija peoples belong to a single ‘regional jural public’ (or society), yet adhere to socio-territorial principles that have certain distinctions from, yet are commensurate with, one another. 
[64]	It is apparent from the material that archival and contemporary records show a consistent set of laws and customs across the period from close to the time of settlement, through to the current day. Attachment F discusses Ngarranggarni, which describes both the origins of the world and forms the basis for normative rules about rights and interests in country. Anthropologists as early as Elkin (1932) and Kaberry (1938) noted that the associations of a person with the totems of his parents and their country were derived from the allocation of those totems to the ancestors during Ngarranggarni. I see this echoed in the evidence in Attachments F.1 and F.2 where the deponents trace their rights to the claim area through their patrilineal and matrilineal descent.
[65]	The anthropological material in Attachment F notes that Aboriginal people in the areas surrounding and including the claim area have traditionally spoken multiple languages, which have their roots not with a particular group of people but an attachment to a particular area of country that derived from the time of Ngarranggarni. For the claim group importance is placed on who is the right person for country, rather than language group identity. The anthropological studies of Kaberry and Redmond suggest that at the time of settlement, land-based affiliations which lead to rights and interests in land and waters are claimed through two-step filiation – both on the paternal and maternal side – as well as through spirit and totemic affiliations. Attachment F speaks of Gooniyandi-identifying claim group members using the term riwi to indicate country belonging to a certain person or group of people and meaning something akin to ‘country’, ‘camp’ or ‘home’. It also speaks of Kija-identifying people of using the term taam in a similar sense. Elkin and Kaberry recognized during the settlement period that familial connection to a particular riwi or taam came about through the holding of knowledge and/or stories and songs.
[66]	Attachment F notes that while the patrilineal ‘horde’ groupings used by Elkin and Kaberry are no longer social groupings used by the claim group, the principles of land ownership and use that applied to ‘horde’ members and their respective tracts of land are now applied to localized family groups. It also notes that certain family names or surnames have come to be attached to certain tracts of country, and those family names or surnames refer to the descendants of an ancestor known to be associated with the tract of country in question via his or her own descent links, birth/conception site and/or ritual knowledge.
[67]	I note the deponent in Attachment F.2 speaks of the country with which he is associated as his riwi. From my reading of Attachment F, I understand this term is used by those Gooniyandi-identifying claim group members to refer to the country belonging to a certain person or group of people via the recognised pathways of connection previously discussed.
[68]	The deponents in Attachments F.1 and F.2 speak of being taught the stories and practices for their people by their grandparents and ‘old people’, which they carry out to this day. They also speak of passing on this knowledge to the next generation.
[69]	The factual basis reveals there was a pre-sovereignty society existing on the claim area which consisted of different language groups linked through a shared cosmological belief system, Ngarranggarni. They observed common laws and customs, and had complementary land tenure systems, both which derived from Ngarranggarni. As I have previously stated at [50], I consider the applicants have demonstrated their apical ancestors appear to be born in the claim area around or shortly after the time of settlement and this connects the members of the current claim group with the area. 
[70]	I consider the factual basis supports the assertion there was a pre-sovereignty society united in its laws and customs, which are the basis for the current laws and customs observed by the claim group. In Attachment F.1 the deponent talks about how she takes her grandchildren to the claim area most weekends to pass on the stories for the area. The deponent talks about how the stories were passed to her from her great grandmother and from other old people of the claim group. I understand that when the deponent refers to the claim group’s old people she is referring to their ancestors, who were alive at the time of settlement. I infer this as the deponent refers to stories passed down from her great grandmother, who was Moogoo/Maudie and an apical ancestor of the claim group. I consider this supports the existence of laws and customs that are traditional in the way they have been handed down through the preceding generations by word of mouth.
[71]	In Attachment F.2 the deponent talks about how his granny took him camping on the claim area when he as a child, and she and other old people with knowledge of his riwi passed on to him all the stories for the area. He says that his granny told him the story of a dreamtime crocodile place called Garlooga on the south west border of the claim area. He also states there is a place called Birinali a bit further north of Garlooga where members of the claim group go fishing and gather bush tobacco. There is a cave there, which was a camping place for the old people, and a flying fox dreaming place nearby, where his granny took him camping and told him its story.
[72]	In Attachment F.1 the deponent talks about how there are special places all through the claim area, such as along the river where the old people would leave stone axes during their journeys so that when they returned they would have ready-made axes. The deponent states there is a special place along the river which is the only place to find the right rocks and members of the claim group are currently working with an anthropologist to explain how the old people made the axes. It appears to me that without the knowledge of those special places and the technical knowledge of axe-making being passed from the old people down through the generations, the deponent would not know the location of the place in the river that has the special rocks, nor would she and other claim group members be able to pass on the knowledge of axe-making to an anthropologist. I consider this information to support laws and customs today that are rooted in those of the society at settlement.
[73]	I turn again to the story related by the deponent in Attachment F.2 about Imanarra. The deponent talks about how the claim group’s ‘old people’ used to live there but then were taken away to work on pastoral stations. He also states the claim group’s ‘old people’ told members of the claim group they could go to Imanarra. What is clear here is a passing on of information from people who part of the society in existence at the time of settlement to current members of the claim group. I am able to discern the old people who lived at Imanarra were part of the relevant society as the anthropological material at Attachment F mentions that members of the claim group around the time of settlement were moved from the claim area to work on surrounding pastoral stations. The knowledge about rights to access Imanarra passed from the ‘old people’ who lived there through the generations to the deponent and others of the claim group. Again, I consider this an example of laws and customs today that are rooted in those of the society at settlement.
[74]	The connection report provides useful material that shows there are links between the practices of the predecessors of the claim group that were used at the time of settlement and the practices of the claim group today. The author states that burial grounds, ceremonial grounds and ceremonial objects are associated with dangerous spirits/energies that must be properly dealt with to avoid negative outcomes for both claim group members as well as other members of the wider public who might unwittingly disturb such places/objects. The report relies on the work of various anthropologists over time as the sources for this statement. The cited works of the anthropologists begin with the work of R.H. Mathews in 1901 and Kaberry in 1938 and 1939, through to sources dated 1981, 2001, 2005 and 2009. In my view, this shows the continuation of a particular belief and practice that is shown to be in existence at around the time of settlement, and which is still practiced right through to the present day.
[75]	Another example is that of land management. The connection report cites work by Kaberry in 1937 which observed that the traditional owners of that time would burn off the long cane grass and spinifex during the dry season to make travelling easier, drive kangaroo into the open and send the goanna to earth. The connection report then later discusses how the burning of country is still understood to be a responsibility of the claim group members and cites the work of anthropologist Redmond in 2009, where he noted the Gooniyandi people (who, along with Kija people, comprise the claim group) use traditional fire burning techniques learnt from their elders to manage the levels of long grass and to bring game animals into the range of hunters. He notes that small-scale fires are lit early in the dry season and permission must be sought from people with a strong connection with the riwi being burnt. 
[76]	Another example of a continuation of traditional laws and customs is given in the connection report in relation to the cooking and distribution of meat amongst claim group members. Kaberry in 1939 noted that when meat is cooked by traditional owners, the man removes the animal from the cooking pit, carves it up and distributes the various portions accordingly amongst horde-members, family members and in-laws as a way to fulfil kinship obligations. In her discussions with claim group members, the author cites a male claim group member who states:
When we cook [a] thing, we don’t let anyone go and wake him up. Wife can’t pull ‘em out. You gotta cut ‘em and quarter ‘em. Quarter and share ‘em out. Put all the juice in a billycan. All the old people gotta get ‘em first.
[77]	What can be seen is a link between the ancestors of the claim group who were part of a society in existence at settlement, who have passed on their stories and cultural traditions through successive generations to the current members of the claim group. It also appears the current members of the claim group are continuing to pass on the knowledge, stories and cultural practices to successive generations. It follows that I consider the factual basis sufficient in supporting an assertion of traditional laws and customs.
[78]	I am satisfied that the factual basis provided is sufficient to support the assertion set out in s 190B(5)(b).
What is required to provide a sufficient factual basis for s 190B(5)(c)?
[79]	To satisfy s 190B(5)(c), the factual basis must support the assertion ‘that the native title claim group have continued to hold the native title in accordance with those traditional laws and customs.’ In Gudjala 2007, Dowsett J held there must be some material which addresses the following matters:
•	that there was a society at settlement that observed traditional laws and customs from which the identified existing laws and customs were derived and were traditionally passed to the claim group; and
•	that there has been a continuity in the observance of traditional law and custom going back to sovereignty or at least European settlement.
Is there a sufficient factual basis for the requirement at s 190B(5)(c)?
[80]	In my view, there is information within the factual basis material that demonstrates the transmission and continuity of the native title rights and interests held in the application area in accordance with traditional laws and customs. As I have explained above, I am satisfied the material supports an assertion there was a society at settlement which acknowledged and observed a system of normative laws and customs derived from Ngarranggarni. I also explained that I am satisfied the factual basis supports an assertion that these laws and customs have been passed down from generation to generation, to the members of the claim group, including their children, today. 
[81]	The material demonstrates the claimants have been taught by their older relatives about their country, its stories, its resources and all things belonging to their ancestors, and this knowledge is passed on to the next generation by the claimants. It is clear there is an ongoing sharing of traditional laws and customs from one generation to the next that has been going on for generations stretching back to settlement. A clear example of this is in the connection report where the author states that burial grounds, ceremonial grounds and ceremonial objects are associated with dangerous spirits/energies that must be properly dealt with to avoid negative outcomes for both claim group members as well as other members of the wider public who might unwittingly disturb such places/objects. The author relies on the work of various anthropologists over time as the sources for this statement. The cited works of the anthropologists begin with the work of R.H. Mathews in 1901 and Kaberry in 1938 and 1939, through to sources dated 1981, 2001, 2005 and 2009. As I stated at [74], in my view, this shows the continuation of a particular belief and practice that is shown to be acknowledged and observed at around the time of settlement, and which is still practiced right through to the present day.
[82]	There is also material providing the history of the claim area from settlement and the reasons for the movement of the ancestors of the claim group on the pastoral stations subject to the claim area. Through gaining employment in the pastoral industry, I understand that the ancestors of the claim group could continue to acknowledge and observe their traditional laws and customs on their country. In my view, and noting a lack of information to contradict, this information is sufficient to support an assertion there was no interruption to the ongoing acknowledgement and observance of the traditional laws and customs by the Giniyjarwarrni Yoowaniya Riwi people in the area.
Prima facie case – s 190B(6): condition met
[83]	I consider that the claimed rights and interests have been established on a prima facie basis. Therefore, the claim satisfies the condition of s 190B(6).
What is required to meet this condition?
[84]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190B(6), the Registrar ‘must consider that, prima facie, at least some of the native title rights and interests clamed 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.
[85]	Mansfield J found that the use of the words ‘prima facie’ in s 190B(6) means that ‘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’. 
Which of the claimed native title rights and interests can be established on a prima facie basis?
Right of exclusive possession
[86]	In Ward HC, the High Court considered the nature of the right to exclusive possession, where it held:
A core concept of the traditional law and custom [is] the right to be asked permission and to ‘speak for country’. It is the rights under traditional law and custom to be asked permission and to ‘speak for country’ that are expressed in common law terms as a right to possess, occupy, use and enjoy land to the exclusion of all others.
[87]	In Griffiths, the Full Court stated:
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. It is not a necessary condition of the existence of a right of exclusive use and occupation that the evidence discloses rights and interests that “rise significantly above the level of usufructuary rights”.
[88]	Over time, the following principles have emerged from the case law, and provide the delegate with a guide as to what the material might need to address to provide prima facie support for a claim to a right of exclusive possession:
•	a native title right to exclusive possession includes the right to make decisions about access to and use of the land by others; and
•	the material must speak to how, pursuant to their laws and customs, the group is able to ‘exclude from their country people not of their community’, acting as ‘gatekeepers for the purpose of preventing harm and avoiding injury to country’.
[89]	There are various pieces of information in the materials that address the right of exclusive possession enjoyed by the claim group and their ancestors. Attachment F speaks of the ancestors of the claim group controlling access to their country and how this control of country still occurs, even though it has adapted to modern times in the method of exercise of that right. While traditional methods of restricting access involved physical presence on the land to prevent unauthorised access, modern adaptations include control through correspondence with those seeking to access country to negotiate terms of access, close monitoring of sites through regular visits to country, heritage surveys and entering into indigenous land use agreements.
[90]	Claimants talk about how this right is exercised today. The claimant in Attachment F.2 explains that those wanting to do things on his country must seek his permission first. He also speaks of introducing strangers to his country in the right way, so that they won’t get hurt. The claimants act as gatekeepers to country as they believe in the power of the spirits of the country to punish trespassers. Also, in Attachment F.1 the claimant talks about a helicopter landing in her country and how those people should have sought permission before landing in her country. That claimant also speaks of how they travel to a special area in the hills on the claim area where their ancestors are buried to ensure the area is not accessed by those not permitted.
[91]	It seems clear to me that rights to protect country and exclude persons not of that country are passed down through familial lines in accordance with the claim group’s traditional laws and customs. It also seems clear the right to control access to the land and waters is still exercised in various ways, which have adapted to modern times. I consider the right established on a prima facie basis.
Non-exclusive right to have access to, remain on and use the land and waters
[92]	There is sufficient information before me to allow me to consider the right to have access to, remain on and use the land and waters, established on a prima facie basis.
[93]	An example of the material addressing this right is in Attachment F.1 where the claimant states:
I know the law for that country. Our law was handed down from our old people. We hand it down now to our kids and grandkids. Under our law, no one can stop me from going to country. I can take whatever I want. But when I do I talk to country, to the water, to the old people to ask them to look out for us. If there’s living water, we take a stone from the ground, rub it under our arm and throw it in the water so country and the old people know us and know that we’re the right people for country. After I do that, I can go fishing in that country. Once the old people know us, we can do whatever we want on country.
[94]	And in Attachment F.2 the claimant states:
In the north is Imanarra country. That’s hill country. Kangaroo country. There’s also a bit of flood country in the north. It’s hard to get there. Our old people used to live there but then people were taken to work on pastoral stations. But we were told by our old people we can go there.
Non-exclusive right to access and take for any purpose the resources of the land and waters
[95]	There is sufficient information before me to allow me to consider the right to access and take for any purpose the resources of the land and waters, established on a prima facie basis.
[96]	An example of the exercise of this right can be seen in Attachment F.1:
When we take something from country, we thank the old people. If its food we usually cook it on the camp fire, we show our kids how to cook it the right way. For example, sometimes we cook it with paperbark. If it’s a small fish we throw it back.
[97]	Another example in Attachment F.1 is the following:
Nowadays we take our grandkids to this country and teach them the stories for the area. We go probably every weekend. We teach them the stories passed on from our old people, stories passed down from my great grandmother. We also teach them about the plants for bush tucker, bush medicine and for smoking people. We have the knowledge for all of those plants and we pass that on.
Non-exclusive right to protect places, areas and things of traditional significance on the land and waters
[98]	There is sufficient information before me to allow me to consider the right to protect places, areas and things of traditional significance on the land and waters, established on a prima facie basis.
[99]	An example of the exercise of this right can be seen in Attachment F.1:
There are special places in that country that we look after. For example, our old people used to walk everywhere. They would make all sorts of things, such as stone axes. When they walked along the river, for example to go for ceremony or to exchange things with other people, they would leave some stone axes by the river, so when they came back they knew there would be some there ready-made. There’s a special place along the river, which is the only place to find those rocks.
We’re working now with an archaeologist to explain how our old people made those stone axes.
Another example of a special place is the hills on this country where our old people are buried. We look after those places. For example, we go there to check up on the places, and to make sure no one goes there.
Physical connection – s 190B(7): condition met
[100]	I am satisfied that at least one member of the native title claim group currently has a traditional physical connection with a part of the claim area.
What is required to meet this condition?
[101]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190B(7), the Registrar ‘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’—see subsection (a). 
[102]	Mansfield J decided that the condition of s 190B(7) imposes a different task upon the Registrar to that found in s 190B(5), saying that:
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.
[103]	Case law has disclosed some guiding principles about what is required at s 190B(7):
•	the material must satisfy the delegates of particular facts;
•	evidentiary material is required;
•	the physical connection must be shown to be in accordance with the traditional laws and customs of the claim group; and
•	the material may need to address an actual presence on the area.
Is there evidence that a member of the claim group has a traditional physical connection?
[104]	From the material before me, I am satisfied that [name removed] has a traditional physical connection with some part of the application area.
[105]	The material provides the following information about [name removed]:
•	she lives outside the claim area in the immediately adjacent Gooniyandi determination area;
•	she is descended from Moogoo/Maudi, who is her [removed];
•	she was taught about the country from her old people, who would take her and others to the claim area to teach them the stories for that country (see my discussion of this at [43] to [45]);
•	she takes her children and grandchildren camping and fishing on the claim area at places such as Rock Hole Yard, which is in the north west part of the claim area;
•	while on the claim area, she teaches her children and grandchildren about such things as the stories for the country, appropriate cultural practices, fishing, traditional cooking, bush tucker, bush medicine and the smoking of people;
•	she accesses special areas of country to monitor them and ensure there is no unauthorised access;
•	she regularly accesses the claim area (potentially every weekend).
[106]	It is clear from the information provided in Ms Davis’ affidavit that she is a member of the claim group, and that she has spent (and continues to spend) a significant amount of time within the claim area. Ms Davis clearly has a physical connection with the claim area.
[107]	I believe the material shows Ms Davis’ physical connection with the claim area is in accordance with the traditional laws and customs of the claim group. This is evident from the material which discloses the traditional way in which her rights to country have been passed to her, as well as the way in which knowledge of the claim area has been taught to her by older Giniyjawarrni Yoowaniya Riwi people through traditional teaching methods. I also believe the material demonstrates Ms Davis spends her time on the claim area conducting traditional customary activities, such as camping, fishing, gathering of food and medicine and the maintenance and care of special places.
No failure to comply with s 61A – s 190B(8): condition met
[108]	In my view 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 2	Met	
s 61A(3) claimant applications not to claim certain rights and interest in previous non-exclusive possession act areas	Schedule E, paragraph 1	Met	
No extinguishment etc. of claimed native title – s 190B(9): condition met
[109]	In my view the application does not offend any of 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 2(e)	Met	
Procedural and other matters (s 190C)—Conditions met
Information etc. required by sections 61 and 62 – s 190C(2): condition met
[110]	I have examined the application and I am satisfied that it contains the prescribed information and is accompanied by the prescribed documents.
What is required to meet this condition?
[111]	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.
Section 61
[112]	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 	Schedule A	Met	
Section 62
[113]	The application contains the details specified in s 62.
Section	Details	Form 1	Result	
s 62(1)(a)	Affidavits in prescribed form	Annexed	Met	
s 62(2)(a)	Information about the boundaries of the area	Schedule B and Attachment B	Met	
s 62(2)(b)	Map of external boundaries of the area	Attachment C	Met	
s 62(2)(c)	Searches	Schedule D	Met	
s 62(2)(d)	Description of native title rights and interests	Schedule E	Met	
s 62(2)(e)	Description of factual basis: 	Schedule F, Attachments F, F.1 and F.2	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)	Schedule HA	Met	
s 62(2)(h)	Notices under s 29	Attachment I	Met	
No previous overlapping claim group – s 190C(3): condition met
[114]	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.
What is required to meet this condition?
[115]	To meet s 190C(3), the Registrar ‘must be satisfied that no person included in the native title claim group for the application (the current application) was a member of a native title claim group for any previous application’. To be a ‘previous application’:
(a)	the application must overlap the current application in whole or part;
(b)	there must be an entry for the claim in the previous application on the Register of Native Title Claims when the current application was made; and
(c)	the entry must have been made or not removed as a result of the previous application being considered for registration under s 190A.
What does the geospatial report say?
[116]	The geospatial report states there are no applications as per the Register of Native Title Claims and Schedule of Native Title Determination Applications covering any part of the application area. As the first criterion is not satisfied, I have not considered this condition any further. The requirement is met.
Identity of claimed native title holders – s 190C(4): condition met
[117]	I am satisfied that the requirements set out in s 190C(4)(a) are met because the application has been certified by each representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body that could certify the application. 
What is required to meet this condition?
[118]	For the application to meet the requirements of s 190C(4), the Registrar must be satisfied that 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, the Registrar must be satisfied 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.
[119]	Schedule R refers to Attachment R, which is a copy of the certification by the Kimberley Land Council Aboriginal Corporation (KLC).
[120]	Where the application is certified, my consideration is restricted to two issues. Firstly, whether there is an appropriate body that can certify the application, and secondly, whether the certification contains the information required by ss 203BE(4)(a) to (c). 
Is there an appropriate representative body that can certify the application?
[121]	The KLC is a representative body with the appropriate authority to certify the application.
[122]	Section 190C(4) requires that the Registrar is satisfied the application has been certified by each representative body that could certify the application. The geospatial report provides there is only one representative body in relation to the application area, which is the KLC.
[123]	The certification at Attachment R has been provided by the KLC, and is signed by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the KLC on its behalf. The certification is dated 8 November 2017.
[124]	The first paragraph of the certificate states the KLC is certifying the application pursuant to its functions under s 203BE(1)(a) of the Act, which are the certification functions of a representative body in relation to an application for a determination of native title rights and interests over an area of land and waters within its area of responsibility.
[125]	I have considered the Tribunal’s National ‘Representative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Body Areas’ map, via which I have confirmed the KLC is a body funded pursuant to s 203FE(1) to perform the functions of a representative body. From the information set out in the certificate, I am satisfied that the KLC is funded to perform the function of certifying applications for determinations of native title, including the function of certifying native title determination applications, pursuant to s 203BE.
Does the certification comply with s 203BE(4)?
[126]	The certification contains the information required by s 203BE(4).
[127]	Section 203BE(4) requires that the certification include a statement to the effect that the representative body is of the opinion that the requirements of ss 203BE(2)(a) and (b) have been met. This statement appears in the first paragraph of the certification.
[128]	Section 203BE(4)(b) requires the certification to ‘briefly set out’ the body’s reasons for being of the opinion stated in relation to the requirement at s 203BE(4)(a). This information is contained in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the certification. The KLC outlines the extensive notification of the authorisation meeting and the assistance the KLC provided to those members of the claim group who requested it to attend the meeting.  The KLC also describes the conduct of the authorisation meeting where the applicant was authorised using an agreed to and adopted decision-making process. The KLC has also described the extensive anthropological and genealogical research and community consultation it has undertaken over a number of years to identify all the persons who are members of the claim group. I consider this information sufficient for the purposes of s 203BE(4)(b).
[129]	Section 203BE(4)(c) requires the certification to, ‘where applicable’, set out what the representative body has done to meet the requirements of s 203BE(3). Section 203BE(3) requires a representative body to make all reasonable efforts to achieve agreement between native title holders for overlapping applications, and/or reduce the number of overlapping applications. The certification is silent on this aspect. The geospatial report confirms there are no overlapping applications. Therefore, the circumstances that s 203BE(3) addresses are not applicable in this matter. I accept there is no requirement for the certification to speak to what the representative body has done to meet the requirements of s 203BE(3).

End of reasons

Attachment A
Information to be included on the Register of Native Title Claims
Application name	Giniyjawarrni Yoowaniya Riwi	
NNTT No.	WC2017/006	
Federal Court of Australia No.	WAD610/2017	

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:
1 December 2017
Date application entered on Register:
11 June 2018
Applicant:
[as per the Schedule]
Applicant’s address for service:
[as per the Schedule]
Area covered by application:
[as per the Schedule]
Persons claiming to hold native title:
[as per the Schedule]
Registered native title rights and interests:
[as per the Schedule]

___________________________________
Stephanie Clark
11 June 2018
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 11 June 2018 and made pursuant to s 99 of the Act.